 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2169 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 4th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
The following was an exchange with a self-described "traditionalist." His words will be in blue. Pope Benedict XVI's words will be in green.
* * * * *
-- replying to someone else --:
You don't get that the proper worship of God is the most important activity that any human can possibly participate in?
You don't get that in Old Testament times one was much more likely to be struck down by Heaven for bad liturgical choices then theft, murder, or even sodomy? Even though the rules don't apply in the same way, last time I checked, the Old Testament examples still mattered.
I think this is illustrative of a great argument for a strong attachment to tradition. Traditionalists, for all their many, many faults do not fall into the "oh, that's just liturgy" trap where one assumes that because he made it through a Mass without becoming violently ill everything is a-OK.
-- replying to self-described "traditionalist" converts to the Church --:
Welcome home! I'm delighted to hear that you are in the One True Church. I hope you don't fall prey to the errors of radtradism that I have been critiquing. If you prefer the Tridentine Mass and are edified particularly by it, wonderful (I attended one nine days ago myself). That's not my beef. Never has been and never will be . . .
Thanks for sharing, [name]. I'm delighted that you are active in the Catholic Church again: the same Church I have devoted my life to defending and bringing people into. I'm not your enemy. We're brothers and sisters in the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded. I despise liberal nonsense and have a web page about that too.
I'm delighted to see folks come to the Church. Of course, I would hope that they don't fall into various radtrad errors, because that isn't going to help anyone and will only cause further strife and division.
Another "traditionalist" asked some questions and I answered (his words in red):
Has Mr Armstrong noticed that as he brings people into the Church through the front door via his apologetics, thousands more are leaving via the back door? What is his explanation for that? Is it simply a lack of enough apologetics?
There are a host of reasons (secularization, sex, nominalism, liberalism, ignorance, marriage, goofy masses, examples of hypocrisy, Protestant proselytising, etc.).
But one thing I know for sure: those who leave are of a far lower calibre theologically, and understanding-wise than those who come in. Even Protestant scholars like the Presbyterian historian Mark Noll have noted this. The ones who leave are almost always poorly catechized, including scant knowledge of not only the "whats" but also the "why's" of their faith (which is where apologetics comes in).
Why is the Church in a dismal moral state and hemorrhaging people?
Liberalism and many of the factors that have made people leave or helped cause them to be insufficiently Catholic in the full sense of that word.
We are trying to do something about the main cause of people leaving the Church or defecting in place within it, something that he is ignoring.
That's a good point: as long as you don't go too far and assert false things. Opposing liberalism is always good, but the reaction against it can go too far and become extreme itself, in which case it is little better. I don't see that Kung and Matatics are all that different, in terms of the seriousness and damage of their errors. In influence they do differ, though. Matatics speaks to about six people at each lecture (I was at one), so thankfully, his influence is increasingly marginalized.
ME: "I have not the slightest objection to someone preferring the Tridentine Mass. My own parish offers it."
YOU: "I'm not against Xs, not at all, why some of my best friends are Xs."
Well, I still think your ethos building ploy was just that and fairly disingenuous besides. I will concede that it was not intentionally the latter.
I don't understand why you would be cynical about such a thing. I've always favored a wide availability of the Tridentine Mass. I've gone to a very reverent and traditional Novus Ordo Mass at my parish for 17 years. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt my word on this, or think I am doing some stupid "ploy." It's what I believe. This isn't my beef with "trads" -- it is other beliefs that they often exhibit.
Now, to be fair, it is true that what I critique in "traditionalism" is almost always what most self-described traditionalists would call "radtrad." So, though I dislike intensely the term "traditionalist," because it falsely implies that I am either against Tradition or insufficiently committed to it, still I recognize that there are many who simply prefer the Tridentine Mass. AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. You may think this is merely a ploy, but I can assure everyone it is my sincere belief and has been as long as I have been a Catholic (which is 17 years).
It really isn't the same thing as calling you a liar; if you're allowed to build your ethos with a given audience then I think rhetorical fair play allows me to pull aside the curtain -- if people still buy it after that, good for you both.
I don't play such games. I'm a truth-teller. I think my record as an apologist attests to that. I mean what I say and say what I mean. Heaven knows I've been embroiled in enough controversy to confirm that I am a straight shooter. I don't play to crowds. I don't know how many do do that, but I'm not among them.
I think you misunderstand me and my point (the second misunderstanding is likely my fault).
First, to say that someone is attempting to build his ethos in preparation to making an argument or as a preemptive answer to possible objections does not indicate cynicism ( a shoddy substitute for the application of reason) but rather a passing familiarity with formal rhetoric. I hate to deny you the right to define the terms on which what you write will be understood but your statement, "I have not the slightest objection to someone preferring the Tridentine Mass. My own parish offers it," was an ethos building strategy, that is a fact; one in which there is nothing shameful.
Mind you, I didn't think it particularly effective or ingenuous but that is another issue altogether. Simply put, I was merely attempting to point out (to you as much as anyone) that using the old "why some of my best friends..." argument is a red herring--particularly in this case. When you say that you have no problem with the traditional mass, I have no reason to doubt you.
I do, however, have reason to doubt whether that fact is more than tangentially connected to the issues at hand.
Your lack of hostility is noted and appreciated but really the whole conservative (I dispute your use of the word Orthodox in this connection as it is possible for there to be a wide array of opinion under the umbrella "Orthodox") position as regards the traditionalist movement within the Church (I say "within the Church" to exclude heretics-- though in truth there is nothing traditional about sedevacantism or sedeprivationism) is one which tends to marginalize the legitimate concerns of those attached to tradition. When you imply that it is fine for us to do as we please in certain areas so long as we don't argue our position is more correct or beneficial you reduce the things we care about to matters of "taste" or "preference"--things that really, in the final estimation aren't important. It is irksome--particularly because people have devoted their lives and undergone personal trial to preserving these things for those of us who would not now have them otherwise. Were they merely stubborn aesthetes or stand-pat idiots afraid to change? Well, if it's all a matter of taste, then yes.
That's why I don't think its really germane when you say "I don't have a problem with X, in fact I like many members of X, they have X at this place I go" one doesn't have to have a personal animosity to someone in order to work against his interests or ideas.
* * *
I do, however, have reason to doubt whether that fact is more than tangentially connected to the issues at hand.
That's correct. It is tangential. Obviously it forms no part of my argument, because I don't disagree with "trads" on this. I never claimed this one sentence was an "argument". You simply assumed that I thought it was. Wrong!
I wasn't trying to "do" anything other than state my agreement with "trads" on this issue. Here is how the subconscious reasoning would run (since you have made an issue of this with your original coy reply):
1) The TLM is very important to "trads."
2) I acknowledge (as the last two popes have done) that this is perfectly valid.
3) I agree with it myself.
4) My own parish offers one (not many do, so this fact suggests that I am far less averse to it than many a Catholic would be).
5) I've attended a reverent Novus Ordo Latin Mass at my parish for 17 years.
6) Therefore, this is common ground between "trads" and myself.
7) Thus, I'm not as far from your thinking in this regard as you might have supposed before I disclosed these facts.
8 ) It's good to find common ground when people are having disagreements. We need not wrangle about this at all. One establishes as much common ground as one can in the course of difficult discussions. That's not argument itself, but rather, a clearing out of possible "roadblocks" and the seeking of as much good faith between parties as possible. This, in turn, fosters better and more constructive dialogue.
If it is any kind of "ploy" (consciously or unconsciously) it is a "ploy" of being charitable and seeking common ground (good NT ethics there). That is an ecumenical impulse. Perhaps because "trads" despise ecumenism so much, a simple exercise of it must be pigeonholed into some sort of rhetorical device designed to "get" something.
But finding things in common is a basic human endeavor. If I'm talking to a stranger at a bus stop and we find that we are both basketball fans, then we have that in common and "like" each other better, and the relationship works better. Likewise, if I express my feelings on The TLM to a "trad" he has less unnecessary hostility towards me.
Likewise, in my remark. It cuts through the misconceptions and allows dialogue to take place. But beyond all this analysis of my subconscious reasoning, it was a simple factual remark of what I believe. If that has to be analyzed according to classical rhetoric and "ethos building" and all the rest, so be it, but I think it is fundamentally silly, and a cynical way to approach things. Why not simply say, "hey, that's great that you agree with us on the TLM."
We can agree to disagree on many things but we also must agree to agree and not create needless controversies over agreements, if we hope to accomplish anything in all this larger dialogue.
All of this complicated analysis and time spent on a simple comment of mine that I have no objection to the Tridentine Mass (and my parish offers it, and I went to one myself two Sundays ago) . . .
When you imply that it is fine for us to do as we please in certain areas so long as we don't argue our position is more correct or beneficial you reduce the things we care about to matters of "taste" or "preference"--things that really, in the final estimation aren't important.
Interesting point, but again, it doesn't apply in my case, and it is illogical (the notion that preference and liturgical diversity must reduce to either objective superiority or mere subjective taste).
To the contrary, my position is precisely that of Pope Benedict XVI: both forms of the Mass are important and ought to be preserved. It's not just a matter of taste, anymore than preference of various folks for the various 22 or so rites in the Catholic Church is merely a matter of taste. The faithful have a rite to worship (deliberate pun) as they are allowed in the Church.
The TLM should never have been so limited in availability. The Church has recognized that now. I always thought in this way. Vatican II said the Latin should always be preserved. 99% of parishes forgot that but mine did not, which is precisely why I am there (among many other reasons).
Now, you mention "so long as we don't argue our position is more correct or beneficial." That's right. It is wrong and foolish to do that. So, while I deny that it is a mere matter of taste, like picking out a suit or flavor of ice cream or color of bicycle (one extreme), it is also wrong to start condemning the Novus Ordo (the other extreme): either as invalid, or objectively, essentially inferior (though still valid and perhaps spiritually beneficial).
As in all matters, I try to align myself with the Mind of the Church, and that has been eloquently expressed by the Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum:
Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. . . .
We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.
Many "trads" want to continue to perpetuate division and strife regarding liturgy, when our Holy Father has shown the way to overcome this needless controversy. I am following his advice (which corresponds to my own long-held opinion, anyway). All who are running down the Novus Ordo throughout "trad" realms, are not. A faithful Catholic follows the Mind of the Church as expressed preeminently in magisterial papal proclamations and decrees of ecumenical councils.
In his accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio, the Holy Father noted:
In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded.
So the TLM and the Big Boogeyman Vatican II are not in conflict: so says the pope.
Also:
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.
The Holy Father recognizes the ridiculous abuses that occurred:
Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
He recognizes that adherence to the Tridentine Mass was not just a fossil of an older generation:
Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.
He calls for liturgical integrity and reverence in the Pauline Mass:
The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
He says that division need not result:
. . . the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded.
He says there was some blame on the Church's part:
. . . not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. . . . Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
He insists that both the ordinary and extraordinary forms are important, and refuses the "either/or" divisive mentality:
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
Everything is there to move ahead and get beyond the present strife and divisions, but many "traditionalists" (having been given the full right by the Church to again worship as they see fit) insist on continuing to trash the Novus Ordo Mass and insist that it is lousy and antithetical to a full Catholic faith. And that is a (here's my notorious but quite accurately descriptive term again) a quasi-schismatic attitude. The Pope has spoken definitively; the Church has spoken (there are two forms of the Romans Rite -- ordinary and extraordinary -- that should be and shall be continued in the Church), but "traditionalists" continue to feel that they know better than both.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11th, 2008 06:40 pm |
|
Dave, interesting post.
As one who frequently attended a legitimate Tridentine Mass throughout my youth, and having a son who served as an altar boy at these Masses, I have a similar viewpoint as you.
The Old Mass is fabulous and my attending taught me more about what the Mass really is than anything else ever has. I prefer this Mass [now referred to as the ExtraOrdinary Form] over the Novus Ordo [now referred to as the Ordinary Form].
That being said, I have witnessed firsthand the deep contempt that some 'traditionalists' have for those who "blindly" attend the Ordinary Form and don't understand or appreciate the differences between the two forms. Those steeped in the Ordinary Form have no way to learn or understand the depth of the Extraordinary Form, so this contempt is not deserved. Most people just don't 'get it' because they have had no contact with the Old Mass, nor have they been lovingly catechised.
[i'm using the term 'traditionalist' only as loose term, since it is descriptive of a type of person, not necessarily a valid separate type of Catholic sub-group - just a descriptive term here]
It goes both ways, the 'tradionalists' have suffered for 40 years from very cruel treatment and contempt by strident liberals. I could write a book on that!
In some 'traditionalist'-leaning parishes, the self-rightousness of SOME of these types is so off-putting, that one dear traditional conservative priest-friend of mine refers to his congregation as "too catholic" for him. In other words, SOME of these types act as if they know it all and can't be taught anything. They are harder to correct than the uncatechised liberal.
Responding to some of the remarks above, why so many are leaving the Church can be an endless discussion. There are a million reasons. One COULD be poor demonstration of good liturgy at Masses. But there are many other reasons, sin included, such as those that leave the Church because of sinful relationships. Henry VIII is a good example. I'd venture that the biggest reason is rooted in 40 years of poor catechesis. This rampant poor catechesis of Catholics lays directly in the lap of our hierarchy and clergy. Our hierarchy is our authority, and when authority is not properly administered, a vacuum gets filled by something worse. If priests had been more vigilant about what children were being taught, we wouldn't have the ignorance and bad information of today. People leave the Church because they never had the Faith, and don't know what they are leaving behind. "Sacraments? what are those??"
The subject shouldn't be about who is holier or more faithful or any of that. Much of the mean-spirited discussion on the Forms of the Mass are just excuses for some unhappy people to grind axes - its not really about the "Mass" but about grumpy overall attitudes and issues with authority.
The best way to have a good discussion on the Extraordinary Form, is to put aside hurts, envy, accusations, and anger on both sides and study closely the two Forms without rancor.
Dave if you want to further any discussions about the differences in the two Forms, let me know and I would love to contribute.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2169 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11th, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
| Excellent comments, Tina. I agree all down the line. I'm not sure how far into this "trad" debate thing we should get on this forum (I was reluctant even to post this and it may create needless controversy that is counter to our mission), but if anyone is interested, I am in an ongoing series of very cordial dialogues with a "traditionalist" named Ryan Grant, on my blog. I'll leave it at that for now. But thanks so much for these comments. They are right on, and filled with insight, in my opinion. Last edited on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 07:40 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 12:00 am |
|
Dave, gawrsh, yuck yuck, blink, blink, thanks for your kind comments!
You are right to have trepidation in entertaining this subject. The discussion on the differences in the two Masses can light a website/blog on fire with hostilities and personal attacks. [I visit the websites that can discuss these things in a controlled and even manner - can't take the other types.]
But this is sort of the point - many posters on this forum have ventured questions on this subject and have been sorta’ shot down. I sense a lot of curiosity from the crowd on this subject.  I mean, c'mon, somebody comes into the Church, goes to the conventional Mass and gets it all straight trying to understand it. Then they hear, huh? there's another kind of Mass? HUH?? An older one? why isn't it said anymore? how is it different? why do people say its better? and on and on.
No, we don't want radical 'traditionalists' storming in to set everybody straight, I agree that doesn't serve this Forum's purpose.
An even-handed catechetical approach describing the two Masses might answer a lot of questions on the minds of many who peruse this site. You see, when these questions are avoided, those that are really curious end up on the wrong sites and get information that is misleading from groups with schismatic tendencies. I really don't want that.
For instance you mentioned Matatics above. What a sweet guy he is! Crazy bright man who never sleeps and works 25 hours a day [he sleeps 4 hours every other night I think]. This gives him time to do unbelievable amounts of research and he has answered well some questions I have had. He has some wonderful insight on some very worthy subjects. He brings up great questions that many of us have - but we as laymen cannot advertise our conclusions that belong to the Church to define. Problem is, I have heard him directly say that going to the New Mass is a sin and should be avoided. I do not agree with a layman giving this kind of advice and would never do so myself. Like Matatics, many of these types are brilliant people, deep thinkers, who care deeply that things need to be done right. But they err gravely in the area of misunderstanding authority and can mislead people.
If this site doesn't take the opportunity to answer sincere questions on this subject and take the time to lay out clear descriptions of the Extraordinary Form, our fledglings here could be easily misled. I know a couple of contributors here that already have been misled by others outside this site because of the lack of good information on the subject. Its hard to know how to judge information as a ‘newbie’.
I dunno, whadya think? I hope I am not speaking out of turn or misrepresenting threads I've seen over the year. If anybody has these question please speak up - otherwise I'll just keep to myself here in the corner muttering my Latin...
Peace [to men of good will]
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2169 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 06:46 pm |
|
Okay, Tina: if you'd like to write some more on the subject, go ahead. But I want it to be educational material about the Tridentine Mass, for those who are interested, not bashing in any way, shape, or form, the Novus Ordo Mass (in accordance with the perspective of our Holy Father, as summarized in my post above). It's okay to criticize abuses of the latter: I think most orthodox Catholics are agreed on that.
I'll be watching very closely to make sure that any such discussion doesn't become unedifying and acrimonious. I'm not saying you would cause that (I see no reason to think so), but others might. It's best to proceed with a great deal of caution (as you yourself agree, in some of your comments above). As a general rule of thumb for all discussion here:
Education and helpful information: yes.
Contentious debate and any acrimony: no.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 09:00 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
