Naturalism is the philosophy that matter is the ultimate reality of the natural world. It comes in materialism and dualism. While materialism denies anything beyond matter and dualism asserts it, dualism is just as dangerous because it divides the spiritual and material as if east and west, and the two are only connected unnaturally and arbitrarily.

While the ultra-traditional might call the OF material, or naturalistic, he is falling into that same naturalism by becoming too focused on the material aspects, or accidents of the Mass, and losing sight of the Substance, which is the power of the God working in history. The "traditionalist" belittles God into a weak being incapable of doing his will because of the failings of man. Does God completely disregard the sincere faith of the little old ladies and the priest offering the bland OF up the street? Is the Church, the instrument of God's will on earth too weakened by that weak God to make the OF valid? In the end, this traditionalist is an idolator of a God made in his own image, rather than one that might challenge his stick-up-the-butt attitude towards the simple faith of others.

Of course the blandly offered OF isn't ideal, but to trash, demean, and belittle it also demeans those simple faithful who are nourished by it. We need education, to show people the greater mysteries of the Liturgy. Not vitriol.

Charles,

While I disagree with some of the article.... where do you paranoia?


Francis,

If the purpose of the CMAA is assiduously to promote the treasury of Church music, is your purpose in raising this article that to preserve the music and rightly understand it, there must be a preservation of the liturgy in which it makes most sense?

True insofar as music and sacral language go, but I think we know that the reference is to turning the altars around and the seeming rejection of the doctrines on the Eucharist.

Francis,

If the purpose of the CMAA is assiduously to promote the treasury of Church music, is your purpose in raising this article that to preserve the music and rightly understand it, there must be a preservation of the liturgy in which it makes most sense?

Well, I always think that is the most obvious point, but others do not. The wholesale elimination of the Latin and the theology of the Holy Sacrifice is an automatic dismissal of the musica sacra. Obvious to only a few.

I will bet my Graduale that many think the same thing, but are afraid to speak up.

My Mother and Father established a Kingdom. I am their Son and I brought it to earth. I established the one Sacrifice for all men. I begot many brothers and sisters over many centuries who continued the tradition that I began. They enhanced it, added to it, and made of it a most beautifully woven piece of lace-over hundreds and hundreds of years, it became the supreme representation of all that my family had stood for, promoted and established. In our castle all of us put pictures on the walls, made music, sang hymns and chants. We built many fine buildings and celebrated this supreme act, untarnished and unchanged. Then other people who were not of my family or my friends came into our castle. They tore down our pictures. They put up their own symbols and they unravelled the very fabric of that most wonderful piece of lace. They used the strands and wove their own imaginings into the garment supreme. I came back to visit the castle last year, and I did not recognize it. It is not the home of my family. The songs are gone, the walls are adorned with foreign faces. I simply sat down and wept.

I would challenge strenuously Francis' suggestion that the theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the mass is become a beggar for adherents amongst those who prefer the Novus Ordo of Paul VI. I know of no Catholics of whom such an assertion would be an accurate descriptor. This would seem to me to be a rather hysterical equation of orthodox Eucharistic theology with a single ritual expression. It runs seriously the risk of worship of form rather than of substance, and, therefore, of idolatry, and, therefore, of blasphemy, not to mention heresy.

True, one could question the theology (and sanity) of those idiots who pawn clown masses and other liturgical horrors off on impressionable child children and adult children; but such stupid expressions of who knows what are impositions upon a defenseless rite, not, indicative of the theological content of the rite itself. I would admit (grudgingly) that there are very likely many eucharistically orthodox minds resident in the heads of those who are responsible for much of our astonishing liturgical abuse. Right belief is (lex credendi lex orandi aside) not, emphatically is not, dependent upon or expressed only by the rite for which this or that person has a passionate preference. At some point such myopia becomes irrational, destructive of one's own spiritual health, unwise judgementalism of others, polarising, gratuitously self righteous, and disruptive of the practice of personal and communal good works - not to mention the implied concomitant: that the Church is in error, that he of whom our Lord said that he should not prevail has, after all, done so. How amazingly faithless!

The Church has many rites, all of which are equally Catholic in their eucharistical theology. The Eastern rites, the rite of the Anglican Use personal ordinariates, the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Forms of the Roman rite, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, a few religious rites, and, perhaps, more. It is the Church's intent, opinion, and belief that each and all are equally orthodox. That should end all rite-based dissension, malice, and contempt. Each may stress a certain vein of revealed Truth more, or in a different light, than do others, but all are provided by the Church as fully expressive of objective sacramental realities.

Many here will recall the times at which I drew attention to the profound orthodox Eucharistic sacramentalism of many Anglicans, those known as 'Anglo-Catholics', who, but for their rejection of the Petrine supremacy, are quite as Catholic in faith and practice as anyone else. Less well known are those numberless Anglicans who hold the same views as their Anglo-Catholic brethren, but do not avail themselves of Catholic ritualisms in their worship. Though these folk are 'low Church', their beliefs often are very orthodox. Here we have, within a non-Catholic Ecclesial Entity which, formally, would neither affirm nor deny Catholic teaching (which prefers to 'sit on the fence') many adherents of Catholic truth who just don't believe that the Holy Father can speak infallibly ex cathedra, and, are appalled utterly at 'Roman' liturgy. Not only that, there are Lutherans here and there who actually believe in transubstantiation and the objective presence of Jesus in their 'masses'. (Whether this real presence is actually there just because of their belief and faith, their particular 'orandi', is another matter for another discussion.) My point in rehearsing this is to stress that right belief is not always to be found or judged within the practice of a given rite or language. Likewise, that adherence to a given rite or language does not always guarantee that such adherents are true believers. Very often they are not. And, that includes, obviously, the EF. To say otherwise would be to assert that at no time in history had the rite of Trent or any of the rites which preceded it prevented sacramental heresy, or any other kind of heresy. We all, every last one of us, regardless of our rite, have a log in our own eye. Sometimes that log can be the things we cherish the most and believe most fervently - to the point of denigrating all else - all else that God in his bounty and providence, and the Church, have said 'is good'.

In the house of Jesus' Father are many mansions, many contexts, a universality woven by the All Holy Himself of many strands of Truth.

So it takes lace to make a mass?
This is worse than I thought!

We "threw open the windows" and now the wildlife is roosting in the rafters so to speak.

I guess this might be the 'paranoia' that CharlesW spoke about above.
This 'wildlife' actually are the people that our Lord commanded his disciples to bring the Good News. Just take care that their offspring feels home in the rafters, and teach them the Faith (having them hear sacred music before they can even speak may also help).

the wildlife is roosting in the rafters
-Francis

Yea, the sparrow hath found her an house, and the swallow a nest, where she may lay her young; even thy altars, O LORD of hosts, my King and my God."
-Ps 84:3 (BCP)

The loon and the dodo,
the cuckoo too,
the parrot, the turkey,
and me, and you.
- AMW

Clearer?

Yes, clearer. My experience with Rorate Caeli started with the election of Pope Francis. I had never heard of them before then. They were fit to be tied and some predicted the end of the church as we know it. I don't always think Francis is the best for the job, but the church will survive. It always does.

When I have read their blog, it seems to me that they are a bit paranoid and into predicting conspiracies of one kind or another. They have a "circle-the-wagons" mentality and see themselves as fortress church defending orthodoxy against the modern world. In reality, they are rather tiny as far as numbers go.

My take is that the church has been under attack since day one and still struggling in our own age. But it will survive, as promised by Christ himself. The RC folks seem to me more wedded to form than to function. The totality of Christianity is not the Traditional Latin Mass of Trent, but is expressed in many Catholic forms. I would add many Orthodox forms, as well. Often Orthodoxy does a better job of preserving liturgy than the west has ever done.

I'm still trying to figure out the Cranmer part of this.

But as to the article itself... it is a perfect example of modern emotivism masquerading as "tradition." It contains neither evidence nor argumentation nor even a genuine appeal to authority, but simply assertion based on the writer's subjective preferences. Nietzsche would be pleased; St. Thomas would be appalled.

Illustrating the Mobius strip that are gnostic tendencies....

I doubt they will ever create any interest in the TLM outside their inner circle - which is very unfortunate, indeed.

I have encountered that, and there is an element of holier-than-thou projected by the group. However, I have my days when I want a moat filled with crocodiles around the building to keep certain folks away - mea culpa... I can see a bit of both sides.

It is always interesting to me that those who speak of upholding the truths and tradition of the church, whether it be in her magisterial teaching, dogma, language, liturgy, etc., are always belittled or discredited with a "holier than thou" attitude; or, are immediately consigned to belonging to an "inner circle and a band of wagons". I get the impression that these "dangerous" thinkers should throw off their defensive armor and run through the field of theological and philosophical abandonment naked. It also shows the weak position of those who cannot address the truth spoken, but must degrade the messenger by making him feel as though s/he has separated himself from the common thinking of the majority without ever truly addressing the issue head on.

fcb: the NO is the realization of a Cranmers dream.

I'm still trying to figure out the Cranmer part of this.

My understanding is that the association that the NO has with Cranmer is that you can objectively compare the Novus Ordo with Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper, which is considered a Protestant service and find more similarities than differences, prompting claims from some that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic. Also, since Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper existed long before the Novus Ordo, combined with all the similarities, it would seem that the Novus Ordo was influenced by, and was intentionally created to resemble it. Now, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causality, but the suspicion is valid, and the possibility exists.

Ok, so where does it go from there? One way would be to say that we should never have cause to suspect that what is understood to be Catholic has any Protestant influences in it. That there is even a correlation between the Novus Ordo (understood to be Catholic) and Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper (understood to be Protestant) is unacceptable, and since the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass are different in many of the same ways that the TLM is different from Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper, the Novus Ordo must not be Catholic.

Another way would be to say that the Novus Ordo allows for possibilities that the TLM doesn't, and actually perfects and makes Catholic aspects of Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper. Where Cranmer failed and departed from Catholicism, the Novus Ordo perfected and retained the necessary elements of Catholicism: it takes what Cranmer was trying to do with the Mass of the Lord's Supper and do it in a way that does not violate Catholic doctrines. Therefore, the Novus Ordo is Catholic, despite some Protestant appearances.

Still another would be to say that the Novus Ordo was created along the lines of Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper as a means to appeal to Protestants in an effort to reunite all Christians under the roof of Holy Mother Church. Protestants would have likely recognized elements of Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper, and recognized the effort to make the Mass more welcoming to Protestants. This, ideally, would have been an invitation for Protestants to return to the Church, which has actually happened: I've spoken with converts that mention they felt comfortable coming to Mass because it possessed elements that resembled the Protestant services they were accustomed to, which then allowed them to be taught about the Catholic Church, and to have falsehoods about Her that they were taught as children dispelled, which opened the way for them to become Catholic. Therefore, the Novus Ordo is still Catholic, but incorporated elements of what is a Protestant service in order to appeal to Protestants so that they would return to the Church.

My issue with the third statement is that I believe what we then have is not fully Catholic: it is a Catholic-Protestant hybrid, which fully permits both mentalities, which would seem to be at odds with one another (and which were, often violently in the history of the world). The problem with a Catholic-Protestant hybrid Mass is that by way of lex orandi, lex credendi, it creates Catholic-Protestant hybrid people that are neither fully Catholic, nor fully Protestant, who are fully receptive of both mentalities. This would seem to be a good thing, because it then creates people who are, in theory, accepting of all mentalities and ways of Christianity. However, at least in the practice of Novus Ordo parishes in my Diocese, the Protestant mentality has won out, and that which is traditionally Catholic is rejected.

thank you, ClergetKabisz. I could not have given that dissertation. you have a fine command of methodical clarity in your thinking and delivery.

accepting of all mentalities and ways of Christianity.

and those not even Christian... naturalism, syncretism, etc.

Melo

I am not protesting
But protecting.
Are we not also defenders
not merely includers?

If we never question
The inner intention
Of the world's digression
Then where is found discretion?

If we refuse to fly
The Military mast
How can we win the prize
Of the Church Triumphant cast?

FNK

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/matters.htm

Here is another

My impression of 1549 is that it is carefully crafted to admit of either a Protestant or Catholic interpretation, according to the theology of the user. And that Cranmer was striving to keep the peace of the realm, above all other considerations. I also think that Cranmer was a liturgical genius, 1) in devising a form of the Office suitable for Parish use (histories of the Divine Office present two strands which they call Monastic and Cathedral, both are too demanding for common use in Parishes), and 2) for the power of the liturgical language he uses.

Dear Francis,
I'll not answer your request for elaboration. I think that you could do this yourself if you would just open your eyes.

Amen to Hawkins' remark just above. Wherever and by whomever Truth happens to be spoken, done, or believed, however incompletely or ineptly, that Truth, so far as it goes, is by virtue of its very own self, Catholic.

Time to make the popcorn....

It's good when sprinkled with white cheddar. ;-)

Cabot’s the best, at least for big commercial dairy–produced cheddar here in these USA. My relatives all live in New England, where I was exposed to it.

here's some Coca-Cola to go with that popcorn

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/guest-op-ed-god-at-center-reflecting-on.html?m=1

ok... perhaps the physical externals DO matter if a Mass is to be a Mass. God knows (and we all have first hand experience) of what the Liturgy is like when innovation and emotion dictate its form and function.