The Catholic Fringe Unraveling On Both Selvages, and Overplaying One's Hand

A bit of hubbub of late over some ordained persons' calling out of some unordained persons, in some cases by name, (one of said ordained persons being in the habit of threatening unordained persons with civil lawsuits,) following the unordained persons having called out other ordained persons by name, some consecrated persons by name, and even, in several cases, an installed person whose name is... well, known to virtually the entire world.
Some of all of this is deserved, other instances are unfair, some of it is bullying and clericalist, some of it is barking mad.
Hardly is anyone in these wars ever 100% wrong, there are often good reasons, up to a point, and very often, perhaps usually, good intentions. (We must assume that last, until the assumption is proved wrong.)
Even the ill-intentioned will begin with the reasonable and kind and inarguable.
Sometimes people give themselves away, of course, frequently by overplaying a hand,
Ah ha, the observer says to himself, I was with you up till now, you first point was undeniable and laudable but I see now that that was merely a set-up to this balderdash, an attempt to lull us into amiability so you could sneak in some poppycock.
Man cannot keep himself from Going Too Far.
Been discussing the failed 1998 translation a great deal with a friend lately,
While I admit there are some clunky moments in the one in use today, I overall drastically prefer it to the rejected one.
But there are other words and phrases spurned by TPTB that I would have endorsed, and more, endorsed the agenda behind them - but the reformers, as so often, went too far.
They knew, they had to know, that eventually, when push came to shove the Catholic Church was not going to allow the Anglophone Catholic Church, no matter how many of us like to think of ourselves as an autonomous sect, NOT to say, "I believe," and "and with your spirit," and "for you and for... many," (I actually think they could have sneaked that one in with "THE many.") Perhaps not on this go 'round, but eventually, and couldn't we finally have a few decades of liturgical calm now?
(Oh, and for the record, sometimes clunky is waaaaaaay better than curt.)
I digress.
Anyway, the Rad-Trad fringe has a lot of right on its side, and honest, it is possible to decry the feminization of ministry, and see it as a wedge issue for the impossibility that looms so large in the spiralist agenda*, the ordination of women, without despising women. (I promise you, I am not a self-hating gyno-American.)
But likewise, it would be easier to believe die-hard traditionalists oppose women in Holy Orders on loving theological grounds is so many of them did not openly display such contempt for women. Protestations that no, of course not, women are not held in less regard by the Church would be so much more credible if Aquinas hadn't said we were “deficiens et occasionatus”, if so many functions besides the confection of the Eucharist were not reserved to priests, and oh, yeah, the priesthood is reserved to men.

A contributing factor in the social recognition of the role of women is a greater appreciation of their responsibilities in the Church: their involvement in decision-making, their participation in the administration of some institutions and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.

Well, yeah.... it could be.
And it could have been.
For centuries.
And the longer it took the Church, it still takes Her, to come 'round, the harder it is to believe that Her denial of the presbyterate to women isn't just part and parcel of Her denigrations and ignoring of other charisms woman might have to offer Her and all of mankind.
Anyway, among the much criticized bloggers, there's a fellow who in a newish thread is arguing against "sacramental trans-genderism,"
Good for him, good turn of phrase, and he's right, mostly.
But he can't let a side comment go without answering it with this stupidity:

universal suffrage was one of the worst ideas in human history. Personally, I'm all for head of household landowners being the only ones allowed to vote. They have the most skin in the game.

That's right.
Not everyone who is entitled to vote knows what he's dong, so let's limit it.
Oooh. Interesting.
How?
I.Q. test?
Determining the potential voter's logical acuity or moral fiber?
No.
By wealth and ownership of material goods.
And he caps it off with the inanity about "skin in the game."
Um, no. LITERALLY wrong.
His ideal voter may have capital staked, he may have money on the game, but we each of us, literally, have one, our own, skin in the game.
His idea is as contemptible as the idiot's in the UK who think young people's votes should count more than that of their elders in the BREXIT referendum, since they'll probably live longer with the consequences.
-------
(*Those who hold it might prefer the phrase "progressive agenda," but it aint' progress when you're going around in circles.

"That's Why the Lady is a Trad"

I have been laboring under, (or more accurately, "idling" under, since I am lazy and my time is my own,) awful insomnia.
A lot of it is, I think, due to a very minor medical condition, which I can feel.
When I am mentally or physically occupied, it is irrelevant, it certinaly isn't pain, doesn't even rise to the level of irritation.
So I don't notice it most of the day, but lying in bed trying to empty my mind for sleep, it becomes almost all I can think of, I am acutely aware of it.

Not important, but the strangest things come into my thoughts unbidden - a song parody, or two verses anyway, just popped into my head last night, fully realized.
(Of course, I'm not a Trad, albeit I could be described as a Fellow Trad-eller, perhaps?)

She gets too hungry for aftenoon Mass,
'Cause she thinks midnight's when one starts to fast.
She's on the prowl for a good Latin class,
          That's why the lady is a Trad.

She blisses out to a Josquin motet.
She  has no truck with a pulp missallette.
A Mass too solemn? She ain't found it yet,
           That's why.....

Maybe I'll write a bridge if sleep eludes me tonight.

Ad Orientem and College-ruled Notebook Paper

I've been hearing of more and more parishes, more and more priests that are tentatively attempting a move toward worship ad orientem. And their are some sound reasons behind it, and advantages to it.

1. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is experienced as having a theocentric direction and focus.
2. The faithful are spared the tiresome clerocentrism that has so overtaken the celebration of Holy Mass in the past forty years.
3. It has once again become evident that the Canon of the Mass (Prex Eucharistica) is addressed to the Father, by the priest, in the name of all.
4. The sacrificial character of the Mass is wonderfully expressed and affirmed.
5. Almost imperceptibly one discovers the rightness of praying silently at certain moments, of reciting certain parts of the Mass softly, and of cantillating others.
6. It affords the priest celebrant the boon of a holy modesty.
7. I find myself more and more identified with Christ, Eternal High Priest and Hostia perpetua, in the liturgy of the heavenly sanctuary, beyond the veil, before the Face of the Father.
8. During the Canon of the Mass I am graced with a profound recollection.
9. The people have become more reverent in their demeanour.
10. The entire celebration of Holy Mass has gained in reverence, attention, and devotion.

 I know there are those who consider it a shibboleth that some Trads, or crypto-Trads make too much of, but here's the way I think of it:
Is it necessary?
No.
It is possible, to take on that list of rationales, for the people to remember that God is the center of the Mass; the priest to subsume his personality, to make it clear the Father is being addressed, to convey the reality of the Sacrifice, and to modulate his volume appropriately and meaningfully; and for all to be reverent and recollected; in a Mass celebrated versus populum.

Yes.

It is possible.

But how frequently none of that occurs! You may say not all that often, (I would argue with you, but you may,) but even once is far too many times!

The ad orientem posture of the priest is a tool that can help all that happen.

If perfection has not been reached, WHY WOULD YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELVES OF THAT TOOL????

 I cannot write a line of text without ruled paper without drifting up or meandering to the lower edge of the sheet.
Why would I want to do away with lined paper?

Do you paint, sew, bake, do carpentry? Some people can eyeball things, but most of us need to measure. What shame is there in that?

Because there are those rare actors who, sans costume, sans make-up, sans sets and lighting can BECOME SOMEONE ELSE, and not just transfix their audience but TRANSPORT them, to another place, another time - shall we do away with all the accoutrements of theatre?
Where does that leave the actors who are not Ralph Richardson, or Magda Olivero, or Anthony Hopkins? (Not to mention their audiences.)

Because my great-aunt Gen could feed a veritable banquet to a family of two dozen with a few cans, a loaf of bread, a wood stove, and a rare sort of genius, shall we sneer at those who need fresh food and a modern kitchen to even achieve "palatable"?

Yes, all the advantages derived from ad orientem can be achieved without.

But I have yet to learn of any advantage to versus populum.

Is there one?

"Well, I Read It On the Internet, So It Must Be....."

I have heard over and over, from many people, that in the olden days, (that's right, during which I was alive,) many, many Catholics -- mostly lay people, but some priests, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn some bishops could be included in this group -- got their ecclesiastical news from the secular media.

"Time Magazine says that Vatican Two ordered us to..."

"The Star Ledger says Pope John XXIII wants us to..."

"According to the Gazette-Journal, Catholics no longer have to...."

"From now on, it said on WCBS, Catholics don't believe...."

"A guy on the radio said that from now on Catholics are allowed to..."

I don't think anyone would deny this led to a great deal of confusion, and the dissemination of disinformation, and some bald untruths -- utter, agenda-driven LIES that "everybody knows" to be "true."

And I wouldn't say it was the fault of media or of the Church structure itself, since the Church was used to moving slowly, and there was a protocol to who needed to be informed and in what order that information was to come, that was not always observed or even known by people in the press, (this was taken advantage of by the unscrupulous fringes of the Church, but I digress.)

It isn't only in matters ecclesiastical that such protocols obtain.
I remember standing in my Mother-in-law's kitchen, having just told her that we were going to be married, when I hung up the phone Himself was trying to dial, (no, not really "dial", but push buttons,) with a very firm, No. I don't care who you're trying to call, sibs, or ex-wife, or best friend, but not before I get my Mom on the phone to give HER the news.

So, is the Catholic Church reliving the sixties?

I mean, it seems unlikely, in this day and age of instant communication, but can it be that the Holy Father's letter regarding, no, revealing his indulgences for the Year of Mercy was so off-the-cuff that,

"a question also arises as to why there was not a direct communication to the SSPX. The communique from the SSPX indicates that they only learned about it via the press. Generally, grants of faculty are communicated directly to the cleric to whom the faculty is being granted or to the cleric’s superior where appropriate." [emphasis added.]

I get that canon law and that kind of thing has changed since the Holy Father studied for the priesthood, but, um... isn't that the reason why people in positions of ENORMOUS authority and influence and responsibility have advisors?