kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (05/29/89)
Hello, I've been gone for a few weeks but anyway... In the article that I am refering to, Joe issued a litany of polemics about the new mass following Vatican II, that it reflects "reformation theology," that it weakens "catholic beliefs," that catholics have been pursecuted for following the old mass. The problem with all this is that if one is Catholic, one is obliged to obey his spiritual superiors. The bishops found sufficient problems with the old mass to formulate the new one. We are obliged to follow. If the new mass is "more Protestant" than so be it. The Church has certainly a greater responsibility than being simply "un-Protestant" It's supposed to be correct. In these past weeks, I was in Czechoslovakia visiting my relatives. Prague the capital was one of the centers of the Counter-Reformation and this is reflected in the architecture of the *many* churches that were built there. In response to the Hussite Protestants who despised virtually all decoration in the churches (and burned *many* of them to enforce this)... the Church bent totally in the opposite direction. Some of the most gaudy/fossilized sanctuaries that I have ever seen are in Prague... monuments to "triumphantalism" gone to the limit. This of course plays into the the hands of the communists there ... because they don't allow changes to be done to the sanctuaries "to preseve their artistic contribution" and don't allow new churches to be built. Thus the Church is defined there by 16th century architecture that was political in nature to begin with and is in many respects appalling to the 20th century observer. And potential converts see little else... unless mass or services are conducted at home. The traditionalist would see nothing wrong with this ... but the result of this fossilization is that Catholic belief and practice is defined by Baroque "triumphantalism" ... and that has to be wrong. Why? Because it excludes the tastes of people who don't particularly *like* one style of artistic expression. Certainly God is bigger than that. And one can even argue that God wouldn't be a real big fan of "triumphantalism" either ... Christ being born in a stable, coming into Jerusalem on a donkey (not a stallion), and being cruxified among two common thieves. This humility is not *really* (with a churdle) expressed in "triumphantalism." Triumphant art does does have its purpose, it is supposed to uplift the spirit of those who enter the sanctuary ... a glimpse of heaven on earth. And indeed art/dress/architec- ture all were extravagant (witness Louis XIV) at the time. But is God defined be triuphant expression? No. Some would have us belive that this is the case though. I bring all this up because, Church has a responsiblity of distinguishing that which is timeless and that which is fashion. Both are ever-present, and this can only be so. Current expression keeps the message vital, fidelity to timeless truths of our Faith keeps it correct. The central aspect of the mass has always been in the Eucharist, the breaking of the bread ... "do this in remembrance of me." The mass has always been structured around it. Other aspects of the mass ... the Profession of Faith (the Creed) and the Our Father again are timeless. The music however depends on the talent and tastes of the parish. Similarly, the sanctuaries may reflect the tastes (or lack there of ... though I am generally a fan of simplicity) of our age. But the stations illustrating the Passion are still present, as is the altar and the cross... Again a blend of the current and the timeless ... as well as the "greatest hits" of traditions collected along the way. A survey of the Saints celebrated in the missal once again reflects (and celebrates) the 2000 year Tradition which is our Church binding Christians of ages past, to the present age, with the promise of binding us to ages of the future ... a confirmation that Christians of any age contribute to the building of the "City of God." And there I end... Dennis
jhpb@lancia.att.com (07/01/89)
Dennis wrote:
In the article that I am referring to, Joe issued a litany of polemics about
the new mass following Vatican II, that it reflects "reformation theology,"
that it weakens "catholic beliefs," that catholics have been pursecuted for
following the old mass.
The problem with all this is that if one is Catholic, one is obliged to obey
his spiritual superiors. The bishops found sufficient problems with the old
mass to formulate the new one. We are obliged to follow. If the new mass
is "more Protestant" than so be it. The Church has certainly a greater
responsibility than being simply "un-Protestant" It's supposed to be correct.
Obedience to superiors is certainly a fundamental part of the Catholic
religion. There's something I would like to point out, though.
There is a true and a false notion of obedience. With some virtues,
like faith, hope, and charity, sin is only possible in one direction --
defect. You can only have too little faith, you can't have too much.
It's not that way with obedience, though. One can sin by excess or
defect. Obedience is one of those virtues in which the golden mean has
to be observed.
There are situations in which not only is it virtuous to disobey, it's
downright sinful to obey. What am I to do when my parish priest hands
me the notorious Dutch Catechism and tells me to teach the CCD kids from
it? I personally would refuse. He has exceeded his authority by trying
to order me to teach a mixture of orthodoxy & heresy.
We have had more or less excellent priests and bishops in the Catholic
Church since the Reformation. Indeed, because of the Reformation. So
we have sort of taken for granted the idea that you're supposed to obey
your clergy without question.
What happens when the clergy goes bad, though? England was once a
Catholic nation. How did it become Anglican? Obedience. The bishops
obeyed the monarch, the people obeyed the bishops.
So beware this idea that one has to obey everything that the clergy
orders. At the present time, this is not always to one's spiritual
benefit.
What am I to think of priests that order the kneelers removed from their
churches? What exactly do they think the Blessed Sacrament is? What
about the ones that never so much as mention the obligation that every
Catholic is under of confessing their sins once a year? etc.
It is very important for Catholic laymen to know their catechisms inside
out at the present time. If one doesn't know the Faith, one is at the
mercy of whatever priest one happens to end up with.
Joe Buehler