A well-known blogger who passes himself off as a Catholic priest has published a blog in which he asserts that some Catholic parishes are actually part of another religion.
I'm not going to link the blog here, because the post is simply vile, schismatic crap.
Does anyone remember why St. Ignatius Loyola founded an order?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Because the Spain he grew up in - which had been Catholic for a thousand years - was so badly catechized that many parents couldn't even recite the Our Father. Many Spanish Catholics believed sex was fine as long as neither participant was married. In other words, the catechesis in 1540's Spain was about as good as the catechesis in America is now.
The Jesuits were founded as a missionary order to evangelize Catholic Spain. St. Ignatius was never so monumentally STUPID, he was never so SCHISMATIC as to say "It's. Another. Religion."
Shockingly enough, St. Ignatius, instead, of writing a lot of blogs cadging for money to feed birds, actually founded an order and did something useful with his life. That's why he's a saint and other people are simply fomenters of schism.
FYI: for those of you who think Summorum Pontificum is the salvation of the Church, note that St. Ignatius and all of Spain had the pre-conciliar (even pre-Tridentine) Latin Mass for a thousand years and it did them No. Bloody. Good.
Remember, if liturgy is the source of all of our problems today, then the source of the modern problem is ultimately the Latin Mass. If liturgy is the source of the problem, then Ignatian Spain's problem was also the Latin Mass. But if liturgy is not the source of the problem, then the TLM is not really part of the solution.
4 comments:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I stumbled on to your blog post while researching an entirely different topic. However, upon reading it, I could not help but raise the following concern.
Your logic that TLM is not part of the solution because Spain which had the TLM (once upon a time) had problems, is erroneous reasoning. To explain:-
A problem may occur due to multiple factors. Liturgical abuse and disrespect for ones tradition just happens to be one factor that can lead faithful astray. There are obviously many more other factors and no one claims that the TLM is the sole deciding factor. So one could even argue that the problem in Spain for an example may have become even more destructive if the liturgy had been a mess as well. In the same way, today's problem has many aspects that need to be addressed before it is solved. One could argue that restoration of the liturgy is one important aspect for THIS particular problem (since the liturgy is obviously a mess and a departure from tradition in many ways).
So your argument would only be valid if one were to say that "adherence to the TLM will guarantee a problem free Church". As you are surely aware, traditionalists do not actually say that. What these people do say is that restoration of the TLM is important to solving the current crisis (not all crisis past, present and future). You may have arguments to tackle that more general claim but what you have said here does not do that.
Therefore, your assertion that the TLM did them "no bloody good" is a false conclusion (at least based on what you have written here in this post).
Oh and while I have not read the original post you refer to, I have to say that my experience in my own diocese is not that different.
Putting the issue of the liturgy aside, I have heard things said from the pulpit and seeing things done in Church which most certainly do not qualify as Catholic. It would qualify as Protestant perhaps and maybe Freudian Psychology but it most certainly does not qualify as Catholicism. In fact, somethings outright contradict what has been taught by the Catholic Church. I have heard many places where the new Age stuff is being promoted in Catholic grounds as well (though admittedly, not seen it first hand).
In any case, if one were to go by the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, then many are certainly looking at a worship that seems to reflect a different belief from at least what used to be identified as Catholic just a century ago. Now I am not charging that the Novus Ordo cannot be said in a way that communicates the same truths. What I am saying though is that most parishes today do not do that or even attempt to do that. And frankly, I am not sure many parishes have the means to do that once they reject traditional forms of expression. It is like trying to count after rejecting the associated meaning behind numbers.
Anyways, many parishes are run by priests who would like to state the actual opposite belief as the true one (whether it is out of some good intent or ill intent is something I do not think necessary to ponder). Whether you are a traditionalist or an outright advocate of liberalism, this is a truth you must acknowledge. I don't think it requires one to be a priest to even know that this is the state of the average Catholic diocese today.
Something should be done about that. I do admit that this priest you refer to seems to have gone a tad too far though in that even under some liturgically deficient conditions, the Eucharist is still Christ! But that fact only makes it more imperative that something be done to stop these abuses and heterodoxy within the Church.
"Remember, if liturgy is the source of all of our problems today, then the source of the modern problem is ultimately the Latin Mass."
Sir, I couldn't help but laugh over this nonsensical post.
The New Mass, imposed upon Holy Church after the aid of six protestant ministers gave ongoing advice as to what should and shouldn't be included, the Holy Office via Card.'s Ottiavani and Bacci declaring that it was a "striking departure of Session 22 of the Council of Trent," has been the brainchild and gateway for the neo-pagan, feminist, protestantism practiced in so many of our Catholic parishes.
Liturgical dance. Priest's baptizing and blessing "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier" so as to avoid gender-exclusive language. The glaringly obvious lack of reverence in the many optional genuflections (oh the many options. Which "Eucharistic Prayer" is Father going to use today?). These things are representative of a new religion, a religion of man, where the tabernacle is relegated to a corner and the priest is the object of attention. It is the unfinished work toward a desacramentalized priesthood and a lay church.
I am not saying that the New Mass is invalid. Absolutely not. Perhaps you haven't lived through or seen some of these (and the innumerable unmentioned) scandals. I assume that if you had, you would see the traditional Mass of our ancestors as a bulwark and a refuge from the worthless modernist bull that tends to pervade our Novus Ordo parishes.
The Mass of the Saints and Martyrs is the safeguard against the progressive corruption of doctrine in our times, which has flourished in the shadow of the New Mass. We are to hold fast to the traditions which we have received. As the word implies, tradition cannot be invented--it must be received. I'm talking about 1969.
I lived through the 70s. I attended Latin Mass for the last five years.
The EF safeguards nothing except the ravings of cranks and lunatics.
Lots of nice people at EF Masses, of course, even I few people I respect, but the crazy ones far outnumber the sane ones. You are one of the crazies, I see.
People like you are the reason I have returned to the Novus Ordo.
Post a Comment