Saturday, July 16, 2005

You Can Take the People Out of the 50s...

A crazy debate is being had over at the Fair Amy's over an upcoming debate from Catholic (Wrong) Answers over the validity of the Novus Ordo. Oh, and they also claim that all ordinations under the1973 Rites are invalid.

This is so Mel Gibson's Holocaust-denying father it gives me the creeps.

I'll repeat what I posted there here: Why the hell do we need to debate these people? Just because they've got unresolved issues from their childhood doesn't mean that the rational among us all have to suffer for it. I love the Indult, and the freedom to either drive 30 miles to it or 30 miles away from it. But this just screams Me-ism. (And "I'm Too Pretty"-ism....) If ya don't like the way things are, just go to Mel's church in LA -- he's got the money to expand it, and you can wear all the mantillas you want to. Girls do just want to have fun, after all, even if mantillas are for women only... well, at least in public.

To close, I received Keating's note with the following subject line from Ichiban Jim at the San Fran desk: "WHAT A CROCK! DON'T THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANYTHING SERIOUS TO WORRY ABOUT?"

The man's got a point....

-30-

3 Comments:

Blogger Richard said...

Hello Rocco,

Why debate them?

Perhaps for the same reason people or bishops feel the need to respond to, say, Frances Kissling.

As I said over at Amy's I went to one of Gerry's talks in April, just out of curiosity and with no real idea of what he was meaning to present. I went along with a friend or two.

The talk was sparsely attended but a couple of less liturgically aware attendees left somewhat shaken. We spent some time reassuring them afterwards not to read so much into what Matatics was arguing and why.

The danger is that many conservative (in the generic sense) or traditionalist-leaning Catholics (or just plain Catholics, period) may happen upon this kind of thing and be convinced by it. Or shaken in their faith. Gerry *is* a smart and very eloquent fellow.

I wouldn't spend from sunup to sundown fretting about it. Maybe Keating is spening more time and indignation on it than it deserves. But I'm not sure it's wise to completely ignore it, either. Souls could be at stake.

Unresolved childhood issues seem to make the rounds in the Church these days. I always think of the of the strange fevers that seem to possess women liturgists of a certain...shall we say, maturity... when anything pre-Council or involving Joseph Ratzinger's name is mentioned in their hearing.

best regards,
Richard Lender
athelstane@gmail.com

16/7/05 10:21  
Blogger Stephen Hand said...

Council of Trent on the Mass and the "Substance of" Tradition

"The Holy Council declares moreover: The Church has always had, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being saved, the power to decide or to modify what she judges better to suit the spiritual utility of those who receive them or with respect to the sacraments themselves, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.--- The Council of Trent, Dz 1728; also Dz Herder ed, 1955, #931, p. 256 "

In the encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII writes: "In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock, and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops ‘whom the Holy Ghost has placed ... to rule the Church of God,’ have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people." (Emphasis ours)

16/7/05 20:18  
Blogger Jeff said...

True enough, there are some crazies out there among "Traditionalists." But if I have to choose between
1.) angry primitives and ignoramuses on the "right" with ambiguous connections to the Church who actually believe in God and Christ and know that SOMETHING has gone terribly wrong in the Church and 2.) slick jobs on the "left" on a pilgrimage away from "the '50s" to they don't know where, some kinder and less dogmatic place where we don't really have to believe anything in particular, I'll choose the first bad lot over the second.

After all, of the two "Catholics" cited by Rocco (in his comment at Open Book) to contrast with the loon Matatics, one had an imprimatur yanked from his book explaining Catholicism (I guess he doesn't know what it is) and the other resigned rather than be fired for writing stories that "balanced" Catholic views with heterodox ones, being careful not to be too judgmental.

Yes, let's avoid being judgmental about people who want to reinvent Catholicism to suit themselves, but let's be judgmental as hell about the ones who are stuck in the genuine Catholicism of a few decade ago.

kantors@patriot.net

16/7/05 23:58  

Post a Comment

<< Home