jump to navigation

Who knew? We traddies are just fashion hounds. February 17, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, manhood, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.
trackback

This is a few days old, so perhaps I’ve missed the boat, but I returned to the internet this morning, after my usual weekend respite, to find that the Holy Father Pope Francis has proclaimed that preference for the Traditional Mass is simply a matter of fashion, like Nehru jackets and leisure suits. Mind you, this is coming second hand, from a Czech bishop who swears he heard the Pope say this, but it’s been two-plus days now and no retraction or clarification from the Vatican, so…….

[Abp. Jan Graubner speaks:] When we were discussing those who are fond of the ancient liturgy and wish to return to it, it was evident that the Pope speaks with great affection, attention, and sensitivity for all in order not to hurt anyone. However, he made a quite strong statement when he said that he understands when the old generation returns to what it experienced, but that he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it. “When I search more thoroughly – the Pope said – I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda', Italian 'moda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us.”

I would say, in the greatest charity to the Holy Father, that if he wants Catholics who go “deep into things,” he ought to spend more time with Catholics attracted to the Traditional Mass.

Reaction to this description has been swift and highly critical.  The very reasonable Pat Archbold at CMR was rather incensed:

Besides being completely wrong, that the Pope is so disrespectful of the reasonable desires of so many good and faithful Catholics it is staggering in its coarseness and dismissiveness.

Not to mention, such an attitude is diametrically opposed to the attitudes and pronouncement of his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

P Blosser had a post on the subject and quoted Louis Verricchio:

The devotion of the younger generation to the traditional Mass has nothing whatsoever to do with fashion; it has to do with a deep seated desire for authentic Catholic worship, unencumbered by anthropocentrism, protestantism and modernism.

As a matter of fact, Pope Francis has it exactly backwards.

The less-than-fifty year old rite invented by the Consilium and mercilessly inflicted upon the Church by Pope Paul VI, that is merely a fashion, and a passing one at that.

If the witness of the last eleven months tells us anything at all about this pope, it’s that he has no interest whatsoever in taking on the “smell of traditional Catholic sheep.”

Pat Archbold and a few others seem most concerned at the perceived huge shift between Benedict XVI’s appreciation  of the TLM, and Francis’ apparently disregard for it.  That perception may or may not be completely valid, as Codgitator notes, but I also don’t think it matters very much.

As for Pope Francis’ comment – look, does he have to put up a billboard?  He’s been very clear in his feelings on those attached to the TLM.  So, I dont’ get too surprised when I see something like this.  I think his description of the attachment to the TLM as being an adolescent fashion says far more about the Pope than it does about anything else. It says he doesn’t know us, and isn’t particularly interested in getting to know us.

OK, duly noted.  Let’s move along sharing the great benefits of the TLM and Tradition with others, and strive not to get too bogged down in these little slights.  Yes, it might hurt coming from the pope, but we’re going to have to get used to it.  Francis is the first pope of the post-conciliar generation, and that generation lasted at least 20 years.  We’ll probably have another pope or two of almost the exact same mindset, unless we are extraordinarily blessed.  So just pray for him, go about your business, and do your best not to get upset about these little digs and slights. They are meaningless.

Just pray none of the truly important things are affected or messed around with. Doctrinal things. Like this upcoming Synod. Or the revisions to canon law.

Meanwhile, 15 new subdeacons were ordained by the FSSP. Long live the revolution!

 

 

About these ads

Comments

1. RC - February 17, 2014

I agree with Verrecchio, of all the TLM’s I’ve been too, it can hardly be said that among the young people it is just a fashion. On the contrary, if anything is “just a fashion” it is the Novus Ordo, I strongly believe that it will not, and has not stood the test of time, and once all the old modernists die out, their fashion (aka OF) will pass too.

Side note, did not realize the 8 Cardinals were meeting this week.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/02/cardinal-c8-to-advise-pope-over-curia.html

Baseballmom - February 18, 2014

Yes, and the notorious Cardinal Kasper is the theologian addressing the mini-popes…. Because the Holy Father is quite fond of Kasper’s theology…. Ain’t that just grand?????

2. Michael - February 17, 2014

And 25 seminarians just received the cassock within the Society’s seminaries in France, Flavigny, and the United States (10 in the US) on February 2nd, 2014.

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/10-donned-cassock-winona-3291

3. Woody - February 17, 2014

I don’t mind. I have been called “Old Fashioned” many times. I’m proud of it.

4. Hannah - February 18, 2014

Well, being a young person myself, I found it very hurtful to hear that from the Vicar of Christ. I’m just a Catholic. I love my Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass and not because I’m “addicted” to it or it’s my “fashion.” What on earth?

I have to remember we will be persecuted.

If this is true, that is an insult to the Holy Sacrifice. I’m sorry but the whole Counciliar Revolution is the fashion not the Faith of 2,000 years and the Holy Mass.

The Pope doesn’t like me because I want to be Catholic, to go to the Mass of All Time, the Mass my Patroness went to, because I want to see the Holy Faith shown in all it’s glory at the Latin Mass *with the doctrinal security*, of course, because I just want to carry the torch of the True Faith onward?

Yes, Holy Father, I’m Catholic. Catholic. I’m a Restorationlist. I want to see the Catholic Church restored, which was the dream of Pope Pius X. I’m not Protestant and will not follow the ways of the Protestants, even if you do. I won’t follow you, if you do that. I disagree with you here. I have a duty to disagree with you and call you out when what you do or say goes against the Catholic Faith.

The devil knows the power of the Holy Mass and that, and that alone, is the reason why he’s tried to wipe it off the face of the earth, using the Modernists to accomplish such a thing. Such a thing will never happen because the Latin Mass is the truth and one day, one day, it’ll be the one and only Mass again for the Latin Rite, as it should be.

Onward with the restoration of the Church! St. Peter, pray for your successor. Pray for the Pope.

5. RC - February 18, 2014

Tantam, I’m finding it more difficult by the day trying to stay away from the SSPX. Mater Dei just isn’t feasible for me. I think I’m going to wait it out until October and see how this “synod on the family” goes, and if it goes how I expect it too, I’ll be going to the SSPX. Is this bad?

tantamergo - February 18, 2014

Man, it’s a really personal decision. I don’t think you have kids and are pretty well formed in the Faith, so that takes away one major reason why folks could go – to escape rampant abuse and even the proclamation of heresy. If you are well formed in the Faith and have no kids, you are less likely to fall for error. But even still, constant exposure to error can even begin to affect well-formed folks over time. On the other side, however, the SSPX irregularity and the possibility of being involved in disobedience could be seen as its own kind of error. You would have to weight which is worse or more likely to cause you/your family problems.

Generally, absent a compelling reason (like keeping kids from hearing error), I think the answer is to tough it out. I thought you had a pretty good situation going there in Denton? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

You know people drive to Mater Dei, at least on Sundays, from way way out. Some live on the Red River. Others come from far out.

Is FW any closer? You know there is a Mass on Sundays in FW?

RC - February 18, 2014

You’re right, those are the cons that i have been weighing. Yea you are correct, that is me. However, I will be moving to central Florida in a couple of months for work and I have not found a solid looking parish in the Orlando area from my research, aside from an SSPX parish and a Byzantine parish, although the cathedral and their young adult program looks pretty solid.
I just want to go somewhere where I know what to expect every Sunday. I hate playing Russian roulette with NO parishes, and I know I probably wont get to see the OF done in many places like how it’s done at UNT.

tantamergo - February 18, 2014

How far will you be from Ave Maria?

RC - February 18, 2014

3 hours I think? It’s all the way in South Florida near Naples.

tantamergo - February 18, 2014

Doh!

Marguerite Elena - February 19, 2014

Incarnation Church in Tampa has the Traditional Latin Mass and it’s sublime. It’s about 1 1/2 hour’s drive from Orlando though.

RC - February 18, 2014

Sorry, as it concerns driving to MD, I’m a poor college student and can’t afford it lol

LaGallina - February 18, 2014

RC – interesting discussion about the SSPX oN the previous post about the state of the Church in Ireland.

Tantam, I really appreciate all your time and patience in answering my SSPX questions.

6. Michael - February 18, 2014

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has stated that a Catholic may assist at a Mass celebrated by the SSPX without sin or canonical penalty.

It cannot be overlooked that Cardinal Ratzinger and other prelates have acknowledged that the SSPX forced Rome to reevaluate much that had occurred after the Council (consider the hermeneutics of continuity versus rupture that is ongoing) and contributed to the reality of the FSSP and ICKSP being able to offer the Traditional Mass and Sacraments. Acknowledging this is only just. There are legitimate concerns regarding the future repercussions might be for the FSSP and ICKSP should the SSPX be sufficiently marginalized.

In light of the deplorable myth that was exploded regarding the supposed juridical abrogation of the Traditional Mass—a lie that was allowed to mislead Catholics for decades, and which far too many Catholics still have no knowledge of—it might be better understood if one is cautious regarding some of the things said by our prelates—or at times, downright skeptical (cf. Cardinal Maradiaga). There is not a sufficient reason to call the SSPX schismatic any more than there was a reason to believe that the Mass of Ages had been abrogated when innumerable prelates foisted this false impression on the faithful.

Vere tells us, “Lefebvre’s continued use of the Tridentine Mass eventually became an issue with the Vatican.” Yet clearly, as we know now, this should not have been an issue with the Vatican, because as Pope Benedict made clear, it is a “fact that [the Tridentine Mass] was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.” Benedict obviously realized the Vatican played no small role itself in bringing about this division.

Yet the SSPX is pilloried for not adhering to what?—the confusion that remains almost fifty years after the close of the Council?

Many fail to distinguish between disobedience and schism, and do not even attempt to explain why this distinction is not applicable to the SSPX. Fr. Yves Congar explains this distinction in the Dictionnaire de Theologia Catholique: “Schism involves a refusal to accept the existence of legitimate authority in the Church,” while disobedience involves rather, “the refusal to accept a decision of that authority in a particular instance.”

An example to clarify: If you command me to stop posting and I continue posting, I am not being disobedient to you because I am not subject to you and do not owe obedience to you.

However, if a father tells his daughter she is not to leave the house on a particular day and she does, she is disobedient. She is subject to her father and owes him obedience. If the disobedience is owing to her willfulness, it is not excusable; if it is owing to the house being on fire, it is. If the father is not a tyrant, he will readily acknowledge the distinction once he has the facts.

The father would be justified in disciplining the daughter in the first instance, but certainly not in the second. But here, in either case, disobedience is not a disavowal of the father’s authority.

It is a separate thing altogether, however, if the daughter repudiates the father’s authority entirely. It does not merely disturb the peace of the family, but tears at the fabric and unity of the family and this is not merely a difference of degree, but a difference of kind. A failure to recognize and make this distinction is an egregious one. It should also be recognized that if the father acts as a tyrant or is prone to rash and unjust actions he may bear some culpability in his daughter’s rejection of his authority (i.e., schism).

The following passage from a 2010 article demonstrates that the SSPX is “submissive” to the Pope, i.e., recognizes his authority whether or not one believes their points of disobedience to be justified:

“The Vatican asked Bishop Fellay to move the ordinations out of the jurisdiction of the German bishops. If Bishop Fellay would do so, the Vatican Cardinal bargained, the Society ‘would be legally recognized until Easter.’ This was to cover the two-week period in which the ordinations would occur. Bishop Fellay explained that he had asked the Cardinal why this was being requested since, according to a recent document of the Secretary of State, the SSPX does not ‘even exist legally.’ The Cardinal replied that ‘the Pope does not believe that.’

“As we know, Bishop Fellay did comply with the Vatican request to move the ordinations (demonstrating once again his willingness to obey the Pope ).”

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

If one asserts that the faithful cannot lawfully assist at Masses offered by the SSPX, they are ignoring—not addressing—the understanding of Canon Law by various competent canonists.

One must acknowledge the irregular situation of the Society, but not without also acknowledging the irregular situation in the Church in the wake of the Council.

Fr. Hunwicke has a short piece where he notes the irregularity of Rome in dealing with the SSPX:

“The Curial bureaucrats are trying both to have their cake and to eat it. When it suits them, they will treat SSPX as disobedient subjects rather than as Separated Brethren. But when the exigencies of the polemics require it, as they did towards the end of last year, they talk about the SSPX as being in schism, or even being in some imprecise sense excommunicate. But they would do well to think carefully about the implications of such assessments for the status of the dialogue. Because if members of SSPX are excommunicate schismatics, then they qualify for the treatment which Unitatis redintegratioprescribed for Separated Brethren.”

http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2014/01/sspx-is-it-ecumenism-or-is-it-not-1.html

The disproportionate treatment given to the SSPX is strange and inconsistent while prelates of the ilk of Archbishop Rembert Weakland have been permitted to work their spiritual destruction with impunity.

The point being that the house is on fire. And one should duly consider the appalling aspect of negative legalism that has followed in the wake of the Council, a legalism which prevails to unjustly suppressed the traditional rite of Mass, and, as von Hildebrand described, creates a state of affairs where “more use of authority is being made in purely disciplinary matters than in matters of faith. The belief that a lack of discipline is more serious than the spread of heresies is a typical form of legalism.”

The preservation of our Faith is the measure by which we will be judged by God. And the Society teaches that Faith without blemish. The current priest in Sanger / Forth Worth is Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, a veteran priest of 32 years. He’s a former Seminary professor and has written a number of books, one of which is in-depth treatise on the philosophical roots of Modernism:

tantamergo - February 18, 2014

I heard the priest only comes in on weekends.

Nevertheless, I’ve read and greatly enjoyed (and blogged on) Fr. Bourmaud’s book. I had no idea he was in Sanger.

Maybe I should go try to meet him, off hours.

Michael - February 18, 2014

I’ve known Fr. Bourmaud since 1999. He is a truly good man with a brilliant mind, a terrific sense of humor, and a Faith to move mountains. You will be hard pressed to find a more exemplary specimen of a Catholic priest.

I recommend taking the time to introduce yourself.

He is currently based in Kansas City, but flies to Texas each weekend. Last Sunday he was in KC for some reason and he preached on the 5 Forms of Gluttony (as a preparation for Lent).

⁃ Praepropere – eating too soon
⁃ Laute – eating too expensively
⁃ Nimis – eating too much
⁃ Ardenter – eating too eagerly, wildly
⁃ Studiose – eating too daintily, too picky

Biblical example: One of the sins of Sodom was “fullness of bread.”

tantamergo - February 18, 2014

You don’t have contact info for him, do you? E-mail me larryr103@gmail.com

Thanks!

7. LaGallina - February 18, 2014

I love how this blog and it’s com box feel like a support group for trads.

RC - February 18, 2014

I was literally just thinking that ha

8. John - February 18, 2014

Everyone here is so promethian restorationist! Pshaw!!!!

9. discipleofthedumbox - February 19, 2014

Father Z. states that this is actually a third hand report, it changes nothing, Summorum Pontificum still stands and therefore this is simply much ado about nothing. http://bit.ly/1gUIo0A

Move along, folks.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 407 other followers

%d bloggers like this: