I’m sorry to have offended you, anon, but surely you realize that you raise a complex question. I don’t doubt that I am sometimes guilty of pride, but what is it in this post that makes you think so? Presumably the confidence with which I express myself, coupled with my patronizing and dismissive attitudes towards the authors of the various pieces I discuss. So let me discuss each of these in turn.

Regarding confidence in one’s views, it’s necessary to distinguish. You surely don’t think it arrogance to firmly and proudly proclaim the truth of our Catholic faith? To glory in ourselves is arrogance, but to glory in God and his truth is right and fitting for a Catholic. Of course there are other assumptions worked into this piece that some Catholics, including some faithful and orthodox Catholics, might dispute, mainly regarding the goodness of the Traditional Latin Mass. So it might be arrogant to proclaim them too confidently, if doing so was a way of browbeating or humiliating dissenters. And indeed, I would be more measured in my tone if my audience was primarily composed of, say, conservative Novus Catholics. But in this case I know that the bulk of our readers already love the old mass, so I don’t feel a need to tiptoe around these liturgical issues.

As for the tone: yes, it was dismissive and patronizing. I freely admit to having a low opinion of journalists generally, at least when it comes to their coverage of all things Catholic. (There are exceptions, but they would be the first to agree with me that they are, in fact, exceptions.) I further admit to holding the view that most people in most Western countries, and even most Catholics, fail to understand the beauty of the Traditional Latin Mass. Could any serious Catholic doubt it? There’s no point in beating around the bush about things like that.

But perhaps that isn’t quite to the point; even when one is in the position of being considerably more knowledgable than most about a particular subject, it isn’t always necessary to be snooty about it. Then again, sometimes maybe it is. Here we just have a difference in styles, and you have to make prudential decisions. Contemptuous, dismissive language can be alienating to some, but at times it can also be very effective rhetorically.

Consider the differences between CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. Lewis, at least in writing, very seldom sneers. Even with his “enemies” he is normally gentle and measured in tone. (The work “That Hideous Strength” is something of an exception, but perhaps he feels he has license there because it is his own profession that is being mocked.) Chesterton, on the other hand, most definitely does sneer, and his writings are so entertaining mainly because he ridicules opponents so effectively. It is true that he generally remains good-natured and cheerful throughout, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is very obviously enjoying a laugh at others’ expense. So here we have two different styles of writing. Which made the better apologist? I think you would have to say that both were enormously successful in what they did. Indeed, the later of these two writers (Lewis) was a great admirer of Chesterton’s writings. It’s never healthy to be hateful, but making fun of others in a cheerful spirit is not always unwise.

I won’t lie: I do sometimes find myself in a humor for writing a hit piece. I tend to think that this urge can safely be indulged so long as it isn’t overdone, and so long as the target is selected with care. I don’t normally sneer at people who ought to be “allies” (i.e. conservative Novus Catholics) but do you really think that the liberal media are likely candidates for conversion to traditional Catholicism? It’s doubtful. Of course, the sneering does sometimes irritate people like yourself, but in general I think most people like watching as common enemies are ridiculed. Just look at the enormous success of those many books on the left (”American Theocracy” or “The God Delusion”) ridiculing Christians in ludicrously exaggerated terms. The bestseller charts are filled with trash like that. Of course, I don’t want to go to those extremes, but it does seem to show that the mild-mannered approach isn’t always the most effective.

Secondly, folks frequently fault “this kind of arrogance” on our blog without ever specifying what in particular they found arrogant. Were you faulting Clara, or one of the posters? Except for Clara and myself, no one who posted on this thread is a member of our blog team — they all come and go as they please. If the arrogance lay with us, what was it? When people engage in fraternal correction, they have the duty to be precise in their criticism. Thanks for writing!

as much as i enjoy this blog, it’s this kind of arrogance that turns people away from the traditional movements. i grew up with the novus ordo mass, but during my teenage years, my parents discovered the tridentine movement. i’m very familiar with it and wish very much to be a part of it. but i find parish life extremely difficult because of the kind of people such an “off the beaten path” mass attracts. please know your movement could grow considerably if you wanted it to.

You are quite right. A mighty brick wall begins with just a single brick that in of itself is not very strong, but together with others it becomes a strong structure. It is my hope that the MP helps us to move the ball forward and back to sanity. I hope to see a traditional mass in my parish, but not yet. We’ll get there.

Clara:

Thank you for your prayers and kind regards. Well, I already failed once, getting shot down in a hail of Novus Ordo bullets going through the front door of the liturgical committee. Had to dust myself off and come back at it through the back door, and wait for opportunity. Been hosting our PA for coffee every so often and have built a bridge there where he and I actually now talk over the liturgy and tradition in the parish. He has stopped most of the worst abuses, and he has tasked me with the planning of the Saturday evening mass. So definitely forward motion. It’ll take time, work, and prayer.

Peace to you…

Discipulus is right, of course, that the MP opens possibilities for having the Traditional Latin Mass anywhere, even in places as bad as the Diocese of Rochester. It could happen, though, unfortunately, places like that don’t tend to have an abundance of orthodox priests. They’ve had almost no vocations for years (who’s surprised?), so even the young and enthusiastic JPII priests, who can often be brought to see the beauty of traditional liturgy, are seemingly absent. But as Discipulus says, it doesn’t take that much, once the MP comes into effect, to get something going. I’m sure all the members of this Society will join in praying for that to happen.

(Actually, the newcomer made only two posts under, “On Nomenclature” and I think that was due to a glitch in your system, not being able to handle cookies correctly. I was caught off guard in that same thread and listed as Erasmus. No, Mater Marci, I don’t publish on ctn-jogues.)

Your sacrifices to attend St. Michael’s for three years are quite remarkable and some of the good fruits are clearly apparent. I’ve never had to make those types of sacrifice to attend a Traditional Mass but I know people who do and they too are happy to be able to do it. Some have quit their jobs, sold their homes, and moved to be close to a Latin Mass.

But now with the Motu Proprio, making such sacrifices won’t be necessary if we do just a little “missionary work”, knocking on parish doors, looking for a few good priests. No longer does anyone in Rochester have to wait for Bishop Clark to retire before more Latin Masses are conveniently located. For years the laity have been asking for bread and have been given scorpions by all too many bishops. The Pope has heard our requests and had decided to bypass the bishops. Of course many of them are already planning their rebellion but it’s up to the priests and the laity not to empower them. Every priest who wants to offer the Traditional Latin Mass has the Pope’s permission. He can offer it for as few or as many people who want to attend. A retired priest here, an order priest there, a young priest willing to abandon the chaos of the Novus Ordo: that’s all it takes. If the Bishops protest, that’s not our problem.

It will be 5 years before Bishop Clark retires. Until then I cannot just sit by and do nothing. The MP is another weapon in the arsenal to use to push back the darkness. The reality of the situation on the ground is that a dramatic change won’t happen, and the chances of getting a traditional mass locally won’t happen without laying groundwork. So, I choose to be the vine in the cracks of the stone, slowly working my way in to effect change. It beats just sitting there and taking it!

So anyway, I’ll put away my stump for right now. You all enjoy God’s graces where you find them, and pray for those who dwell in darkness. With his mercy we will see a great light!

PAX

I find this discussion quite interesting, and I think Joe Six Pack and Discipulus are surely both right in part. As I think has been established in the past, I don’t quite see eye to eye with JSP about the proper role of the laity in the Church. I mean, I certainly do agree that we need to submit to proper authorities and that the Church is not in any way a democracy. But he loses me when he insists that the layman should be exclusively devoted to taking care of himself and producing/caring for a family. These should, perhaps, be his highest priorities, but his duties can’t stop there; if they did it would be all but impossible to have functioning communities. The laity have always been vital to keeping the Church going, whether they’re building actual churches, singing in the choir, printing programs, running the St. Vincent de Paul Society, helping catechize children, or what have you. This is necessary for practical reasons, because we simply don’t have enough priests and religious to do all those things. (And we never have. The no-vocation problem is worse now than at some other times, but the laity have always been needed to help keep things running.) But in any case it’s better for the laity to be involved. When everyone pitches in somehow, the community is bound more closely together, and this is good for a thousand reasons. It makes it easier for people of all ages to find good Catholic friends (or, at the appropriate time, marriage partners), and it creates a support network that can help families in times of serious distress or hardship. So yes, in an ideal Catholic world, you would have responsibilities to your parish and your Catholic community.

That said, I can’t fully agree with Cpt Tom that we should all leave, as he puts it, the “Traditionalist Movement” bunker in order to infiltrate Novus parishes. I do think it’s important for us to seize the opportunity to build strong traditional communities, especially now when the pope is holding out a lifeline to help us do that. A strong traditional parish might succeed in attracting more serious Catholics, who will be drawn (as most of the members of this Society were) to the beauty and power of the traditional liturgy. That can’t happen if you shut down the traditional parish and farm the members out to the local Novus churches in order to advocate for more patens and less “Extraordinary” Ministers. Divided we fall.

Even among Novus parishes, it might sometimes be better strategy to reform good or not-too-bad Novus parishes rather than shouting into the wind in the really terrible ones. I mean, if you have a real gift for talking sense into liberals, then maybe… but I’m just somewhat dubious about the effectiveness of such an endeavor. With conservative Novus Catholics you might find some common ground, but it’s hard to find a foothold with the sort of Catholic that sighs that the Church is “not very modern” and thinks that’s a bad thing. Those kinds of parishes generally aren’t going to be fixed by gradual improvement from within. They’ll be fixed when their aging hippie priests die off and leave room for younger priests, a disproportionate number of which will come from conservative or traditional parishes. They’ll be fixed when those priests, over time, are elevated to bishops and cardinals and popes who understand where the Church’s strength lies. Then those Catholics who have been coasting along ignoring Church teaching about everything will be faced with a choice between returning to orthodoxy or becoming liberal Protestants.

Don’t get me wrong: in individual cases I’m all for doing your best to persuade, and to articulate the truth. But we won’t be able to help the desperate cases if we let the strongholds, as it were, fail. And children in particular should be immersed in healthy, orthodox Catholic communities if at all possible; that’s how they’ll learn what Catholic life should be like.

However, being myself a former resident of the Diocese of Rochester, I appreciate all too well the difficulty of Cpt Tom’s situation. Honestly, it’s tough to exaggerate the badness of that diocese. When I lived there, I normally would drive the two hours each Sunday and Holy Day for the Traditional Latin Mass (together with other members of this Society). We thought it was worth it, and we made the most of the driving time by praying the Rosary together or enjoying lively theological debates (out of which, incidentally, this blog arose). But most of our group were (at that time) healthy, single people in our twenties. With a family, there might be additional complications. What with the two hour drive each way, coming early for confession, and stopping for a meal on the way home, our Sunday excursions generally took somewhere between 6 and 8 hours. If you have a family member in poor health, if your automobile isn’t too reliable, if somebody has a job that requires them to be on call much of the time, etc etc… it might not always be possible.

As far as the parish community goes, I can only imagine that a family would suffer in many ways from being entrenched in a (probably heretical) liberal Catholic community. It isn’t the kind of formation you would want for your child. On the other hand, living 2 hours from your parish also has substantial drawbacks. Although I was baptized and confirmed at St. Michael’s in Scranton, and went to Mass there fairly regularly for three years, I never really felt like part of the parish. We knew a few people there, and occasionally stayed after Mass to hear a lecture or play in the parish softball game, but by and large we came to St. Michael’s for Mass and nothing else. We didn’t want it to be that way… but transportation was just such a problem. It was such a long trip, and for much of that time we had to rent a car every time we came. Coming down mid-week for a choir practice or a social hour was just impractical, and even staying late after Mass made a long day that much longer. But if you can only be in town from 9:45 until 11:15 every Sunday, your involvement with the parish will necessarily be very limited.

The bottom line: people living in a diocese like Rochester’s just have it rough. None of the options are particularly appealing. If you have no choice but to fill your Mass obligation in a really bad parish (like pretty much ALL the parishes in the Ithaca area), I salute you for trying to fight the good fight.

The role of the laity is to animate the world (through family, work place, the political world, etc.) cf. Lumen gentium. The Priests and the Church nourish the laity for this task through the sacraments and teaching. If one wants to argue with that then argue with the Second Vatican Council.

Remember the embracing of Benecict’s Motu proprio must never be in the spirit of rebellion.

My role as a husband and father is to sanctify myself and my family — saving the world, or “affect(ing) change in the Church,” as you say, is not even something I care to contemplate. My vocation calls me to sanctify the world first and foremost by my own sanctification and raising many saints within my home. Good solid priests are an essential part of this. I consider myself a well-informed Catholic, but I still learn more and more about the Faith from priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter. I learn more and more about myself in the confessional. These are things that most Novus priests simply are not capable of helping us with.

You are falling into the same trap as the Novus Ordo do-gooders and the Call to Action types — by thinking that you have some personaly ministry within the Church. Your “ministry” is within your home and workplace.

I’m not interested in fighting battles within the Novus Ordo parish. I’m not willing to be part of any compromise. You don’t compromise the sacred.

If the priests of Rochester are as much a bunch of women as you claim then there is no hope for them. Only real priests who are real men can turn the situation around. No amount of conservative or traditionalist participation within the local Befriender Ministry or Liturgy Committee is going to make Fr. Flapdoodle more of man and without that, he will never want any “confrontation” with the liberals, so what’s the use?

Save your soul. Save your family. Get out while you can.

Sure you are the primary educator of your children, but certainly the example set by their priests and their peers will have a great impact on them. What about the advice they get in the confessional form Fr. Flapdoodle?

Raising children is more than just the TLM. Teaching them about God goes beyond “solid sermons.” There is also compassion for fellow humans and giving of yourself to save them. My wife and I are the children’s principle teachers anyway not the priests or whoever. That is our cross to bear and to deal with

The Rochester Diocese (and most Dioceses for that matter) do not pay attention to anything that goes on with the indult mass. It is an annoyance to them, and they wish it would go away. No, they notice more what goes on with the laity as the bishop here has pinned his hopes on the laity.

Also, the Indult mass is a ghetto waiting to be wiped out. Which the bishop can do at the flick of a pen. If regular parishes start offering the TLM then he is more likely to pay attention.

Well, we’ve obviously have different strategic views of how to go about things. Godspeed in your endeavors, and the Lord’s peace be with you.

PAX

There would be those who would support the pastor, but, they would be outnumbered by the ones writting the bishop or their contacts in the chancery. The parish would become an armed camp and The pastor would not be backed up by the chancery or the bishop, Likely they would be forced to compromise with the committee or face discipline and/or reassignment to the darkest place in the diocese.

Is this the way it should be? Of course, no. But, this is way it is many parishes or diocese. You sound like you’re not in a normal parish. Praise be, and good for you. If you actually want to affect change in the Church, you are going to have to come out of the “Traditionalist Movement” bunker you’re in and going to have to embrace your fellow NO Catholic and convert them. You aren’t going to be able to do that if you insult them or show complete disdain for them as “Novus Ordarians.” Most of those folks have known nothing else than the NO. I know, because I used to be one of them.

We’re talking mission work, just as sure as going to deepest Africa in the 18th century. It’s going to be a slow and difficult fight. It’s going to be a long slow fight, and guess what, it’s going to mean playing by the rules too. As a liturgical committee you aren’t going to outlaw anything that is valid. However, you can bend things toward the way you want things to go overtime. You have to do it by actually convincing and winning people over. If you want to encourage communion on the tongue, then you make sure there are patens are used by altar servers and that there are a reduced number of Extraordinary (what a joke) Ministers of the Eucharist. You don’t eliminate EMEs but you reduce them slowly.

Notice. Slow, gradual change. Should look familiar…it’s the way the progressives changed the culture in many parishes…particularly in historically conservative parishes. If you actually get a traditionally minded Pastor, you of course can move faster with larger changes. Radical change will only result in failure and destruction.

The bottom line, is either you look at this as missionary work and evangelization, or stay in your nice safe “Traditionalist movement” ghetto. Personally, I’d rather have a hand in bringing about the revolution, than wait for the ghetto to be liquidated. It’s go time…time to follow the Holy Father into the orchards to do good works.

Pax,

–CPT Tom

We’re talking about the salvation of the souls of your family. Teaching your children what is acceptable behavior and dress at Mass. Letting them make friends with good Catholic children. Letting them hear real no-nonsense Catholic sermons from real traditional Catholic priests.

Your traveling 2 hours to attend a TLM would send a much bigger message to the powers that be in Diocese of Rochester than your tinkering around with the ladies in the parish liturgy committee.

So what’s a 2 hour drive anyway?

When your kid complains tell him - “son, this is a small price and it’s worth paying for our Catholic faith.”

The laity only think they have real power. It’s a big lie. Let the liturgy committee give a unanimous decision in favor of the congregation receiving holy communion only on the tongue and see what happens to all your power.

JSP:

The priests do not have the strength or ability to slow down a determined lay group.

Discipulus: (first paragraph should read)
I guess I am just too old for that kind of disobedience…and I’m sorry, I’m not going to drive 2 hours every Sunday just to go to an extraordinary mass. That’s how far I am away from any city (Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton) that has the TLM. This is not a good thing to do to one’s family, and i am not doing it to mine.

Discipulus:
I guess I am just too old for that kind of disobedience…and I’m sorry, I’m not going to drive 2 hours every Sunday just to go to an extraordinary mass. That’s how far I am away from all the This is not a good thing to do to one’s family, and i am not doing it to mine.

I’m sorry, I think you are missing the point of the MP. The Holy Father calls us to accept Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo. He is right, it was all badly implemented, and it was hijacked. But, it’s a legitimate rite of the Church, and it is the ordinary form for Billions of Catholics. What the Holy Father has really done is given the Traditional Movement a chance to effect real change from within the system. Take it, and be joyful. The only way to overcome is to take back the parishes. There is no way this will happen quickly considering the strength of the opposition.

I’ve never had any problems with going to certain independent priests who are “disobedient” just for offering the Traditional Mass. Now with the Motu Proprio and the Pope saying that the Mass was never abrogated—something we knew all along—those priests who resisted the Novus Ordo and continued to offer the Latin Mass have been vindicated along with all those who attended their “illicit” Masses. In looking for priests of good will on the local level and even bishops we have a chance to reinvigorate the whole Traditional Movement.