To be deep in history is to cease to be angry
Surveying the Catholic blogosphere, one cannot help but notice that one of the more common attributes of many Catholic bloggers is that they are angry. Whether it is directed at bishops, President Obama, the mainstream media, Hollywood, liturgical innovators or heterodox-leaning parish priests, anger is all too prevalent. I think one of the main reasons Catholics so easily fall into anger is that they are not, to use Newman’s phrase, “deep in history.”
But wait a minute, you might say, what about the hard-core traditionalists? They practically live in history, yet they are the angriest of all Catholics. I would argue that they are not truly deep in history; instead, they only see a caricature of a specific time and place in history, such as a Roman Catholic parish in 1954 Kansas. This is not being historical in the true sense, but instead nostalgic for an era that never really existed and had its own flaws which they now gloss over.
Personally, I have always enjoyed reading history, and after my conversion to Catholicism over 17 years ago, my historical reading shifted into a deeper reading of Church history, both East and West, as well as Catholic and Protestant. One of my main conclusions of all this reading is: boy, the doctrine of Original Sin really does get proven in every generation. There has never been a time in which members of the Church have not been full of avarice, lust, pride and gluttony. There has also never been a time in which at least some members of the Church have not been persecuted for their faith. Yet the Faith has endured, saints have been produced, and God’s grace continues to be poured onto the world. Even man’s best efforts to destroy the Church have done little to slow down its march to eternity.
Being deep in history thus changes one’s perspective: you see the problems of today in light of past problems. When the local parish priest does something a bit loopy, you remember that in Middle Ages Russia, most parish priests were illiterate alcoholics who stumbled through the liturgy and didn’t know even the basics of Christian theology. When Hollywood produces (yet another) anti-Catholic film, you remember the terrible persecutions that Christians of past ages (and even today) have endured to pass on the faith. When President Obama proposes legislation that goes against the Catholic Faith, you recall the times in history in which temporal power was abused even by Churchmen.
Ultimately, the Catholic who is very angry is a Catholic who is full of fear. He sees what is going on around him and he fears that God cannot overcome it. He fears that perhaps it is possible that our sins really will rule the day and that the gates of hell will in fact overcome the Church. Yet the more one surveys history, the more one sees that no matter how terrible man can be (and terrible indeed he can be), God is still at work in the world and He cannot be overcome. The Church endures, saints still live in the world, and the Gospel is still preached to the ends of the earth. There is absolutely no reason to fear, as we have already read the end of the book and we know that God wins.
All this is not to say that we should not resist evil; on the contrary, we are called as disciples of Jesus to proclaim the Gospel even when the world attacks it. Yet we can do so with a joyful spirit, because we know who the Victor is. Let us therefore follow the advice of St. Paul:
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:29-32)
This is an insult to people who work very hard every day to return Catholic liturgy to its traditional roots.
Just because we are assured of God’s ultimate victory does not absolve us of the responsibility to work as his gardeners in the here and now.
The liturgy is the source and summit of the Christian life, according to the Second Vatican Council. And don’t forget that “the law of prayer is the law of belief.” If you screw up liturgy, you’ve infected the whole Church with a cancer. If you get liturgy right, you’re going to make some truly wonderful things possible. It’s that simple.
To blithely look down from an ivory tower on people doing God’s work is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.
Hooray! You’ve nailed it. I often use a ‘nom de blog’ because I work for the church and I don’t want my contrarian voice identified on blogs.
But you are so, so right. (As in correct.) I majored in church history, and have continued to study it. I also remember the ‘before times’ – life before the changes of the Council. I get, by turns, exasperated and bemused when people who weren’t even alive then tell me what it was like and how it was so much more faithful.
Pssh! If you think a whole church of people doing their own thing, wandering in and out, men on the steps smoking, many, if not most, coming in before the Gospel and leaving at communion, is better than most parish masses today, then you have a sadly deficient idea of the liturgy.
Not defending priests as Barney, clown ministry, disco or hip hop, or even ‘Mr. Saturday Night’ with the microphone thinking the homily is his stand up routine. All of that makes me nuts, too.
But that isn’t usual and you can find an alternative readily, even if it is the NO, straight up, no music.
Those without an historical imagination will be doomed to a sterile attempt at nostalgia. And that isn’t what a living tradition is about.
“those who listen”, how far does that go?
Rellis,
Thank you for that scintillating example of exactly what Eric was talking about. (a) you sound bloody furious, and (b) you imagine that anyone who isn’t supporting your ideas must be belittling them.
My dear man, can you quote a single word from Eric’s post that trivialises good liturgy? All he did was to imply that liturgy isn’t the only issue in life, and you blow your top! I agree liturgy is a big deal, I’ve been saying for decades that the modern liturgy is utterly ghastly. I’ve been alienated for saying so.
I want to be on your side, and I suggest that you take a deep breath, count to ten, and click this link Chaput
That’s a modern Archbishop. Praising an anti Islam poem that has lines like “gun upon gun, ha, ha! gun upon gun, hurrah!”
Is that the language of someone who kow-tows to every creed but his own?
Get you head out of the 1970′s, Rellis. Things are different now.
Rellis,
I never called on anyone to abandon their responsibilities; in fact, I explicitly state “All this is not to say that we should not resist evil; on the contrary, we are called as disciples of Jesus to proclaim the Gospel even when the world attacks it.”
Furthermore, you presume to think that I do not support a more traditional Mass, but your presumption is inaccurate. I am currently helping my own parish priest in implementing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at our parish, because I believe – along with Pope Benedict – that offering this Form of the Mass will return some reverence that has been lost over the past four decades.
However, that does not mean that I let anger consume me about the deficiencies of the past 40 years, nor do I think all was perfect before Vatican II or that Vatican II didn’t help the Church in many ways. By reading history, I have seen how there is usually much turmoil after a Council, but eventually by God’s grace it gets worked out. I have faith that the same will happen in our own times.
What I don’t entirely understand is why the fact that there has always been something to be angry about means I shouldn’t be angry now?
Man A: I’m angry because my wife was raped.
Man B: But women have been getting raped for years.
Man A: Oh, that makes me feel much better…
James,
Do you think St. Paul had anything to be angry about? After all, when he wrote Ephesians he was living under one of the worst emperors of all time and he had to deal with a very powerful group of heretics, the Judaizers, within the Church. Yet he tells us to not be angry or bitter. Why is that? Because St. Paul recognized that yes, this world is fallen, but God is in control and the evil men do cannot overwhelm the work of God in this world.
Thanks, Eric. I’m inclined to agree with you. Especially the point that we can easily get nostalgic for some supposed “good ol’ days” when the Church was perfectly lived by her members. (Not!)
I am one of those who is too young to have experienced anything pre-VII so that nostalgia will never be a motivator for me or my peers. But taking in the whole 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition, to be deep in history in other words, is something all generations can access in order to form a common purpose: to strive for a sense of “guarding the deposit” to include protecting the celebration of the liturgy against modernist influences of each age.
Another hit job to happy and peaceful Catholics who practice their faith correctly with deep abiding joy.
Shame on you.
It’s not enough that Mark Shea and Patrick Madrid slander orthodox Catholics, apparently it’s become acceptable to do so without understanding where we are coming from.
It seems that you are the one that is angry with those that follow the teachings of Christ.
That was a great post, Eric. I’m a little surprised at some of the responses.
Great post, Eric! I agree most whole-heartedly that there is a certain peace that comes with taking the broader perspective and remembering that God is in control.
I do not actually lurk on the blogs you mention, so I can’t speak to that in particular. I think one can certainly have a passionate commitment to the Faith and express strong disagreement that presses the debate (whether it be on liturgy or a policy issue or whatever) forward in a productive way. And I admire people who have the strength of their convictions to really stand up for what they believe is right. What concerns me is the level of bitterness in the conversation this country is having on (pick any topic.) Again, I can’t speak to the blogs you mention, but my experience is that the level of animosity expressed in a conversation is inversely proportional to the ability of the participants to really understand eachother’s viewpoint.
I think you confuse righteous anger with the anger of pride, which is a sin. Both are found in the blogosphere, to be sure.
I started my blog because of my frustration of my pastor not giving permission for a pro-life group in my former parish. I needed to speak the truth somewhere, and the normal channels in the diocese were occupied by ‘spirit of Vatican II people’. So I found an outlet. I try to remind frustrated readers of God’s sovereignty (see my post today where I share my struggle over Obama the abortion supporter getting the Nobel Prize, I invite my readers to pray).
Anger, however, has it’s place. Jesus was angry at the moneychangers in the Temple, and wreaked havoc upon them, certainly He knew Who won in the end.
We do too, we just want to help Our Lord clean up the place a bit before the final fireworks begin. And save a few souls in the meantime.
Well I remember the pre-Vat.II days. Smoking out the sermon on the front steps and leaving right after Holy Communion were not in rampant practice–and whenever done so, disapproving mention issued from the pulpit. What goes on today, and goes on unchecked, in most Catholic places of worship requires something stronger than complacency and lack of ire. Anger, serves good purposes, too. The permissive-ism of the past 40 years has inflicted great, great harm on all our institutions: government, school, entertainment, family, and church. One might even assert that there has not been enough anger. But, hey, you’re okay, and I’m okay!
Thank you Leticia, you are much more eloquent than I am in expressing this difference.
If there’s injustice in the Church (which there is, especially against those who favor a faithful implementation of the Church’s liturgical rules), people have a duty to fight against it.
Being assertive is not the same as being “angry.”
Weird how, wherever I go, there’s Tito Edward obsessing about me and dragging my name into conversations that I have nothing whatever to do with.
Rellis,
That is exactly the point. Eric never said that by being assertive you are being angry, and yet you attacked his blog. Seemed kind of angry to me.
About St Paul telling people not to be angry: In last Sunday’s Extraordinary Rite epistle: “Be angry and sin not.” the context : being angry at the sins of other but forgiving when they repent. WHEN THEY REPENT. Thus we imitate God.
Topic of the sermon.
Clare
Painting all “traditionalists” with such a broad and highly insulting brush is a sure sign of , well, let’s call it … animosity; not to mention arrogance and ignorance. In the “traditionalist” circles I have wandered through, anyone who shows signs of merely being nostalgiac for a time that all “traditionalists” know darn well never existed (the way you paint it), is immediately called out with charity (usually) and presented with, alas, solid history. The defining characteristics of all “traditionalists” that I have been blessed to come across are love for Holy Mother Church and reverance for the Eucharist (and among most, an astonishingly deep knowledge of history, inside and outside of the Church). Apart from that, if you look around at all the angry, nostalgiac “traditionalists” with an honest, open and objective mind, you will actually find as many stripes and shades and differences of approach, opinion, and attitude as there are moments of history. God bless you.
How can I be nostalgic for a past if I’ve never had it? No, I desire what traditionalism has shown me here and now. This has nothing to do with history.
Say it loud , say it proud I am angry Trad. I drink for breakfast and eat it for dinner and sometimes just sometimes I let the NO crowd have it. Ex. while waiting for confession the long hair guitar player preparing for 5 on clock Mass, showed zero respect for the Blessed Sacrament by walking back and forth across the altar without even giving a slight bow. I let him know about it. I love it when ex-Prods tell us faithful Catholics whats wrong with us, listen Eric we Trads got it right the first time, we did not have to be “born again”
There’s a difference between anger and righteous anger.
I think being upset about people eating the Eucharist from their hands is legitimate righteous anger. It is considered heresy by the Church. Still is officially as far as I know, they just don’t say anything because they don’t want to scare off the Protestants-at-heart that fill their pews every Sunday. While Vatican II was hardly wholly bad, they have made a lot of compromises that have upset me. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, ya know.
I’m glad you converted to Catholicism, Mr. Sammons. But I’m not happy that you were converted to a watered-down, liberalized version of the Truth. Fact is, the Church thinks they’re saving more people by trying to breakdown potential barriers Protestants have. But in actuality, the Catholic Church is becoming less Catholic and therefore endangering everyone.
While your salvation is important, Mr. Sammons … I don’t support it at the expense of killing the Church.
Hey, Eric, I’ve got to comment so you don’t think I’m that other Clare. Who let another Clare in here? Just kidding.
My experience is that Traditionalists tend to be grouchy and these comments are great evidence of that.
OK, just kidding again. I think what these comments really prove is that Traditionalists don’t read blog posts carefully. You guys wanna go back and actually read what Eric said? Because you seem to be commenting on stuff he never wrote.
It’s Church milquetoast creating strawman arguments against Church Militant.
The number of non-sequiturs in the article is astounding.
1) Anger is not necessarily the result of fear. It is often righteous anger.
2) One’s knowledge of history does not necessarily create peace. It can also inspire one to speak out and allow righteous anger it’s voice by imitating the great heroes of the Church who spoke out and were not afraid.
3) Joy and Anger are not mutually exclusive. The Knights of St. John against the Muslim hordes, St. Jerome, all the way to Padre Pio have shown us that a person who has a temper can use it for God’s glory and be joyful, angry and not some giddy polly-anna.
4) Using history as a palliative drug to inspire inaction is not Catholic.
5) History is full of Catholics, fired with righteous fury fighting for their Church in order to save their souls. Why are Catholics of today so much wiser and therefore exempt from standing up to defend Christ and His Angels? To act as if God will let you lay it all on him is a slothful view of the Church and carries with it the Protestant germ of once-saved always saved. It’s full of presumption.
6) The accusation that Traditionalists appeal to a caricature of the 1950′s is a caricature as well as your caricature of Church History.
Im 21 there is no nostalgia.
“Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.” St Augustine.
If our Blessed Lord was allowed to be angry with the money changers in the temple perhaps that should tell you about how he feels about his house of prayer turning into a den of thieves?
To the other Clare I apologize for having her name; but it was chosen for me before I realized it. I did not realize another Clare posted. I will now sign “the other Clare.”
I misspoke: The passage I cited: Be angry and do not sin is Ephesians 4:26 is going to be this coming Sunday’s sermon. 19th Sunday after Pentecost in the EF.
That passage is only a few verses before the passage of St Paul cited in the original blog – so I am speaking to the blog. The proper interpretation is that anger directed at the sin is an obligation on all Catholics particularly when the sinner is a Catholic. Anger directed at the person becomes malice and is a sin. When the person repents, the Catholic forgives and drops the anger. One sins against anger by being angry when one shouldn’t be (usually when the self is offended); by not being angry when one should be (usually when God or a third party suffered offense or injustice); and by the degree of anger – of being too angry or not angry enough.
There is a prejudice against “traditionalists” without a definition of the term on this blog. (I will not list the various times the term is used in a negative connotation.) Every Catholic has to be a traditionalist. I believe in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We don’t say and “Constantinian Church” nor do we say “Vatican II Church.” If you mean either of those terms, then you don’t believe in the “Apostolic Church” and are dissimulating when you recite either the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed. The pope speaks of the hermeneutic of continuity. That is what he is speaking about so he is speaking of Catholics being traditionalists.
The other Clare.
When Cardinal Newman said to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant, he was recommending an intellectual cure (knowledge) for an intellectual disorder (lack of context).
The cure for wrath, which is sinful, is to be deep in mystical union with Christ. Wrath, unlike anger, can’t be managed, because it is a disease of the will, and any cure will have to rehabilitate the will’s fortitude against the sin.
Looking at the bigger picture can be a good way to manage (sometimes into extinction) anger.
As a final point, I know a parish priest who makes snide remarks about the Pope, the local bishop, and parishoners who disagree with him. I’d say that indicates some serious anger. He also takes great liberties with the liturgy and describes himself as someone who wishes to open the Church up to gays, lesbians, the divorced and remarried, women who wish to be ordained, etc.
Pointing out that there’s anger among those who wish for liturgical restoration is like pointing out that they don’t always give up a church parking space when they see that one of their fellow parishoners wants it just as badly. Yes, it happens, but so what?
Oops, didn’t tie those paragraphs together well. My point was that, yes, looking at the bigger picture can be a good way to manage anger. I don’t think that this truth applies especially to traditionalists, though, as your post suggests. It’s a point that with catholic, universal application.
Interesting confluence of perspectives between this blog and this blog linked at the Remnant;
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-06-012-v
“Unhappy Fault”
(Leon J. Podles on the Integration of Anger into the Virtuous Life)
I’m 22 years old, and I found the TLM on my own. I don’t care for the 1950s, as that time was a time in which the Church was lax in Her disciplines. People then had a rather sentimental view of the Faith. This is part of the reason the Church suffered so extensively during and after the Second Vatican Council.
Mr. Shea brought it on him self although I am puzzled with the quote against Mr. Madrid.
Though I consider Mr. Shea an orthodox Catholic and an excellent witness for Christ’s Holly Church his views on the Liturgy are troubling at best.
I am not one of the angry trads but I am a trad. I grew up with the Novus Ordo as I was born long after VII however when I discovered the Tridentine Mass I felt cheated. I am not angry but to the rest of those that saw their Church being dismantled from the inside don’t they have the right to be a little angry? I am sorry but it seems to me that people are being unfair to trads by telling them “just get over it.”
It is obvious that the Liturgy in the Church is in shambles the monstrosities that we call churches are an insult to God. When you compare the faith of those before the council poor Catholic immigrants that build St. Paul’s Cathedral in Minnesota to the abomination of the largest diocese in the United States that of Los Angeles and that thing planned and constructed by one of the worst Cardinals of all time which to say the least is the perfect example of the VII Bishop. You can see the difference, Can’t you?
Comparing the sacred Liturgy to wearing an old pair of shoes?
Mark, Mr Sammons please see what we see pre- VII you have St. Paul’s Cathedral, post – VII you have the Taj-Mahoney.
I am not saying VII is to blame however you have to see that many things that happened after VII were taken to an extreme that has broken with the letter of the Council. It is amazing how bad things are, how little respect and reverence there is in our Churches.
Aside from that look at the damage inflicted in our other senses look at our Cathedrals at the butchery, wreckovations and gutting jobs too many examples to mention just a few, Diocese of Detroit, Rochester, Toledo. These are crimes.
You might want to check this out, as Lee Podles would probably disagree quite vehemently with the grade-school analysis…not to mention the triumphalist cheerleading or the rather foolish, reductionist assumption that anger all has one root:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-06-012-v
Notre Dame. Ted Kennedy’s public funeral where the message to all was that you can publicly dissent from Church teaching and receive lauds. Raymond Arroyo’s blog on TK’s funeral and Fr Tom Rosica’s acid reply. Parishes like my own where in the last eight years we have endured sloppy indifferent liturgy and homilies filled with error and heresy. These are realities in our Catholic world in 2009.
Yer damn right I’m angry – it is righteous anger that the people of God – my friends, neighbors and countrymen are being taught error – and many bishops in power seem unwilling to address these things which leave so many of us Catholics in pain. History schmistory. Yes we can, and should, learn from it – but these are our times – and we have unique battles to fight.
The “angry trad”. A sorry caricature about 20 years out of date. The trad movement is a joyful movement full of young people and young families with a huge number of children. Many of us started in the N.O. and left. We are growing at a fantastic rate. Catholics leave the Novus Ordo to become Trads. Trads never leave to join the N.O.
Yes, please continue in your little safe world of tired old boomers and hippies, throwing your darts, while we quietly grow and take over. We are the future. We patiently wait our turn as N.O. church after N.O. church closes down, and the old hippy priests shuffle off to the nursing homes or go to prison for their homosexual molestation felonies. Meanwhile we keep growing. You all contracepted yourselves to death. Good bye.
It is a very popular notion in “pop psychology” to say that “anger arises out of fear” or in another version, that “anger is a sign of insecurity.”
All those angry rebellions in history-did they arise out of fear or out of “being pushed too far?”. What about anger arising out of a sense of injustice? Anger arising out of witnessing great wrongs? Anger arising out of being abused? I am afraid (ha ha) that Eric’s argument is a bit of a cheap shot and avoids the real issue. At least the so-called angry “trads” are honest.
I agree with Mr Sammons, you definately need a context, ie a grounding in the history of the Church, to help you see the big picture of the drama of salvation and to keep one from abadoning the faith…
Any serious Catholic that has lived these past 40 years can’t help but see the disintegration of the Church. Also a case could truly be made to claim that this period is the worst Church crisis in Her history.
If this doesn’t cause anger bred of frustration, I don’t know what could. I have family members that are angry at the church and as a result at life, because in their youth they believed and then when they needed the support of the Church she abandoned them by no longer offering clear leadership and pure doctrine.
What about Our Lord? At least in the past, the rules and ritual maintained the principle that Our Lord deserves our best. Now the idea is well he can take care of Himself…. Certainly He can, but our effort shows our love.
Show some Christian tolerance and understand if some people shoot their mouths off or get ticked off at their slack bishops or innaction. Their sufferings earn them this toleration.
I’m a weasel for calling out Mark Shea and Patrick Madrid like that.
I apologize for bringing them into the discussion as I did.
Tito
Tito:
Don’t worry about it. And please understand that I don’t regard all people who prefer older forms of piety as Rad Trads. My son, after all, is among them. I simply object to those Trads for whom rage is more important than the Faith. I know plenty of self-described Traditionalists who are a joy to know, a great witness to our Lord and a pleasure to call “friend”.
All that you say seems true on the surface, sir, but you are missing the point badly.
It is the nature of blogs as a medium that they tend to drastically overrepresent the angry side of any issue. This is as true of traditional Catholics as it is of Mormons, Hasidic Jews. gays and lesbians, transsexuals, deaf people, the disabled, vegetarians, trade unionists, and for all I know doily tatters.
Blogs present the classic problem of low or zero barrier to entry into a debate: where there is low barrier to entry, discussions tend to become filled with impulsive, unreasoned speech, as such speech tends (1) to be produced much more quickly and frequently than reasoned, thoughtful discussion; (2) the sheer volume of poorly-reasoned, emotional speech drowns out more intelligent, sensitive speech; and (3) over time, the unpleasant and closed tone of the debate tends to drive thoughtful contributors out, in frustration and despair.
So while it certainly seems true that traditional Catholic blogs tend to be angry, that effect is probably more due to the nature of the medium than to the nature of traditional Catholics, and therefore says more about the medium.
Consider: is a person whose inner life is deeply committed to Christ in peace and contemplation likely to be firing off blog posts left and right? I suggest that the answer to that question is likely to be “no”; such a person will generally place a higher value on faith and works than on ardent (and, I believe, sanctimonious) public displays of faith. (They do have their reward, don’t they?)
Sammons, you are out of touch, and don’t know what you’re talking about!
Unfortunately, most converts to the Catholic Church from the evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant denominations bring along with them a baggage containing their nostalgic protestant sentiments: they are still “protestants” at heart, protesting this or protesting that Catholic thing that they find fault with. Let me say, leave that excess baggage at home, you don’t have any use for it in the Catholic Church. Don’t remain imprisoned in your protestant cell but try to become fully Catholic and completely embrace the Catholic ethos.
Hmmm… ok, being consumed with anger over everything to the point of not being able to see the good in the Church and in the world is not good.
But is it wrong to be angry, up to a point? Didn’t St. Thomas argue that the absence of ability to be angered over evil is a defect?
And I suppose St. Paul never got angry? Er, what was it he told the Galatians? I seem to recall it was something in the vein of “O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth…?” And there were also some pretty harsh words that fell about St. Peter when he plactated the judaizers.
And if you want to see vitriol that is even worse than what you see from trads these days, I recommend St. Jerome. In fact, virtually all the Fathers routinely pounded their adversaries with harsh, vitriolic, even hateful statements. It was the way to go about oratory those days. And need I remind of St. Athanasius’ actually physically assaulting the heretic Arius?
I’m not saying it’s particularly praiseworthy to use such tactics. But compared to the egregious assaults upon the Church emanating from our own heterodox pastors these days, the fact that sometimes some people show a little excessive anger is really of very secondary importance.
This is a wonderful post. I am often reminded of the statement by Solomon in Ecclesiates:
All speech is labored; there is nothing man can say. The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor is the ear filled with hearing.
What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun.
Even the thing of which we say, “See, this is new!” has already existed in the ages that preceded us.
There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them.
It’s so easy for us to confabulate even things in our own memories. Things which we lived through and experienced can be easily idealized and remembered not exactly as they were. We all want to believe that we can make things happen exactly as we want. But truly, we are all sheep. In the midst of an imperfect world and an imperfect Church, God is still perfect. No need to be angry even as one works to make things better. Anger only eats you out from the inside, especially prolonged anger. That’s why Paul tells us not be angry. It’s bad for us. And though Jesus became angry in certain situations, It was never the mark of his character. He was not described as an angry person.
I appreciate your insight. I think you are right on the mark.
Mr Sammons,
The comments in this thread prove the point you were making. You seem to have hit a nerve.
Of course he has this is after all a discussion the Liturgy. I would say that this is the Catholic Church’s third rail.
What is interesting is that my post isn’t even about the liturgy. I wasn’t thinking of the liturgy primarily when I wrote this post, and I barely mention it. In fact, I am very supportive of efforts to extend the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
But people saw me write against the danger of living in a constant state of anger, and they got angry because they assumed I was somehow attacking the traditional Mass. An ironic assumption, I would say…
So it goes.
I know what Eric is talking about. I’ve witnessed it on countless blogs as well. It baffles me. Being angry is one thing. But the anger always seems to be expressed in accusations and recriminations. Traditionalists, what is your goal? To win over the N.O. crowd? How is telling someone they are committing heresy; that they lack respect; that they do not love Christ or the Church as much as you – for doing what they were taught by the Church – going to win them over? Righteous anger? When was Christ’s anger not directed at hypocrisy? (I’ll just sidestep the question of whether laity have the same rights in proclaiming judgment as Christ, m’kay). Not doing something because you do not know to do it, is not hypocrisy. Worshiping in a way that you do not agree with is not hypocrisy. I do not know of a single instance of Christ being angry with someone for sincerely trying to do the best they can.
Oh, but it’s much more than the people, the Church in this country is in a shambles, right? Every pope that has visited has condemned this country as a nest of wrongdoing, correct? (actually, the US is consistently lauded). All problems with/for laity began on the very day that N.O. was instituted, and could not possibly have anything to do with the absence of Catholic schools and catechesis? Yes, you’re angry… but are you certain of who (or what) you are angry with?
For the record, I attend the Forma Extraordinaria in my area, when it is offered. I can claim likes, and frustrations, with both forms of mass, and am ambivalent to the need for one to prevail over the other. (In fact, I believe such arguments gloss over more serious problems.) But traditionalists, there is an old saying involving flies, honey, and vinegar. If you tone down the righteous anger, and crank up the love for your *fellow* Catholic (no, you cannot disown them, sorry), you may have more fruitful discussions. When you post that receiving in the hand is heresy, and they post questions about papal approval through pontifical indults, try following up with answers. When they ask about St. Cyril, maybe this is something that shouldn’t be ignored. But when you answer, above all, no matter how much you wax poetic on the virtues of your preferred form of worship, if others cannot see the peace, teachings, and most importantly, the love of Christ exemplified in your posts, what reason will they have to listen to your message?
What’s weird about this article is that anger is a fairly prominent characteristic of a whole bunch of Fathers and Doctors of the Church. They weren’t angry out of a fear that the gates of hell would triumph. Their anger was because people were attacking the Faith, which means an attack on God. Their fear, when it was there, was that souls were being lost because of sin and heresy. When Paul is writing to the Corinthians, does he sound happy about their abuses?
It’s also weird to see such a point being made without even properly defining the subject. Who are these “traditionalists” that are so enraged and basically in despair without even knowing it? We don’t know, except that they get mad when the priest does something crazy, anti-Catholic films are released, or the President promotes immoral legislation. In all charity, these are things to be mad about and it is a disservice to any Catholic to claim folks are out of line when such things make them upset.
I haven’t read any of the preceding comments, but that’s my take. There is possibly some value to this discussion, but I don’t think it’s brought out very well in the article.
The reason, Eric Sammons, why most posts (including mine) impute liturgy in your post is because you slam Catholic bloggers on the right.
Most conservative Catholic bloggers are liturgy-first bloggers.
Ergo, you’re slamming liturgical traditionalists (i.e., conservative Catholic bloggers) as “angry.”
Mr. Sammons that is the crux of the matter. The fact that you can not see the importance of the Liturgy is what is so worrying. This is a clear effect of the “spirit of VII.”
The Second Vatican Council simply re-stated that which the Church holds true. However those that are moved by the so called “spirit” saw it as an opportunity to change the Church. Others as a call to make it more Protestant friendly, now weather there intentions were good or bad is not important for only God knows their hearts. However the damage that was made in many cases ended in rupture from Tradition, confusion in Church teaching and even out right heretical thought.
There are parts of VII that need to be clarified so abuses can stop. Bishops act too softly in many of these issues and in the extreme Bishops tend to be part of the problem. It is almost like a cult of niceness is charge of the Church.
Eric,
I think that you really hit the nail on the head with this article. Looking back at history and seeing all that we have survived really should be a comfort to all Catholics. It’s soothing to know that the problems of this age, too, can be overcome. Looking at the evils of today is enough to make a person angry and disgusted. However, the proper perspective can go along way to turning that righteous anger into calm resoluteness that will drive a person to make real progress in an evenhanded way. Yelling and namecalling just isn’t very effective at getting results, I think we can all be agreed.
It’s a very reasonable thing to work for liturgical reform. It’s very reasonable thing to work for more traditional or reverent worship. It’s a very reasonable opinion that communion on the tongue is more reverent than on the hand. However, anger and argumentation leads one to make the jump from “we should discuss moving back to communion on the tongue” to “all Catholics who take communion on the hand are inferior, and all priests who celebrate the ordinary force of the mass are Godless perverts”. See how anger can lead from reasonable to unreasonable? Fruitful dialogue to useless ranting? Humble service to the Church, to spiritual pride?
Another thing history will show is that orthodoxy so often resides in between two heresies, one reacting to the other. Arianism reacted to Sabellianism, Monophysitism to Nestorianism. And today, we have sedevacantist types reacting to modernism so violently that they put themselves out of the church in the other direction. The lesson here is when we work to repair liturgical abuses or whatever God calls us to do, do it with humility and prudence (the charioteer of all virtues).
Giovanni:
Where did you pick up that Mr. Sammons fails to see the importance of liturgy? I don’t know how old you are, but I am old enough to re,member sloppy,sloppier, sloppiest liturgies before “VII”, as you call it. “VII” took its direction from history, not from nostalgia, but from solid Tradition. This article is spot-on. Good job, Eric.
Paul Dion:
VII as I have stated before is not the problem. It is what happened and what was done in the name of the council that was and is the problem.
I was directly answering one of his assertions, that the anger stems from fear. And one of his questions, as to why is all this discussion about Liturgy so prevalent?
Also I do not dispute that things may have been bad with many Priests not taking their vocation seriously and giving bad Liturgies however let us not forget that back then there was always a continuous renewal as far as Priests were concerned as there was no shortage of vocations. Now you have bad or heterodox Priests but you are stuck with them for lack of replacements.
Wow, Eric, 54 comments! I didn’t know that many people read your blog. : )
Maybe this is an example of a good attitude…
Green shoots
from Saint Mary Magdalen by Fr Ray Blake
I see so many good things happening in the Church in this country today major things like:
The Pope’s visit to the UK
Beatification of John Henry Cardinal Newman
Visit of the Relics of St Therese
The new English translation of the Missal
Announcement of Bishop Longley’s move to Birmingham
Ordination of Bishop Moth as Bishop for the Forces
Archbishop Vincent Nichols’ appointment to Westminster
Then there are little things, like the quality of so many of those who have been ordained recently, the type of young man that is going to the seminary nowadays, as well as the teaching staff of our seminaries.
There is the growing enthusiasm for prayer, the rise in Eucharistic Devotion, in a more deeply prayerful liturgy, the interest in prayers like the Rosary. There are other things like the way the boys at Westminster Cathedral have started receiving Holy Communion, kneeling and on the tongue and the return to the use of the High Altar there. The increase in the celebration of the TLM, which signifies the hermeneutic of continuity.
Another little thing, the Bishop’s Conference have just published online, Jubilate Deo the basic chant of the Church it is just a little thing but it wouldn’t have happened a couple of years ago.
Then there are the rumours of a new motu proprio coming shortly which deepen a more prayerful liturgy and a stronger Catholic identity.
I know it is easy to “rain on the parade” and to find negative things or to criticise but I would interested to hear of what you consider to be positive, good things, happening in the Church today.
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2009/10/green-shoots.html
All the things you have mentioned are things that should make all Catholics rejoice.
Fantastic thoughts and love the connection between anger and fear. I’ve noticed the same phenomenon in England:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/columnists/4840091.Time_to_take_a_cue_from_the_weather____chill_out_/?ref=eb
[...] Bitter — Even in the Face of Scandal. In it, I apply the principles I outlined in my blog post To be deep in history is to cease to be angry to the current scandals facing the [...]
Pingback by Better than bitter « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons — April 14, 2010 @ 8:47 amI think Chesterton once wrote (maybe in orthodoxy) about our ancestors – how we should value them as they will be at our council when all is said and done. The church is full of humans – congrats Mr. Sammons – great observation. They also overcame plenty of obstacles with heroic virtue – something lacking in this generation that values tolerance over everything else. Well done, this article represents the way modernists look at things. You ought to be proud (your ancestors- not so much).
You really hit some sensitive nerves with this post, Eric, based on some of the responses. Peace!=)