Tags
Being married to the spirit of the age leaves one at risk of widowerhood in the next. Liberal theologians and clergy are the heirs to the old Whig assumption that change was moving constantly in their direction; they tend to get a little alarmed, and resentful, when it appears not to be the case.
I was recently invited to a Catholic ordination service. For various reasons I couldn’t go, but I asked the person (part of our inter-church group) who invited me how it had gone. He’s not someone I know well, so I was a bit surprised when he said to me gloomily:
I fear we’re in for a generation of priests who are going to betraying to turn the clock back. Many seminarians were receiving communion on the tongue and genuflecting all over the shop.
He explained to me that it was all the fault of the last two Popes, who, he claimed, had been far too lax in implementing the Spirit of Vatican II, adding that he was thinking of stopping contributing to collections for new priests. He seemed rather concerned. One priest, apparently, believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
I’ve always wondered if that chap ‘got it’ in terms of what some of the other churches in the group actually believe. One of the downsides of such ecumenical groups is that they tend to attract folk upon whom the doctrines of the Faith sit lightly. I think he was expecting me to sympathise, but he looked in vain.
I think he was seeing something I see, and which cheers me up as much as it depressed him. When I was a lad most folk went to Church; it was expected, I’d not care to guess at the number of those who believed in the creed of their church, but they’ll be among those in the counting when we’re told how much church attendance has gone down. But the days of never mind the quality, feel the width, are over for good. The young lads and lasses who come to church know why they do so, and it’s not an easy option in the secular culture in which they move; and those with a call to the ministry are a rare few.
Ours tend to go to the London Theological Seminary, and every time I attend a meeting with such young fellows, I feel a thrill of pride about the future. They are fine men, Christians who know why they are Christians, and who want to bring the Lord to the world. They are unafraid of the slings and arrows of the world, and they know they are choosing a way of life which will be hard; that’s part of its attraction to them. So I was glad to hear it was so for Catholics too.
These are men who have turned aside from the spirit of this world, and they are underwhelmed by the lukewarm attitudes of some of their elders. The Holy Spirit moves Christians, and however much some of the dinosaurs of the sixties may lament that, it is so, and the idea that future is theirs is part of their hubris. It is God’s, and to Him be the glory for the labourers who will plant and bring in the harvests of the future. Changes after changes, we’ll be back where we started from.
All Along the Watchtower 
Praise God for holy priests. We are seeing the same blessed trend here in the latest generation.
LikeLike
We are indeed Joseph. The new priests are far different than their Bishops and many are already feeling the heat from their shepherds. We need to pray for them in hopes that they will not be seduced or swayed from their orthodoxy (or punished by the bishops for doing what is right – I’ve seen too many stories that lead me to believe it is not easy to be a new orthodox priest in the present climate).
LikeLike
I haven’t met our bishop here, but from all I’ve heard he’s a very good and holy man. All of the young priests I’ve met are on fire for the Gospel and not facing any opposition that I can see. I know the bishop in my former diocese, however, is one of the old, liberal brand; thankfully, he is at retirement age. I read recently there was a backlog in appointing bishops, but I pray that when he does, Pope Francis will select holy men who will uphold our faith and orthodoxy.
LikeLike
As do I. The problem as always is that the Pope must rely on his bishops (the eyes and ears on the ground) to make these appointments. Our bishop seems quite orthodox as well but when one of priests said rightly that voting for Obama would be a vote for pro-abortion he got his hand slapped by the Bishop and was forced to apologize to his flock.
LikeLike
Well, to be fair, openly and publicly endorsing (or whatever the opposite of that is) a candidate can sadly get a diocese in trouble with the IRS these days, with their tax-exempt status and all. He may have just been playing it safe (or scared). I think the wise thing to do is to preach the issues, and remind the flock what issues are most important to a Catholic, and urge the faithful to decide based on that. The Church is not a political entity. That was one of my favorite things about it as I was approaching it.
LikeLike
That is a very true concern and I must say that the priest may have been a bit over that line. However, he did not jump the gap to endorsing anyone, just condemning any vote for a pro-abortion candidate and we all knew who he was speaking of and he made clear Obama’s record in that regard. He went so far to tell his congregants that if they had voted for Obama they might want to go to confession to explain how they could support abortion against the teachings of the Church. In this day and age, that was a breath of fresh air for me.
LikeLike
Good – that seems a good omen.
LikeLike
Yes, and we are also seeing it in what synods grow and what synods don’t, and that confirms the trend from my standpoint as well, that three churches, all big, all influential, all moving in the same direction. I find it quite promising actually.
LikeLike
Me too.
LikeLike
The only caveat I make is that I’m optimistic long term, and that it darkest before the dawn.
LikeLike
Often the way 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed so 🙂
LikeLike
The only problem I see is that the present group of Bishops from the Spirit of VII era are the ones who will pick and choose among the new priests who is to follow in their footsteps. I hope the tide is turning and that it doesn’t take as long as I fear it will.
LikeLike
Well, there are ebbs and flows – but hopefully iy is going our way.
LikeLike
In the Catholic Church it really is going to depend largely, I feel, on how much discipline the Vatican is willing to exercise on their fellow bishops and priests. If they show the backbone to enforce what they say we will move forward – otherwise the bishops will stonewall as long as they can.
LikeLike
Geoffrey this probably is of little interest to you but as another Catholic, I think I might have been tempted to give your friend a dissertation on what I see as the biggest problem in the Catholic Church over these past 50 years: the Novus Ordo Mass. I know this would probably set him on his heels from what you have said and we probably would have little to discuss as we are probably on opposite ends of the spectrum. My reasoning would probably go as follows:
I have many concerns and reservations concerning the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI. Most of these objections can be summarized in two distinct areas:
1. Rubrics
2. Tradition
The Rubrics are too loose and freewheeling to properly call this Rite a Ritual and gives far too much latitude to the priest, making it his Mass rather than the Mass of the Church, which negates the purpose of a Ritual. The number of options that are available has led to the further diminishing of the Rite to include new and novel practices rather than a growth of past tradition: Priests facing the laity, an over use of extraordinary ministers, lack of respect for the Blessed Species, casual dress of the laity, priests who no longer wear the traditional cassock and biretta outside the liturgy, poor translations due to celebration in the modern languages, reception of the Eucharist while standing and in the hand (illicitly gained against the will of the world’s Bishops), removal of the veil on the tabernacles, sloppy genuflections usually substituted by a bow, holding of hands during prayers, inability to observe silence in the Church, vulgar expressions of art and music and sermons that are more rightly concentrated around the socially accepted values of the world and couched in politically correct expressions which the laity are want to hear – rather than to a Christ centered catechesis that they are loath to hear. This New Mass, though licit, cannot be considered a true Ritual because these changes make it next to impossible that all the necessary requirements are fulfilled. In most cases, a comparison of Mass as celebrated in different parishes, would show that they are differ from one to the other and quite often have been modified to suit the laity or the priest and therefore, appear not to be subject to a rigorous standard. Furthermore, the casualness of this Mass, which might better be called a ‘service’ has much more in common to Protestant worship rather than the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which has always adhered to a strict formulaic structure which we one would expect from a common and universal ritual for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice.
The Tradition of the Mass has always grown organically from the former Mass that preceded it and the Novus Ordo Mass has not the earmarks that would define it as such. In the past every organic change was made by abrogating the Mass that preceded it and instituting the small changes in the the newer revised version. In this particular case the prior Mass was not abrogated and the Novus Ordo was presented as a break in tradition even though it still received backing from the Church to become the ordinary form practiced throughout the world. The designer of the Mass, Cardinal Annibale Bugnini, was of dubious character and much mystery surrounds his past: including suspicion and outright charges of being a Freemason. He was removed from any significant post by Pope Paul VI by stationing Bugnini in a minor post as pro-nuncio to Iran where he remained until his eventual death in Rome.
The fruits of the Novus Ordo over the last 50 years demonstrates the harm that this New Mass has caused especially in the belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence and in the loss of solemnity and reverence shown within the Church. The subsequent development of an entire class of ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ has become an all too normal outcome; denying that they must hold ALL of what the Catholic Church teaches and insistent that they only must adhere to that which agrees with their poorly informed consciences. John Paul II and Benedict XVI did much to point out the many errors of the new rite and hoped to reform it from the errors of the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ movement which further helped to destroy the ritualistic nature of the Church’s most profound expression of the Faith. There are many priests that have been able to reform their Masses to eliminate some and on occasion many of its shortcomings but they cannot reform all of them due to the Rubrics themselves and the permissions granted to the bishops to allow such things as receiving standing and in the hand. It is therefore my opinion that the Novus Ordo is quite un-reformable because of the entrenched attitudes of the people and many within the clergy.
The fastest and most effective route to returning the people to the time honored beliefs of our Faith would be, in my mind, the return to the Traditional Form of the Liturgy known today as the Extraordinary Form.
Of course, I realize there are many who vehemently disagree, but that is the way I see it.
LikeLike
SF, I have always embraced both forms of the Mass. You and I were brought up on the Tridentine Mass and Gregorian Chant etc. The main reason for our differences is that you’re an engineer while I’m a therapist. Engineers see things in Black and White, Right Wrong, Good Bad, if that were not so, buildings and bridges would fall and planes crash. On the other hand I like to see all sides of the question and can see the good and bad of each. I like Tradition on the one hand and Modernization on the other.
LikeLike
I understand the allure to many people and recognize the validity of the New Mass, David. I am only saying that the damage done thus far has put it in a position that might probably take a Divine miracle in order to stop the freight train that modernism introduced by the Spirit of Vatican II lot in order to fix it. A task that neither JPII or BXVI were able to accomplish — and they certainly tried their best.
LikeLike
Thank you for this, my friend. In the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ I shall pass that on 🙂
LikeLike
Geoffrey – yes, I think that these candidates for the Catholic priesthood would be in much better shape after a good training at the London Theological Seminary.
But I don’t think that the LTS teaches the theological and hygienic importance of taking communion on the tongue.
LikeLike
Gee Jock, it would only take about three minutes for them to read what Pope Benedict XVI said about it: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
If that is not enough for a prestigious school, then they might try to read the small book Dominus est (It is the Lord) by Bishop Athanasius Schneider that may have prompted the Pope to make his decision not to commune standing or in the hand (probably a whole 4 hours might be required to finish that one: http://www.amazon.com/Dominus-Reflections-Bishop-Central-Communion/dp/0977884619
Even a non-Catholic would understand the significance in a casual reading of the latter.
LikeLike
You know, JOck, you may be onto something there 🙂
LikeLike
Vatican II was a wonderful council, however the spirit of Vatican II should have been strangled at birth.
LikeLike
Hear, hear!
LikeLike
Geoffrey – it seems to me that you really are drawing together two entirely independent ideas here.
Issues such as ‘communion on the tongue’ and ‘genuflect’ing don’t seem to me to have anything at all to do with ‘bodily resurrection of Christ.’ The first two may simply be coming from people who like the feeling of a traditional Catholic ceremony, because it ‘feels Holy’ and inspirational – and don’t give any clue about what the person thinks about the crucifixion and resurrection.
I’ve seen this – and the clue that this applies here is in what you wrote. There were several seminarians who took communion on the tongue and who genuflected; there was one who believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
If you see a connection, then remember the hairdressing salon, where the elements of the traditional mass were very important, but …. I don’t think you were impressed by the Christian content.
LikeLike
There’s a lot in that, Jock.
LikeLike
I’d say there is a significant link between genuflecting/receiving on the tongue and believing in the bodily resurrection. Catholics don’t – or at least shouldn’t – do the former simply because it feels holy but because we really, truly believe that this is the presence of Christ. And so we bow and genuflect. We also receive on the tongue because we don’t want even a particle of the Blessed Sacrament to get on our fingers, and be brushed off somewhere. That is no way to treat Our Lord. This realist or supernaturalist understanding applies equally to the miracle of Transubstantiation and to the Resurrection. Of course, many Christians believe the former but not the latter but for Catholics, there is an intimate connection. I’d be very surprised – not to mentioned shocked and grieved – if even one of those young priests didn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Our Lord.
LikeLike
Pingback: Calling the young | All Along the Watchtower