Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« The 1920 Czechoslovak National Church and Rome | Main | Pope Joan: Subversive! Controversial! And, uh, not real »

Friday, June 25, 2010

Comments

Fr. Anthony Cekada

The difficulty with using Guardini as a starting point is his aversion, like many in the pre-Vatican II Liturgical Movement, towards traditional Catholic (i.e. scholastic) theology.

Koenecker, a protestant enthusiast for the Movement wrote in a book in 1954 that:

"It is especially in its theological method that the Liturgical Movement evidences a relationship with the errors of Modernism as condemned by Pius X in Pascendi. Though no frontal attack can be made on Scholastic formulations of theology, it is pointed out that the liturgy has a concrete, realistic approach that renders the approach through natural theology, for example, unimportant." Liturgical Renaissance in the Roman Catholic Church, p. 29.

This approach, said Koenker, is typical of Guardini and others; it “breaks away completely from the usual mode of deductive, systematic theology” and is “phenomenological." (Ibid. 29–30)

Neo-conservatives who now lament the disastrous effects of so many of the official post-Vatican II liturgical reforms should realize that the ideas of men like Guardini were in large part responsible for the mess.

Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto

Time conditions man enough to make us greatly different from century to century; lately, we practically change every 25 years; it has been said that if Martin Luther had lived in the 10th century Reformation would not have happened.

Now, our Catholic youth come into a world tainted by protestantism and relativism, therefore we ought not to expect today the reverence, venerability and sacredness in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, ultimate expression of Catholic Liturgy. Things get worse when bishops accommodate liberal trends into the Mass and deterioration continues.

Archbishop Chaput, whom I respect highly, appears surprisingly keen on the introduction of vernacular language in the Mass. Until Vatican II, regarding the Tridentine Mass, we seem to have forgotten that except for the High or Pontifical Masses, the main prayers, and the sermon, were always said in the vernacular. Furthermore the small amount of Latin prayers that parishioners had to learn, was never a hindrance to anybody. I strongly believe that doing away with Latin has been part of an intentional desire to transform and change the Eucharist.

Gail F

LOVE "The Mass and Modernity," everyone should read it!

(Carl, you can send my check any time.)

Christopher Lake

Regarding the first comment-- we have a sedevacantist in the house!

Father Cekada writes, on his website, that Benedict XVI is a heretic and not a true Pope. So, Father, when will that "true Pope," for whom you have been waiting for over forty years, be elected? When, how, and by whom?

I love to see these comments. They make me laugh, thinking of the "Catholic progressives," who consider Ignatius to represent "the very best of pre-Vatican II thinking" (an actual quote about Ignatius, said to me by a former employee of "America" Magazine!).

Brian J. Schuettler

Good point, Christopher.

Someone please tell me. What is the difference between Martin Luther standing outside the Church and saying the pope is a heretic and a sedevacantist standing inside and saying it? Answer: Luther, at least, knows that he is outside!

Also, following up on Chris's comment:
I present the SEDEVACANTIST'S DILEMMA:If all the bishops that are now in the College of Cardinals who will choose a future pope were made cardinals by a man who is not a valid pope then how can a valid pope be ever elected?

I am sure there is a clever reply to that dilemma that
even Mel Gibson probably knows.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad