It has been a wild ride since the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis.
Several times already, after making some commentary, I have been accused of ‘attacking’ the Pope. This has risen to a new level with my post on liturgy and humility in response to the asinine and divisive comments of Cardinal Mahony.
But here is the interesting thing. Many of the lines that I tweeted were things I wrote months ago for a possible post on liturgy but never published. When I wrote them, they would have seemed obvious and boring and 100% in line with Catholic thinking and the Pope.
But since I published them them this week, the are perceived by some as beyond the pale and an outlandish attack on the Pope. Same lines. Different month.
There is something very un-Catholic about that, Catholic in the universal and timeless sense. How can my comments seems like boring and obvious orthodoxy one month and an attack the next.
Something is profoundly wrong when the winds of change can blow so swiftly through an immutable institution of God’s own making.
Suffice it to say, if my comments seem like orthodoxy one month and an attack on the Pope the next, what is clear is I am not the problem.
March 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm
When someone chooses to accept God's grace, either as a child or young adult raised in the Faith, or as a convert, he (the pronoun is gender-neutral) is certainly employing his private judgment (perhaps "critical thinking" would be better) in a situation involving his own eternal life. Since God grants each of us discernment / private judgment / critical thinking, He surely would not withdraw this faculty upon making one's profession of faith.
March 17, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Nathan,
In which you accused my argument as being confused.
Since no disciplines have actually been changed since last month and that my initial comments referenced in this post are about the philosophy about the nature of liturgy.
And since I am accused of attacking the Pope for saying things the Pope 2 weeks ago would likely have agreed with, I think your statement is silly.
I am not confused. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Church's ability to change disciplines.
March 17, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Put it down to folks being very, very defensive after a couple of weeks being "treated" to special attention from the media, and every whack-job around jumping for the spotlight.
March 17, 2013 at 4:28 pm
The liturgical traditions of the Church need not cost more than the "minimalist" approach to the liturgy. Some of the poorest parishes I've been to have been traditionalist parishes. Traditional gestures, devotions and prayers do not cost more money than those of the Vatican II rite, and performing them does not harm the poor. Something else is at work in the "Low" approach to the liturgy. It's not humility or a concern for the poor but a new understanding of the Mass.
March 18, 2013 at 1:21 am
Exactly! And a "new understanding" of the Mass constitutes a "new understanding" of the Faith.
March 17, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Im not against the OF, but you dont see the Eastern Churches constantly seeking to update the Divine Liturgy, just saying
March 17, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Sounds like Rex Mottram Catholicism to me.
"So you understand the dogma of papal infallibility?"
"Oh yes Father."
"Suppose the pope says that it's going to rain tomorrow. Does that mean it will rain?"
"Oh yes Father."
"But supposing it doesn't rain, what then?"
"Well… Uh… I guess it would be, ah, spiritually raining. Only… We were too sinful to see it!"
March 17, 2013 at 7:03 pm
The same statement can imply different things in different contexts. Complementing a woman's beauty can be good if you're at a formal party. The same compliment might go over poorly at her husband's funeral.
March 17, 2013 at 7:44 pm
During these elections emotional, papal idolatry runs rampant and many rush to passionately defend they-know-not-what. I think it must be a form of superstition, the belief that some magical aura protects the Pope from all stupidities. Such magic keeps them content. There will always be Catholics like this, and they amaze you most when they come to you, weeks later, with the same information they pilloried you for previously. Then, just try to be gracious. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
March 17, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Mr. Archbold, I salute you. Don't do any backtracking whatsoever. I've found that those who make such attacks are invariably ignorant of the true depths of today's breakdown, indeed often not even aware of the very existence of certain issues. All of us could do no better now than to carefully read the following excellent book:
The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church by Fr. Matthias Gaudron
I bid you cheers, sir.
March 17, 2013 at 10:30 pm
@ Ivan K. BINGO!
March 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Oh for heavens sakes! Would someone please go and get a dictionary and look up the word 'humility'? After that, grab some of the writings of the Church Fathers' writings about humility? Humility and being humble ARE actually considered virtuous in our Catholic faith!
March 17, 2013 at 11:50 pm
True humility makes the best of what's around– to keep in theme with Lent, you don't cook nasty food because it's Friday, you take simple food and do well by it. The idea of using "humble" and "humility" as a hammer on folks is… kinda painfully ironic, really.
March 18, 2013 at 12:09 am
Fr. Bill,
For sure true humility is a virtue. It is what passes for humility that is in question.
March 18, 2013 at 1:08 am
Humility never seeks to draw attention to itself. This secularised world, including large parts of the Church, including Bishops and priests, have adopted the secularist virtues such as those that falsely pose as "humility", "compassion", etc.
March 18, 2013 at 1:52 am
I am somewhat confused as to what has called all this ruckus about Pope Francis I. If it were Cardinal Mahoney's remarks…well…okay? That he does or doesn't wear particular footwear or his surplice does or doesn't have lace seem pretty petty to me either way. I have seen nothing that would indicate that he plans to change the teachings on faith and morals (Tradition). IN fact, he has been much bolder in getting in the face of pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage types than almost all our bishops. The teachings of the Church are still true whether the pontiff lives in a mansion or a small apartment. They are true regardless of whatever he wears; they are not lessened nor invalidated by footwear or capes. ease up, people! So he prefers more personal contact than Benedict did; that is not a slight on either pope. I am not fretful nor fearful; regardless of what transpires, I know who wins the war…and the teachings stay true because they are true by their nature.
March 18, 2013 at 2:16 am
Or does some of this have root in the fact that the Cardinal I thought should have been pope didn't get elected? I had no horse in the race. The Holy Spirit does not have me on His board of consultors. My respect for the pope is not conditional to the amount of things that he agrees with me. It wasn't conditional when Benedict was elected, even though some had tizzy fits because he did have the red slippers and such. I look to the teachings on faith and morals. If the Holy father starts going against those..well…that is when he'll lose me. Fortunately, I don't see that happening. So, my heart will be untroubled.
March 18, 2013 at 3:10 am
…
Doesn't the article kinda explain the "root," no guesses needed?
March 18, 2013 at 3:18 am
No. If this is about Card Mahoney's tweet, as I said, okay? So what? Did we expect less? Was it anything the Pope did? I think not. Or does orthodoxy and footwear have some connection they failed to teach me in the seminary? I was not aware the amount of lace in one's ensemble showed a level of liturgical purity. Much ado about nothing. Holy Mother Church remains alive and well as does her teachings on faith and morals!
March 18, 2013 at 3:34 am
I was not aware the amount of lace in one's ensemble showed a level of liturgical purity.
Good, then you SHOULD be in basic agreement, and able to debate the merits of the various means of promoting the best Mass possible.
Anyone who genuinely respects and honors humility should recognize that you don't aim to be ugly.
Look at the Pope, for an example– did he demand burlap and dishrags, or simply choose something simple yet respectful?
For a more day-to-day example, who is more humble: the hard working family that goes to Mass in their best, though mended, clothes, or those who go without touching soap or brush to make sure everyone knows how humble they are? Who is more respectful of the Lord? Those who try to bring beauty, or those who remove it and call the stripped bones "honest"?
March 18, 2013 at 3:44 am
First off, I have very unpleasant thoughts for Cardinal Mahoney. I adore Pope Emeritus Benedict, so that the Cardinal took such underhanded shots at him….the feelings are such that I cannot articulate them. Let's suffice it to say that I am unhappy with the tweets he put out there.
That aside.
Ok, so I have a serious concern here. I am a convert of two years, so I'm looking at all this without as much experience as a lot of the other folks here. However, I'm reading through the thread and I stumbled upon this gem:
"He allowed people to remain in place who continued to commit greater sins against the liturgy we've seen from Pope Francis."
Can someone explain to me what that even means? Seriously. Sins against the liturgy?
Look, I'm sympathetic to the "trads" and I appreciate the tradition involved in the older forms of the mass and dislike some of the nutty stuff that pops up in our churches (why would there ever be a need for puppets at mass?). But sins against the liturgy! Really? Do we worship the liturgy now or am I missing something here? And what is most alarming to me is that this isn't the first time in the past four days I've come across comments that look a lot like people are worshiping the mass instead of The Lord.
And before I am accused if being irreverent or whatnot, of course the mass is important. I understand the signs and symbols involved and I'm not trying to dismiss that at all. But the comments I have seen over the past several days from "traditional" minded folk are astounding. Like the assertion (that I read elsewhere) that if one is attending a reverent NO mass instead of the EF one is somehow "punishing" (and yes, that is the exact word used) one's soul. What?! Isn't The Lord present at both? And isn't communing with Him the whole point? How am I punishing my soul by reverently communing with Jesus? Does it somehow count less because the vestments aren't as fancy, or it's not said in Latin, or the priest isn't facing the altar? Really.
Pope Francis has been pope for four days, folks. Four days. And in that time he has not celebrated mass with puppets, liturgical dancing, folk music, tambourines, or what not even once. And everything else he has done gives one the impression that he is a humble, gracious man who is better than solid on doctrine. If he does celebrate mass as pope and it includes some of those crazy things I will be as upset as anyone here. Not wearing the special cape and only putting on the stole for the blessing isn't cause for freak out territory at this point.
Sins against the liturgy. Good grief, could it get any sillier than that?
March 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Of course, there are sins against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the source and summit of our Faith in God. Mortal sins, too.