Dear Father: Please Stop It

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, PhuturePriest said:

I'm not dismissing the work because of the author. I am expressing concern because the author has dangerous theological ideas that lead to apostasy. I don't really care what Father Cekada thinks about the offertory. I care that Father Cekada thinks you and I are modernist heretics and has lead many others to think so as well. I never mentioned the character of Father Cekada. You're the one who is claiming I attacked his character when I didn't. I'm saying he's theologically dangerous and we need to be careful should we recommend a work of his. Nowhere did Cam make a disclaimer saying Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist and to be careful what you read from him. Given what Cam said, you'd think Fr. Cekada were a solid priest in union with the Church. I'm not saying that was on purpose, but I am pointing out that he is a sedevacantist and warning readers to be wary of him. It has nothing to do with the offertory and everything to do with his other positions, which were not warned about. So I'm warning about them.

Precisely, you are concerned with only the character of Father Cekada and not the argument he puts forth in Work of Human Hands. Ad hominem.

[Cam42]

11 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

[snip]  Given what Cam said, you'd think Fr. Cekada were a solid priest in union with the Church. [snip]

I never said that.  However, his view on the Mass is solid.  It's actually been given kudos by Fr. Andrew Wadsworth.  http://religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/review-of-work-of-human-hands-by.html

I was looking at the book from an academic point of view.  To be honest, I knew the issue would come up.  But to KnightofChrist's point, would or does the same caveat go out about heterodox authors?  No or very rarely, at best.  So, let's look at the book for it's merits, it is a comprehensive and honest view, given credence by some very influential liturgists in the "mainstream" Church today.
 

39 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

[snip]

I really don't see how your antagonistic and snobby behavior here is called for, and I don't see how you think it will accomplish any good. Peace has been very charitable with you throughout this thread despite you acting intellectually superior to him, and I think several of your statements are uncalled for.

Whenever you accuse someone of being a "brick wall", sit back and appreciate that it may in fact be you who is the brick wall.

Snobby intellectuals are why so many people hate traditionalists. I know you're a good person, but if you value your cause and want it to grow, please consider a different tone when discussing liturgy. It really does go a long way and opens up people to seriously considering your position.

Thank you for your view.  However, it goes both ways....I'm not getting into a p*ssing match about it...I don't think that he's necessarily been very charitable....EOS.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Cam42

[Cam42]

28 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

[snip] 

I don't really care what Father Cekada thinks about the offertory. I care that Father Cekada thinks you and I are modernist heretics and has lead many others to think so as well. I never mentioned the character of Father Cekada. 

[snip]

So, what about condemning Fr. John Brucciani, SSPX?  Peace brought him into the conversation.  So, a priest with no canonical status is okay, but Fr. Cekada who also has no canonical status is not?  I see....things are clearer now.

[Peace]

Gentlemen shall we get back to the topic?

Cam42, I had asked you what it was in the Brant Pitre article that you disagreed with?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think the way it happens is that the Church's doctrines are infallible but not necessarily practices. In ideal the practices need to reflect the doctrines and the traditions of the Church. When this doesn't happen perfectly, the Church might reform things or supress certain things, or say that one is more encouraged than the other...

for example, it's my understanding that Communion on the tongue is the normal encouraged way. The early Church at some point may have had CITH but that was taken away for a reason, because it lead to abuses or less faith.

Speaking very generally: something may be permitted but another is ideal.

Just my understanding.. I could be wrong

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Speaking very generally: something may be permitted but another is ideal.

Just my understanding.. I could be wrong

Maybe. But wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that there is ideally one rite that should be practiced worldwide and for all time? I am not sure if the Church has ever been of that mind.

[Nihil Obstat]

39 minutes ago, Peace said:

Maybe. But wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that there is ideally one rite that should be practiced worldwide and for all time? I am not sure if the Church has ever been of that mind.

Not necessarily. Even if you accept MLF's explanation at face value, it does not necessarily imply that there could not be identical value between two options in some cases, even if in some other cases one is allowed but inferior. That would be speaking philosophically.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I was thinking in terms of specific practices

Edited February 11, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[KnightofChrist]

55 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I think the way it happens is that the Church's doctrines are infallible but not necessarily practices. In ideal the practices need to reflect the doctrines and the traditions of the Church. When this doesn't happen perfectly, the Church might reform things or supress certain things, or say that one is more encouraged than the other...

for example, it's my understanding that Communion on the tongue is the normal encouraged way. The early Church at some point may have had CITH but that was taken away for a reason, because it lead to abuses or less faith.

Speaking very generally: something may be permitted but another is ideal.

Just my understanding.. I could be wrong

Correct, communion on the tongue is the universal norm aka encouraged way, communion on the hand is an indult aka permitted. The ancient practice of communion on the hand doesn't resemble the modern practice that much.  In the ancient practice the layman would wash his hands, the Blessed Sacrament was then placed in the right hand, not the left, and the layman would hold his hand flat and bow over and pick up the Blessed Sacrament with his tongue. Rather than picking up the Blessed Sacrament with the other hand and placing it to his mouth. A laywomen would do the same except she would had a veil or piece of cloth placed over her hand. The Church phased this out to protect the Blessed Sacrament but more importantly because communion on the tongue showed greater reverence and corresponded with the Gospel in a greater way. For example, communion on the tongue resembles being feed like a child. (Matt 18:3)

After Vatican II there was a movement to return the Church to her roots. Unfortunately this meant abandoning many other ancient rites and practices. It became a bit like an adult trying to revert back to childhood, wearing his baby shoes. Communion on the hand is an example of this, in a way, as well as other attempts to return the Church to ancient practices. In a way because again the actual ancient differs greatly from the modern, like other attempts to return the Church to her roots.

[Nihil Obstat]

Knight is describing aptly what Pius XII called archaeologism or antiquarianism in Mediator Dei (1947).

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.

[Peace]

But if the Church has appoved the NO doesn't that make folks who want to bring back the EF the antiquarians?

[Peace]

15 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Correct, communion on the tongue is the universal norm aka encouraged way, communion on the hand is an indult aka permitted. The ancient practice of communion on the hand doesn't resemble the modern practice that much.  In the ancient practice the layman would wash his hands, the Blessed Sacrament was then placed in the right hand, not the left, and the layman would hold his hand flat and bow over and pick up the Blessed Sacrament with his tongue. Rather than picking up the Blessed Sacrament with the other hand and placing it to his mouth. A laywomen would do the same except she would had a veil or piece of cloth placed over her hand. The Church phased this out to protect the Blessed Sacrament but more importantly because communion on the tongue showed greater reverence and corresponded with the Gospel in a greater way. For example, communion on the tongue resembles being feed like a child. (Matt 18:3)

After Vatican II there was a movement to return the Church to her roots. Unfortunately this meant abandoning many other ancient rites and practices. It became a bit like an adult trying to revert back to childhood, wearing his baby shoes. Communion on the hand is an example of this, in a way, as well as other attempts to return the Church to ancient practices. In a way because again the actual ancient differs greatly from the modern, like other attempts to return the Church to her roots.

I think the general point you make is good.There is no reason to go back to the past merely because it is old. 

The theory you guys seem to advocate is one whereby things can only be added to a rite in very small increments, and that nothing can be removed. That is, a rite can only get longer and longer. 

The questions that then beg are, how do you justify the EF itself when there appear to have been points in time when significant changes were made to it? You seem say  "if I like the changes it is an organic development, if I do not like the changes it is an unjustified innovation." 

Also, how do you deal with the situation where the rite is changed for the worse? Do you keep the bad change in or do you go back to the original? You guys seem to say "the NO is bad so lets go back to the prior version." Why can't that same principle be applied to the EF vis-a-vis the forms before it? Why wasn't the change from facing the people to facing away from them a bad change that should be reversed? Why wasn't that change an unjustified innovation? Because you like facing away from the people more. Because you like the exclusive use of Latin. If you didn't, you would have seemingly screamed "innovation" when those changes were introduced. 

You guys arguments do seem to boil down to "I like the EF better for XYZ reasons." And that is totally cool with me.Go to the EF. 

But because you like it you seem to search for reasons to discredit the NO. That is really where I cannot jump on board with you. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

But if the Church has appoved the NO doesn't that make folks who want to bring back the EF the antiquarians?

In my opinion some of the changes made to the Mass were not faithful to the Mass as an organic whole, especially taking into account the principle articulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, that "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."

As it happens, I do believe that some changes could have been made to the Mass which would have remained faithful to liturgical tradition, and some previous changes and developments to the old Mass certainly could have been discarded as inauthentic. However we are dealing with a major difference in scale as well. Like orders of magnitude different.

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I think the general point you make is good.There is no reason to go back to the past merely because it is old. 

The theory you guys seem to advocate is one whereby things can only be added to a rite in very small increments, and that nothing can be removed. That is, a rite can only get longer and longer. 

“It is a long established principle of the Church never to completely drop from Her public worship any ceremony, object, or prayer which once occupied a place in that worship.” — Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

The quote of Ven. Sheen comes from a documentary on the TLM. A TLM lasts just about as long as the N.O., 45 mins to an hour. So the Church can keep many traditional treasures without abandoning them for the sake of a short duration.

Quote

The questions that then beg are, how do you justify the EF itself when there appear to have been points in time when significant changes were made to it? You seem say  "if I like the changes it is an organic development, if I do not like the changes it is an unjustified innovation." 

What do you believe these significant changes to have been and were they as major as the changes in the N.O.?

Organic growth or development over hundreds or thousands of years is ideal in comparison to abrupt and sudden drastic changes by a select few.

Quote

Also, how do you deal with the situation where the rite is changed for the worse? Do you keep the bad change in or do you go back to the original? You guys seem to say "the NO is bad so lets go back to the prior version." Why can't that same principle be applied to the EF vis-a-vis the forms before it? Why wasn't the change from facing the people to facing away from them a bad change that should be reversed? Why wasn't that change an unjustified innovation? Because you like facing away from the people more. Because you like the exclusive use of Latin. If you didn't, you would have seemingly screamed "innovation" when those changes were introduced. 

What do you believe are examples of where the EF changed for the worse? Why do you think the priest turning his back on God is better than facing God with his flock? Why should we trust the Church now with the N.O. and all its major and drastic changes if it was so wrong with the E.F. for so long? If the changes are better why has there been such a wide and great abandonment of laity from the Church since the changes? Why do you object to innovation being called innovation? Which individuals do you accuse of screaming? Do you like playing 20 questions?

Quote

You guys arguments do seem to boil down to "I like the EF better for XYZ reasons." And that is totally cool with me.Go to the EF. 

But because you like it you seem to search for reasons to discredit the NO. That is really where I cannot jump on board with you. 

I disagree with both of those points. Because you seem to make overly simplistic and stereotypical judgements of those you disagree with on this subject. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

I am going to bow out of this thread for a while. I am quite enjoying the discussion, but I do not want to run the risk of saying something Dust or our moderators object to.