A Catholic resource contra traditionalismgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Of course, it wasn't hard to find--just typed in "traditionalism" in Google.
A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'
It looks like a heck of a lot of work went into this thing. I've only read one of the 'URLs', and this is about as comprehensive and professional work I have ever seen on the subject. Not that I've seen much.
"I consciously sought in the second edition to expunge the original triumphalistic tone which permeated the first version..." nice to know he's mindful about that sort of thing. I could maybe take some lessons.
-- anon (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 19, 2004
Here is a much more comprehensive resource, contra traditionalism. It is a massive index, focussing not only on the validity and authority of Vatican II, but most issues in specific as well:
-- anon (email@example.com), February 19, 2004.
The Tragedy of Marcel Lefebvre by Father Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D Australian Catholics have been justifiably distressed by the excommunication of ex-Archbishop of Dakar Marcel Lefebvre. A recent article in the Australian by Greg Sheridan (16-17/7/88) deplored the expulsion of 'a. man and a movement which on virtually all major issues are orthodox'. Headlines like Rebels Defy Church over Mass (Sun-Herald, 7/8/88) evoke a response from many Catholics who see Archbishop Lefebvre as a pious priest who wants only to defend traditional Catholic doctrine and values. Contributors to Correspondence columns of Australian newspapers have pointed out what they regard as the unhappy consequences of many of the reforms of Vatican II, and praised what they regard as Archbishop Lefebvre's genuine struggle to preserve the distinctive 'Catholic identity'. A note of caution needs to be injected into the Australian debate about the fairness or otherwise of his excommunication, for there is an "X" factor that seems always to be overlooked in discussions of Integrisme, (the French term for the doctrines of Archbishop Lefebvre); and that factor is politics. Prominent among Lefebvre's most loyal followers are former members of the French Monarchist movement Action Francaise, (condemned in 1926 by Pope Pius XI for its extreme right-wing views); disillusioned French veterans who withdrew with dishonour (in their view) from Vietnam in 1954, and who in the same year of Dien Bien Phu went on to Algeria where they fought for eight years, leaving one million dead, until they were compelled to withdraw (again, in their view, dishonourably) in 1962; as well as numerous political militants whose ambition is to set up a 'Christian' State in Europe. When a student for the priesthood, Lefebvre had personal experience of Action Francaise, whose founder Charles Maurras, a free-thinker, saw the Catholic Church as essential for the restoration of the Monarchy in France. Maurras 'despised' the three 'evil doctrines' of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And Lefebvre saw the rector of the Seminaire Francaise in Rome, Father Le Floch, a supporter of Action Francaise and a person whom he admired greatly, sacked because of his views. It is well-known that Lefebvre's movement has the solid backing of the European Monarchists who are still disgruntled at what they see as the 'betrayal' of Europe's monarchical 'tradition' by Pope Paul VI through his support for the implementation of the decrees of Vatican II. In Archbishop Lefebvre's estimation, Vatican II has attempted to apply these three "evils' of Republican France to the Church. 'Liberty,' according to him, leads to religious indifferentism, anarchy and disorder; 'Equality' leads to 'democratic' ideas in the Church — Collegiality of Bishops, Episcopal Conferences, Diocesan and National Synods, all of which he sees as destructive of authority; and 'Fraternity' spells the end of missionary endeavour, because according to him it makes all religions equal. For him, as for Maurras, this is a 'betrayal', since salvation of the world lies in a return to the pre-Vatican II and even pre- Revolutionary France 'past' — to monarchical rule. Catholic hierarchy, culture and civilisation, in the view of Action Francaise, and of Archbishop Lefebvre, has a mission to support the monarchical political model. In August 1986 I met up with a group of Lefebvre's French and Belgian supporters in the mountains of North Lebanon. They were housed in a Greek Orthodox Monastery, giving lectures on the evils of democracy, parliamentary government, the Pope, and the Catholic hierarchy in France. The leader of this group, and a most vocal denouncer of the evils of democracy, and of the Church hierarchy, was a deputy in the European Parliament, elected by the special interest group of extreme Right Wing militants who have found their champion in the ageing Marcel Lefebvre. Many of the European nobility whose wealth and titles can be traced to Papal patronage have remained loyal to the Church and not tried to use it as a springboard to attain twentieth century political power. Not all Europe's aristocratic families have been able to resist the temptation, however, and many of these were mightily offended when Pope Paul VI disbanded the Noble Guard and the ~ Palatine Guard of Honour, and annulled all prerogatives that formerly had been granted to the nobility. The Pope did this symbolically to cut ties that have existed for over a millenium, to enable the Church to turn towards the Third World with greater credibility. The Integrists and their supporters have taken every opportunity to discredit all the Pontiffs since Pius XII. Paul VI was especially hated by them. In December 1975 Vers Demain a Canadian journal of the Integristes claimed that the real Pope Paul VI had been kidnapped, and a Marxist look-alike created by plastic surgery had taken his place as head of the Church. Lefebvre's dislike for Cardinal Villot, Paul VI's Secretary of State, and for the Vatican Curia generally, is well-documented. This has led some commentators to suggest that the unnamed well- placed Italians who allegedly suggested to the author of In God's Name that Pope John Paul I had been murdered because he was planning on reversing the direction of the post-Vatican II Church, were in fact monarchist supporters of the rebel Archbishop. It would be naive in the extreme to claim that Lefebvre was excommunicated solely because of his support for truly traditional Catholic values; or because the post-Vatican II Church was jealous of his success in attracting seminarians to Econe. As Pope Paul VI said many times, if all that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted was permission to say Mass in the Latin according to the Rite of Pius V, he would have granted it gladly. But sadly, the seminary of Econe is not, as Lefebvre claims, just a Traditional' seminary like all those that existed prior to the Council. No pre-Vatican II seminary formed its priests in a spirit of opposition to the reigning Pope, to an Ecumenical Council, or to the teaching authority of the Church. No pre-Vatican II seminaries demanded that students for the priesthood reject the official Catholic Church, in order to adhere to some allegedly 'faithful' Church for which in the words of Marcel Lefebvre, 'disobedience (to the Pope) is a serious obligation'. Followers of Lefebvre are not alone among Catholics in their anxiety about the preservation of Catholic tradition and the integrity of Catholic doctrine and practice. But Archbishop Lefebvre's hatred for religious ecumenism rings hollow in the light of the political ecumenism which he espouses in the spirit of Charles Maurras, where believers and unbelievers unite to impose their Right Wing political line on the Catholic Church. The Marcel Lefebvre who wrote to Pope Paul VI in September 1976 of his 'unreserved allegiance to the Holy See and to the Vicar of Christ,' and in another breath describes the Pope and the Roman Curia as 'disciples of the Father of lies' and the Vatican as 'more than ever an instrument for destroying the faith' Sun Herald, 7/8/88), seems to have more in common with Martin Luther than with St Athanasius, St Hilary or St John Fisher to whom he has been likened by his supporters (L'Aurore, 15/1/76). For it was Martin Luther who in 1518 wrote to Pope Leo X, 'Whether you give me life or death, approve or reprove, as you may judge best, I will harken to your voice as to that of Christ himself. Yet no sooner did the Pope find fault with his teaching than the former Augustinian monk published a book entitled 'Against the detestable Bull of the Antichrist,' and launched into a virulent campaign of hate that ended with the Articles of Schmalkald in which the doctrine that the Pope was the antichrist was elevated to an article of 'faith'. Those who choose to follow Marcel Lefebvre into excommunication from the Catholic Church need to realise that they are unconsciously involving themselves in issues much wider than whether Mass is offered in Latin, or whether the Green catechism is used for religious instruction in schools.
From "Annals Australia" July 1988 1 Roma Avenue, Kensington NSW 2033 Sydney, AUSTRALIA
-- Michael Webb (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 19, 2004.
Ahh I Shawn McIlhenny again, and his crusade against the SSPX. He scores a few valid points about obidience, but his defense of the Novus Ordo is laughable, a defense that Cardinal Ratzinger would even disagree with, especially as far as rubrics are concerned. I Shawn McIlhenny I can not reccomend at all, for his crusade against the SSPX gets into very petty personal territory. 300 pages of "material" goes beyond excessive.
-- John B (email@example.com), February 20, 2004.
Dear Mr. John B.--
I don't follow you. Is something deficient about the McKilhenny work you disparage here? maybe you can state why. It's much wiser to be silent about a matter if you cannot say what's wrong than to call it laughable and evade it.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 20, 2004.
I read some of his 'Micro analysis of the Pauline Rite'. I don't see what's laughable. Raztinger even makes a cameo in his discussion about the direction the priest faces.
My only complaints are the frequent triple punctuations (!!!) (???) and excessive use of the phrase, "right off the bat." :)
-- anon (email@example.com), February 20, 2004.
Thanks for the attack Eugene. The I Shawn McIhenny tirades, and I can not say they are anything else but a tirade, is more due to, in my opinion, his bitterness over his dealings with the SSPX rather than any worthwhile apologetics.
The pauline/Novus Ordo/1970 missal defense he had, based on rubrics, is laughable, and even defenders of this missal such as Cardinal Raztinger and Fr. Fessio would strongly disagree on the basis for I Shawn McIhennys defense. There is scant, if any evidence at all for the various rites in the West for the priest to be facing the people, this stems back from the days the mass was celebrated in the catacombs, with the priest facing the altar of a martyr. Also, from the very beginning, parishes had a definite seperation between the sanctuary and the nave, and some of the oldest parishes in Westren Europe have not just altar rails, but full rood iron screens that seperate the sanctuary from the nave. His "defense" of the rubrics of the current missal I have to say are quite laughable. Also another factor is in the West, there is no evidence for use of multiple canons either.
That said, the Current missal if it uses the Confetior, Canon I(The Roman Canon), celbrated in Latin, using Tridentine style rubrics such as a handful of parishes do, then it does somwhat resemble the Roman rite before the Gallacian influences were added. But be this as it may, masses celebrated in this manner are quite rare. What we see at parishes today does not resemble the pre Gallacian Roman Rite nor even the less liturgical early church.
-- John B (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 21, 2004.
Another issue that Mr McIlhenny ignores is why did the rubrics change from the early Christians to the way they were defined at the time of the council of Trent. For one, the rubrics of the mass changed as the theology, the understanding of the Eucharist grew, also to re enforce church teachings, dogmas and dcotrines on the Eucharist, on the mass in general. The early church had to deal with many heresies, and with a less defined liturgy, it was in some cases easy for many Christians to fall into various heresies. Communion in the hand was more or less discontinued after the Arian heresy for reasons to re enforce that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Note none of the churches in the East have communion in the hand. With a very mistaken, very wrongheaded push to worship as early Christians did, low and behold, many heresies have made a return among many lay Catholics, from a almost complete lack of understanding of the Eucharist(thinking it is only a symbole), to almost denying the divine nature of Christ himself. Again, Rubrics changed for good reasons, sadly this fact is lost on I Shawn McIlhenny.
That is not to say I am in the camp that thinks the mass is not valid if it is in a language other than Latin, because I do agree that from what I read, at least in the US, lay participation did not exist(well in the bulk of parishes today it really isint much better), and putting parts of the mass in the vernacular, revising the lectionary to include more scripture are organic changes that were long overdue. These are the authentic fruits of Vatican II. What wasnt intended was a wholesale destruction of the liturgy, ripping out altars, altar girls, lay Eucharistic ministers, multiple canons and a extreme horizontalisation of the rubrics.
-- John B (email@example.com), February 21, 2004.
You're quite direct about your prejudices, Sir. I suppose you aren't interested in persuading anyone; just laughing at them?
Your words, ''. . . and putting parts of the mass in the vernacular, revising the lectionary to include more scripture are organic changes that were long overdue. These are the authentic fruits of Vatican II.'' --are kind, but will inspire the antics & derision of a few mordant wits, trust me.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 21, 2004.
I am direct about my views, and I feel that I Shawn McIlhenny is poorly researched, his work lacks context, and the fact he has written a excessive amount of material against traditionalists tells me that he seems to have a vendetta against the SSPX. I am not saying the SSPX is guiltless, because in some parishes, there does seem to be a cult like mentality, and SSPX Bishop Williamson at times is way out in area 51 territory.
I am not an SSPXer, I like the Tridentine mass, but most Sundays I attend a reverent Novus Ordo, but I understand why as blogger Dale Price stated, Catholics reach their breaking point and end up in SSPX parishes and chapels. I am not one who says the Novus Ordo is invalid, much less a crime against the church that many in various forums claim it is, but I am going to state that the destruction of the rubrics of the mass since the late 60s has severely damaged Catholic liturgy and the church herself, and sadly I Shawn McIlhenny tries, and fails, to make excuses for what we see today. Fr. Fessio and Cardinal Ratzinger are by far the best advocates for the Novus Ordo, and Mr McIlhenny pales compared to both of these men.
-- John B (email@example.com), February 21, 2004.
Um, Michael, didn't you already post that? I read it, and it's kind of interesting, if a bit strange.
Thank you for being honest and up-front, in a way several others in this forum are not. For that matter, God bless your appreciation for a Mass which is truly reverent. If you ever visit London, I strongly urge you to attend Mass at the Brompton Oratory, which has a chanted Latin Ad-Orientam Pauline-rite Mass that will knock your socks off. They also offer the Tridentine rite in a chapel every Sunday.
I wouldn't deny that McIhenny has a personal anger against SSPX that fuels his "Prescription," as I myself have an immense anger towards certain people that have fueled my own rants and tirades. I do not believe such things make his points invalid, though. Certainly, St. Augustine must have been moved by similar passions, writing prodigiously against heresy after heresy. Of course the merits of truth withing McIhenny's writings is certainly open to discussion.
I agree with you that, at least Cardinal Ratzinger (I'm not familiar with Fr. Fessio) are wonderful defenders of the Pauline rite. I have read "Spirit of the Liturgy," and Ratzinger is certainly convinced that priests did not face the people, I am uncertain about whether he is correct. No matter the direction he faces, the priest must catechise his flock that, in the Mass, everyone, always faces Ad Deum.
But, even though I have almost never been to the Mass with the priest facing East, my heart leaps when I see it. I always correct people who say that he faces "away from the people." That is not true. In the Tridentine and Ad-Orientam Pauline rites, the priest submits his person fully to the mystery of salvation, and becomes subsumed. His face is unimportant; his manner and his talents disappear, and he becomes Christ.
A priest should disappear at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Liberals who traipse around the church like lounge singers are clericalists through and through. I am fully in favor of moving back towards facing ad-orientam, insofar as it is pastorally prudent.
Thank you also for saying what is true--that the medieval understanding of the Eucharist grew. That is why we have the gift of Eucharistic adoration, among other things.
I am not certain why the use of multiple canons is a bad thing. All of the ones normally in use by the Church have very early and noble origins, and widespread use in the early Church. Some canons may have more holy doctrine in them than others, but whether they do or not does not excuse the priest from catechising the faithful. If the priest catechises well, which canon he uses matters very little. If he does not, then he has a serious problem no matter which canon he uses.
It would be wrong to have multiple canons if it were variety for its own sake. But Tradition is "the living faith of the dead." The use of certain canons besides #1 brings that faith to life again, just like when we read the Scriptures which come alive.
Some priests abuse Canon 2 by using it as s justification to stand during the Eucharistic prayer. Not only is this a stupid literalization of the word "stand" but it is a clear liturgical abuse.
I have my doubts about alter girls and wouldn't encourage them, but I have faith in the Church's ability to make those decisions.
Extraordinary eucharistic ministers should only be used in cases of dire need. I hate seeing legions of E.E.U.'s. "Extraordinary" means "ordinarily, they shouldn't be there." Nobody will shed a tear if Sunday Communion takes twenty minutes.
"Lay participation" does not mean "lay people in the sanctuary." Sacrosanctum Concilium is very clear about that. Active participating means people are celebrating the MASS and not praying a Rosary or reading a book.
"Ripping out altars" - There shouldn't be any problem with configuring a church in the same manner as the great Roman basilicas, whether it has martyrs or not. But I am also somewhat offended by "picnic tables" passing off as altars.
But as far as 'resemblance' goes, for me, resemblance is a question of the Catholic faith of the participants. The Brompton Oratory Mass and the faithful quiet English Mass of a mission Church in the southwest look very different, but both revolve around a holy, obedient faith. I go from one to the other as from sweet roses to lush fruit.
By contrast, an SSPX liturgy and a lawfully celebrated Tridentine Mass are as different as night and day, even if they have the exact same appearance; one is a choking source of division and hatred, the byproduct of Satan's curdling of men's minds, the other is God's gift to his Church.
If I were to wager a guess as to the source of the problems, I would have two major culprits, neither of which are the changes to the Western Rite. The first is bad priests. Negligent, uneducated, mediocre, sollipsistic, hippie-priests and their fundamentalist opposites. The second is ignorance, arising from the first. Catechesis is dead. When catechesis is alive, the Pauline rite thrives and gives life. Where catechesis is dead, the Mass is more prone to errors.
Catechesis, catechesis, catechesis. :)
-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 23, 2004.