Nostalgia is not a path to the future

HAVE YOU READ OUR CHURCH HISTORY!!!!!

Be VERY careful what you ask for!

The idea that the Church needs to return to her "1st century roots" is flawed from the start. We are a Church built on Apostolic Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit, and continuing to grow in our understanding of truth and of revelation. To say the Church needs to get back to "first century theology" or to return to our "first century roots" is to deny the action and presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Too funny! Thanks.

Yeah, but it was in the dioceses that were most tolerant to the liberal agenda (including female ordination and homosexuality) rather than the least. So... that's gotta be a little awkward for those that confuse notions of zeitgeist with the holy spirit.

Agreed Ken with the following addendum:
"Now we know about all those priests who abused little children and the bishops and cardinals and...who enabled it all."

Rode resembles Mindszenty, of whom it was said, "There goes one of the finest minds of the ninth century."

is that right anonymous? that's your excuse? surely, you can do better than that.

No, you are to obey the Magisterium.

You clearly have no idea what religious obedience means. The investigation is trying to ensure, or at least assess, that those who proclaim to be Catholic nuns are actually Catholic. Your comment does not address the situation or the definition of religious obedience.

No

In fact, you are bound to denounce these cases to even superior instances and you are also entirely free to make your complaints public, assuming the responsibility of your accusations.

You ask: "Oh, and how do you know that God appointed these "superiors" to rule over us?"

Strange question for an alleged Catholic, indeed. Actually, have you ever read any single decree issued by the last Council, such as:
- "Christus Dominus", dealing with the Pastoral Office of Bishops;
- Perfectae Caritatis, about the renewal of religious life;
- Apostolicam Actuositatem, on the apostolate of Laity.

Give them a look, once in your life, and try to make a note of every reference to the authority of the bishops.

The will of God is not separated from the will of the Church. When women defy the Magesterium of the Church then they are not working for the will of God, they are opposing it.

So, a man cannot identify anti-Catholic claptrap if it comes from a woman? That's the same mentality that says if you disagree with Obama because of his performance, you are a racist. Anyone with a brain can detect stupidity when they hear it, and should feel free to challenge it, no matter the gender or race of the speaker and the challenger.

Actually you are wrong. Francis of Assisi was the epitome of loyal obedience to the church. He wouldn't have said **** against the wider church and church authorities if his mouth was full of it. Knowing St. Francis, that probably wasn't all that rare of a situation.

Actually, St. Francis did practice such obedience, as you can easily check.

Well spoken. You are close the the Kingdom of God.

That paragraph was about modern compromises that can balance the tensions toward and away from various orientations. I never said recovering our patrimony meant a rewind to the 4th, 12th, 16th, or 20th centuries.

Wow. Might I suggest you READ some material relating to the history of Christian liturgy? That way you will avoid the embarrassing revelation of ignorance present in the statement you have made here.

If you bothered to read what Pope Benedict wrote, you will learn that he does not want the focus to be on the celebrant but that action on the altar. The focus of the celebrant should not be the congregtion nor vice versa. The cross also functions as a reminder that the mass is the reenactment of Christ's atonement for our sins.

Your statements on the position of the seating seems to be true in the earliest two basilicas in Rome. The Lateran and Vatican basilicas were oriented such that the priest faced the congregation as he faced east. However, what you say is incorrect as a blanket statement about all churches throughout Europe and the Middle East. I would be interested in learning more about your assertion that the altar was considered "belonging to the laity".

I don't see how.

I am looking for liturgical beauty and proper expression of meaning. Pride of place and deference is given to venerable tradition but I am against the modern world by any means or its contributions to the Church. Unfortunately, the modern world has little time or interest in beauty. Even modern churches are too often a display of engineering feats rather than noble and simple expressions of beauty. I am biased being my Home Church, plus I was on the building committee, but this, I believe is nobly simple, modern, yet respectful of our tradition. It is just when we go off the rails or try to refuse to move the train claiming that the rails ahead are necessarily bad is where we are in trouble (ie you can fall off both sides of a boat)

Ecclesiologically, I am all about the education of and the involvement of laymen (generic, not gendered) in any number of ministries and leadership structures in the Church. I am encouraged and very happy when I come into a class at the university I am at and see that we have a mix of seminarians, religious, and lay students and I have been encouraging people I know interested in theology to seek the same degrees as the seminarians are getting, since they want to serve in a parish too. However, I am also aware that the ultimate governance of the Church is divinely instituted in the bishops and by virtue of that they deserve respect and obedience; priests too share to a lesser degree in that vocation of governance. Bishops and priests should consult and involve and never lord their authority over the people, but the buck does ultimately stop with them and they are the ones given the fullness of (bishops) or a sharing in (priests) the vocation to teach, sanctify, and govern. But always always always lovingly and with respect and concern for the people.

Nostalgia is surely not the way to bring this model of the Church about, much less a protonostalgia which longs for what never was, but respecting and working to reform the Church in continuity with our patrimony is an absolute necessity if we are to be successful in our efforts. This respect and continuity is not nostalgia.

I don't know why this was posted as a reply to my comment. I did not discuss any of these particular points nor do I have a position on debates such as whether the Tridentine Mass was meant to be forbidden or merely become, as it is now, the "Extraordinary Form."

I merely state that many of the things this pope -- and the cardinals and thinkers around him -- say are in true continuity with Catholic Christianity and the Second Vatican Council seem to really be in true continuity. They do not seem at all to be regressions unless forced through that lens.

You can't argue with the truth. It's a very sad time when it seems that the majority of our leadership is trying to wish away that which was a gift of the new Pentecost. My prayer is that the Church will not allow itself to be led by such liars and power hungry careerists. Might there be another outpouring of the Spirit of God upon us? Perhaps it won't be a "Vatican" Council, though I wish it would be. Maybe it will be a "grassroots" Council where, when the people of God lead, the leaders will follow.

But then that document also says

"In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place, to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

This is something which we seem to be rediscovering in our parish, slowly! I personally have only once ever been to a Latin mass, but it seems right and proper that we are to say parts of the liturgy in Latin, parts in Greek and parts in English.

Several other customs, such as the singing of the Salve Regina at the end of mass, are also very welcome!

Dr Dale's Fallacy is more like it. The documents you quote other than Sanctosanctum Concilium are not covered by the doctrine of infallibility. You do believe in Papal Infallibility, don't you? The Novus Ordo may be valid, but as Benedict XVI pointed out, the old Mass was never abrogated. It can never be abrogated according to the Council of Trent.

So lets recap Vatican II:

It did not call for all venacular and no Latin
It did not call for show tunes and bad music, it assumed Gregorian Chant
It did not call for polyester vestments
It did not call for altar girls
It did not call for watered down ICEL translations
It did not call for Versus Populum and assumed Ad Orientem worship
It did not call for Extraordinary Ministers of Communion
It did not call for Communion in the hand while standing
It did not call for Nuns wearing street clothes
These and all the other abuses were caused by dissidents who wanted to destroy tradition in the name of the spirit of Vatican II. There is no spirit of Vatican II, ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT who has spoken through ALL the Councils not just the last.

I'm fairly traditional and I am in absolute agreement that the mass as said before Vatican II needed some changes. I am also in nearly complete agreement witht the reforms called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium. There absolutely needed to be reforms. However, SC also states, "Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing," (23). It really was believed by a large number of early Christians that facing the east to pray was important and believed that the practice was of apostolic origins, so dropping ad orientem worship probably not at the top of the bishops' list of changes. When one looks at the downward trend in belief in the true presence, can one really argue that the removal of altar rails and communion on the tongue was required for the good of the church? What teaching is there that can only find its expression by receiving communion standing and in the hand? Remember, before Vatican II, even priests who were not the celebrant of a mass communicated kneeling on the tongue. Even the newly ordained at their ordination where they concelebrated received on the tongue kneeling. It clearly is not a cleric versus lay issue. There's clearly nothing about kneeling for communion that has caused the "unchangeable elements divinely instituted" to suffer "from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy." Get a grip!

By the way, Apostolica Constitutione is not the title of any document. You presumably refer to the Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum." Canonists in the Apostolic Signatura have since the mid 80's considered the old right non-abrogated and Pope Paul's suppression canonically faulty. Priests who have wanted to say the old version of the Roman rite but were told by their superiors that they were not permitted to consistently won their cases on appeal to the A.S.

I also welcome a place for the vernacular, but it seems clear from S.C. that it was never the intent of the Council to replace all of the Latin with the vernacular. See 36, for instance, where it mentions that the vernacular may be applied "to the readings and directives, and to SOME [my capitalizing] of the prayers and chants." Otherwise, "The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Moreover, "...steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them," (54). I have no problem with having the varying parts of the mass in the vernacular--the propers and commons, as I think that that is what the bishops of the Council intended.

Concerning the placement of the altar, the CDWDS, the same congregation that actually issues the Roman Missal, issued the following statement on the directive you cited re: position of the celebrant at the altar and the construction of the altar:
http://www.adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html

Moreover, nobody (except maybe for Sede Vacante-ists perhaps, but they don't accept Vatican II anyway) is denying that the various dicasteries charged with carrying out the reforms of the Sacrosanctum Concilium lacked the judicial competence to do so. I don't deny that the Novus Ordo is valid. But such acceptance of their judicial competence does not logically necessitate my belief that they did their job well or in keeping with what they were tasked to do by the Council. I also believe that Pope Paul had the authority to issue the new version of the mass. I wish he hadn't, though.

I apologize if this gets double-posted. My computer froze.

I'm fairly traditional and I am in absolute agreement that the mass as said before Vatican II needed some changes. I am also in nearly complete agreement witht the reforms called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium. There absolutely needed to be reforms. However, SC also states, "Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing," (23). It really was believed by a large number of early Christians that facing the east to pray was important and believed that the practice was of apostolic origins, so dropping ad orientem worship probably not at the top of the bishops' list of changes. When one looks at the downward trend in belief in the true presence, can one really argue that the removal of altar rails and communion on the tongue was required for the good of the church? What teaching is there that can only find its expression by receiving communion standing and in the hand? Remember, before Vatican II, even priests who were not the celebrant of a mass communicated kneeling on the tongue. Even the newly ordained at their ordination where they concelebrated received on the tongue kneeling. It clearly is not a cleric versus lay issue. There's clearly nothing about kneeling for communion that has caused the "unchangeable elements divinely instituted" to suffer "from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy." Get a grip!

By the way, Apostolica Constitutione is not the title of any document. You presumably refer to the Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum." Canonists in the Apostolic Signatura have since the mid 80's considered the old right non-abrogated and Pope Paul's suppression canonically faulty. Priests who have wanted to say the old version of the Roman rite but were told by their superiors that they were not permitted to consistently won their cases on appeal to the A.S.

I also welcome a place for the vernacular, but it seems clear from S.C. that it was never the intent of the Council to replace all of the Latin with the vernacular. See 36, for instance, where it mentions that the vernacular may be applied "to the readings and directives, and to SOME [my capitalizing] of the prayers and chants." Otherwise, "The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Moreover, "...steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them," (54). I have no problem with having the varying parts of the mass in the vernacular--the propers and commons, as I think that that is what the bishops of the Council intended.

Concerning the placement of the altar, the CDWDS, the same congregation that actually issues the Roman Missal, issued the following statement on the directive you cited re: position of the celebrant at the altar and the construction of the altar:
http://www.adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html

Moreover, nobody (except maybe for Sede Vacante-ists perhaps, but they don't accept Vatican II anyway) is denying that the various dicasteries charged with carrying out the reforms of the Sacrosanctum Concilium lacked the judicial competence to do so. I don't deny that the Novus Ordo is valid. But such acceptance of their judicial competence does not logically necessitate my belief that they did their job well or in keeping with what they were tasked to do by the Council. I also believe that Pope Paul had the authority to issue the new version of the mass. I wish he hadn't, though.

Brandon what you are witnessing, with Dr Dale's response, is the last gasps of a generation who would rather die than move into the 21st century. Its ugly isn't it. Old Dr Dale here is using words such as "ORDERED" and various other highlights demonstrating the smug, arrogant approach of this generation.

The reason Dr Dale and his ilk never respond to what you have written is that they cannot and so they bloviate. This current Holy Father, Benedict XVI, writes with such a clarity and abundance of references that Dr Dale's argument appears rather softheaded. Dr Dale is not only disingenuous but academically stunted regarding the VC II, mudding the argument with his sophist blather. This is what seperates the brillant from the sophist.

This is not meant to be an ad hominem attack of Dr Dale but rather to refute his pile of blather. As such, the realities after VC II clearly show the implementation was hijacked by a group of left wing idiologues such as Archbishop Annibale Bugnini who after all the wonderful [sic] work he did for the Church and for Pope Paul VI, was removed from the curia and given the much sought-after [sic] post of Pro-Nuncio to Iran during the mid to late 1970s when the religious revolution caused the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. What a gift from Pope Paul VI!

Come on Dr Dale let's get honest here with Brandon and stop bloviating which creates a huge pile of sophist blather. Please have some intellectual integrity. Oh, Brandon, Dr Dale is incapable to answering you or me directly but please hold his feet to the intellectual fire! Oh, one more thing these folks will always accuse you of anger for refuting their arguments. A great example of Freudian projection!