There have been some happenings in the Catholic blogosphere of late. Six weblogs of a particular variety have stopped publishing, two or three others of similar ilk may be joining them.
What do these all have in common? They are more-or-less identified as "radical traditionalists" or "radtrads" -- those who believe that Vatican II was a mistake, even heretical, and that the "New Mass" was a mistake, even heretical, certainly a major cause of the mayhem in the Catholic Church in the last forty years.* Reports of an impending "universal indult" gave them a lot to talk about, and the comboxes were filled with all the usual suspects saying all the usual things -- over and over again. One of the commenters, namely yours truly, raised a few hackles with the suggestion that this saturation of coverage on the return of the traditional form of the Roman Mass, was like an itch that they couldn't stop scratching.
(How dare I suggest that these luminaries are as subject to the human condition as the rest of us. Have I no shame???)
At some point, though, you run out of things to say, especiallly when you didn't have much to say to begin with. It would be unfair to characterize them all that way, though. Some have given us a fresh new look at some forgotten ideals, including aspects of dating, courtship, conduct within marriage. It is possible that some customs which transcended several centuries and diverse cultures had staying power for a reason, and were discarded too quickly. It is said that much of what Western civilization has brought to the world -- from the Gregorian calendar, to double-digit accounting -- is owed to Catholicism. To wit, there is more yet to be written. There are plans here at mwbh to highlight some of those issues in the coming weeks.
The problem at this end lately, is not a lack of things to say, but a lack of time in which to say them well. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to visit Dom. All the really cool people go there. Stay tuned...
+ + +
* Since the "mayhem" actually preceeded the Council by several decades, and only came out in the open alongside a revolution in the popular culture with a life of its own, and is largely confined to North America and Western Europe, the latter claim is a bit of a stretch. Alas, it all happened before most of them were born. That would explain what makes them experts on the subject, n'est ce pas?
3 comments:
I really doubt the accuracy of sayng the mayhem preceeded thecouncil for several decades.I think there must have been some foundational weakness in order for everything to collapse all of a sudden,but I would not consider it mayhem for ,,whatever there was it was hidden.The Church in this country was for the most part vibrant atleast in Detroit it was.It was a very happy time.
If there wasn't "mayhem" why did Vatican Council do the things they did?
Things were pretty hunky-dory in Cincinnati too, from what I remember. But even by the 1940s, students at the local seminary were not above hearing an occasional off-the-wall pet theory. My father would know, since he was there. The late Dr William Marra was around then too, and wasn't reluctant to describe what was fermenting in the theology and philosophy departments of seminaries and Catholic universities even before teh 1950s.
There wasn't mayhem in the parishes until its proponents until the 1960s, by which time the bearers of Modernity's fruits were in place. You know the rest.
Post a Comment