I have long threatened, in the comments section, to hold up any offensive comments as "an example of What We Don't Stand For." Until today, I never really had any good examples, as readership was pretty limited. We're getting some traffic now from some outside sites and blogs now, and I found (and deleted) this, on the post about the priest who celebrates both Gospel and Traditional liturgy. It is an example of What We Don't Stand For:
How horrid. This is exactly the danger that I see facing Traditionalism through increased attention from diocesan clergy.... the priest who, with his split, schizophrenic modern mind, can, with a straight face, claim that a horrid, blasphemous, Protestant-inspired "Gospel Mass" is in any way comparable to the Mass of the Ages. In the good old days, if a priest had said this, he would be hauled before the Inquisition and publicly punished for his crime. Now, he is lauded for 'building bridges!' Disgusting...These poor right-wingers; you have to wonder what happened to them as children. Luckily, the traditional liturgy is no longer just the province of these types any more...but you can tell that prospect is really making them uncomfortable (in fact, he explicitly admits that from the get go!) The crazies are feeling the heat, let's keep working to smoke them out entirely.
9 comments:
Putting aside the uncharitable manner the commentator conducted his/herself, I can't help but agree that it really is a schizophrenic mindset to celebrate on one hand the traditional liturgy and then go off and celebrate an improvised and essentially a man centred mass, with its sensual and emotive songs.
The problem with the Catholic church today is that we really have lost the essence of what the liturgy is meant to be about. It is unfortunately endemic of our church today to tolerate what is traditional but actively encourage novelty.
If I am a "right winger" for saying this, then so be it. I am probably classified as "right wing" or a "mad bad trad" by readers of the National Catholic Reporter for defending Humanae Vitae too.
There's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the world in general. I think a lot of trads need to take the log out of there eye first.
I will also say, I see a huge difference between your regular white, suburban, mainline-American Novus Ordo...and a black Gospel liturgy. The latter is at least organic and alive, as opposed to some plastic dead thing made by the suits.
Well Evelyn Waugh said many similar things but had the charm and wit to carry it off. Unfortunately, most of the crazie trad wing are not the caliber of an Evelyn Waugh
We all need to take the log out of our eye - no is exempted.
I also find it patronising how "liturgical experts" think being a Black Catholic means you must automatically be charismatic and into gospel music. At my local Tridentine mass, we have two prominent African families, who are the bulwark of the traditional mass community. One of their sons has just recently gone off to join the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in Rome.
As for gospel music being organic - it may be so but there are a lot of things that are "organic" but not suitable for the Catholic liturgy.
Obviously, what he said was quite extreme and seems even outlandish to us, but I seem to remember a certain blogger calling for the exhuming and coronation of several Papal bodies, which to many would probably seem just as extreme and outlandish.
lol, perhaps. But I never "called for" that. I said it was a fantasy of mine, and fantasies are by nature outlandish (especially when they're about an impossible situation; like me becoming pope!)
I guess I should be flattered that my comment was called out for public discussion?
With respect, my viewpoint is not "extreme" or "outlandish." It is orthodox. I find it very disturbing that the authors and commenters of this blog have appropriated to themselves the title of "Trads" or "Traditional Catholics," when they don't really appear to stand for much of the Traditional Faith, outside aesthetics and a certain dedication to only speculate so far that it cannot be called positively heretical.
But returning to the original point I was trying to make (and I'm truly sorry you thought I was uncharitable!) I mean, seriously... Gospel music is "organic" in the same way that a drug-induced high is "organic." Hyperbole? Perhaps it's a bit over the top, but that sort of music makes an appeal to the emotions, rather than to the intellect, and it is "feel-good." Wholly inappropriate for the Christian liturgy. It comes from populist black spirituals combined with Protestant-style charismatic services. Simply not fitting for the house of God, although perhaps if the lyrics were impeccably orthodox (and none too vague) and there was no sin of scandal to be given, it could be indulged in in an extra-liturgical setting (like a hymn sing in someone's living room, or something.)
By the way, in case you are wondering, I had a very happy childhood :) I was raised as a Protestant in a white, middle-class home in small-town America.
God save us from Protestants from white , middle class homes in small town America!!
I don't understand. This priest is attempting to bring tradition back into the life of the Church on a local level as pastor...And he's vilified. He makes excellent points about the origin of chant, etc. There's nothing wrong or insidious about trying to build bridges, not at THIS POINT IN TIME. We cannot just slip the Novus Ordo from under people's feet like the traditional Rite was 40 years ago. Until the hierarchy has become competent again (if it ever was ever perfectly so), we have to be realistic in our expectations. Calling the Novus Ordo, as a valid mass, in its essentials "Protestant" is nothing short of ridiculous and sensationalist. It does exude a Protestant ethos in structure to be sure, but these can be tempered with proper pastoral care until it is officially cut away or phased out.
And as for Gospel being emotional as opposed to Chant being intellectual...My experience is quite the opposite. That's right. The OPPOSITE.
Post a Comment