This writing is a reflection on articles and letters in The Southern Cross, a South African Catholic Weekly.
A thread of correspondence started with Cate Bompas’ letter in February complaining that the Tridentine Mass was seemingly, in some parishes, replacing the order of the Mass instituted by the second Vatican Council.*
In this letter she stated that the older liturgy was: “theologically and pastorally deficient and out of touch with the spiritual needs of contemporary Catholics.
A priest of the Society of Pius X (Lefebvrist movement presently in schism with the Roman Catholic Church) rebutted this statement categorically. His viewpoint was that this Tridentine Mass has “sanctified” souls for centuries. This letter from Fr Anthony Esposito, Durban was published in March. He cleverly brings the same statement of Cate’s into the conclusion of this rebuttal by applying it to the New Order of the Mass which was instituted in 1969 after the Council*.
My personal opinion is that both letters contain elements of truth, especially considering the very recently imposed changes which have resulted in a heavily Latinised English being used in the liturgy.
In May, John Lee responded to Fr. Anthony under the heading “Defining Dogma”. He points out that the ‘old Mass underwent various modifications during several pontificates, up to and including Pope John XXIII – who called for the Council*. He is therefore emphasizing that the order of the Mass changed and developed over hundreds of years {and needs to continually be changed and updated!}. His conclusion: “We have people (meaning adherents of Pius X society) who are determined to live on in the religious thought and practice of the 19th century. The old Mass is the symbol of their refusal to think and act along with the universal church.”
John Lee’s view that of all the Councils in the history of the Church, the second Vatican Council was the most all-inclusive, I heartily agree with. At the same time I am in agreement with the principle that it was never the intention of that Council* to ‘ban’ the Tridentine Mass altogether.
Kerry Swift (June) responds to John Lee’s statement about ‘We have people…’ by first referring to an article headed “New Vatican norms insist on ‘generous approval’ of the old Mass”. Mr Swift – appears to assume that John Lee is not giving ‘generous approval’ but condemning – whereas John Lee is saying the people (Lefvebrists) are stuck in 19th century mode and not moving with the thinking of the Council Fathers**.
So his rhetorical question (in short) about whom we should believe – the Vatican or Mr Lee is ill-founded. This is because, furthermore, John Lee’s opinion is not one of being anti ‘old Mass or Tridentine liturgy’ but of pointing to those who use it to condemn the New Order and in so doing break with the teaching authority of the Church.
The whole John Thavis article referred to below can be found here Click
Published: 29.06 to 5.07 issue:
Universal Church: whom to believe (June 15)
Kerry Swift poses a rhetorical question but I am wondering why it was asked in the first instance.
Perhaps John Lee (May 25) was referring to the same people that the pope in his “Summorum Pontificum” refers to.
Kerry also refers to this article by John Thavis and published in the same issue. Accordingly we are informed that our Pope refers to those that may not exist “in a stable manner”. In other words, John Lee is probably referring to those who have ‘unstable’ reasons for wanting to celebrate Mass in the Tridentine rite.
For me the whole article by John Thavis is a minefield of potential small explosions that could disrupt anyone’s belief system in this day and age! For a primary example, consider the statement in the article on the new instructions regarding the Tridentine Mass issue by Ecclesia Dei: “the faithful who ask for celebration of the Tridentine rite must not belong to or support groups that contest the Pope or the validity of the Mass and sacraments… in the ordinary [vernacular] form…”
Now how can these people be referred to by the Pope himself as ‘the faithful’ while contesting the Pope and/or any teaching on what is valid or invalid?
It is mind boggling when one considers that a movement like We are Church SA, who want to address the other half of the message contained in the Vatican II constitution Gaudium et Spes (being ‘the fears and anxieties’ of all the faithful) are considered by some in the hierarchy to be “going against the teaching authority of the Church”.
Yes, whom shall we believe?
* Second Vatican Council – called by John XXIII in 1962
** Bishops attending numbered 2,500 – more representative of the whole church than at any other council.
Another thread that I was interested in was one that began with an article published in March “Jesus commanded our conversion to justice”. {I hoped, of course that the teaching authority of the Church was at last seeing the need for their own ‘Metanoia’ but it was, of course, referring to the people in the pews}.
This was overall an impassioned plea by Bishop Barry Wood+ for social and economic justice and in closing he asked: “How do we awaken the spiritual energy to confront the issues that affect the poor, the unemployed, the destitute?” His final rhetorical question being “Are we fiddling while our Rome – South Africa – is burning?”
In April Brian Robertson wrote under the banner of We Are all Church South Africa (WACSA) “Fiddling while Rome burns”, saying that Bishop Wood hits the nail on the head. He also makes a strong point about Catholics being self-absorbed with being saints and getting to heaven. Following on from this he also notes the absence of Catholics staging marches and vigils for the thousands of vulnerable women, children, refugees and others who are being abused, violated and murdered.
Brian answers Bishop Wood’s question about ‘ how do we awaken spiritual energy…’ with: ‘by releasing Catholics from the bonds of guilt and of fear of damnation, and by encouraging us to listen to our inner voices and individual consciences.
He maintains that only when we experience the fullness of God’s love will we respond with “energy” to the Spirit… to love…”
To my mind a very big nail being hit on the head.
The argument for the thousands of vulnerable ones reminds me of YHWH’s plea, running through the Hebrew scriptures: to take care of, be primarily concerned about God’s anawim – not wanting sacrifice but just actions. [Primarily doing the will of God].
Bishop Wood also makes a point for the most vulnerable and quotes: “the quality of our faith is measured by the justice found in our society”.
Perhaps the flaw in Bishop Wood’s article is in the emphasis on Paul’s conversion, using this to emphasize that the Church calls us to a similar conversion of mind, heart and being; calls us to be aware of the signs of the times…; calls us to work for economic justice and do away with the huge gap between rich and poor. If the Church calls… it must lead by example. In the minds of many Catholics like me it does not practice this itself. Just one example is the new Chancery being built in Johannesburg at a cost of R30 million.
On the 20th April, a letter from Dr John Straughan, Cape Town, infers that Brian Robertson has been overtaken by relativism because of his answer to Bishop Wood. Dr Straughan, despite injunctions clearly made in the Gospels about not judging, judges the ‘conscience’ of Mr Robertson as ‘unguided’. He makes the ridiculous statement that the Church ‘guides’ our consciences – forgetting that the only role the church can have is in assisting and encouraging us to form our conscience on the basis of what Jesus said and did. He also forgets that the Spirit is given to all baptised who believe in Christ. Apart from the fact, attested to by the Fathers of Vatican II, that we are all church – the People of God together are Church!
Dr Straughan himself is dangerously adrift. Even Jesus did not ‘judge’ or condemn the woman caught in adultery, but Dr Straughan sets himself on the throne of god – with a definite small g!
We are all Church (WAACSA) is not informing anyone but listening, open to hearing concerns about finding a better way of being Church, both C and ‘c’.
Did Jesus come to die for the rehabilitation of the guilty person? If Dr. Straughan maintains this it has to be the beginning of heresy. God gave us the liberty (free will) and the gift of a conscience. NO ONE achieves a conscience free from error. The very fact of the gift of free will gives the lie to the belief that only God ‘guides’ and informs our conscience. The paragraph beginning: Ït is God’s energy… is just another long winded way of saying exactly what Professor Robinson is saying.
It is passing the buck to exhort Professor Roberston’s expertise to provoke action. What is blocking the energy (Holy Spirit) in the writer himself?
My letter was published (1-8.06) as follows:
ALL WHO ARE ON THE SIDE OF TRUTH
Dr. John Straughan (Which Church?’’ April 20) seems to be confused about the work and whereabouts of the Holy Spirit in the Church (both capital and small c). Thus I cannot find his “advice” credible.
At this so very holy time of year and having absorbed again all that the Christ actually did and said during this time, I would offer Dr Straughan some of the words Jesus spoke to Pilate when agreeing that he is a king: “I was born for this… to bear witness to the truth and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.”
Please note that Jesus had by then established his “church” (small c) AND he said ‘Listen to my voice’.
The church was to be the servant of the servants of God. Clearly the Holy Spirit is not confined to church with a capital C!
Dr. Straughan correctly states that the Church guides us with the Holy Spirit, but according to Jesus the primary guidance is ‘the voice of Christ’ in the minds and hearts of all the faithful. Is this not why we have the doctrine of primacy of conscience?
It is a waste of time trying to put down a fellow professional Catholic by inferring with the statement: “liberation of the conscience from Godly guidance”!
No one with Jesus in mind and heart is going to listen to such a foolish statement!
END of letter
Note that I have since changed my mind about the statement I made in purple above. It may be semantics but I would now rather have written …is not correct about the Church’s guidance of conscience. The Church can only inform our conscience, and remember Jesus is saying that the primary guidance is …
The only other personal involvement with The Southern Cross during 2011 was a response to a letter published in February from Aideen Gonlag.
She asks for a clear response from We are all Church (WAACSA) as to our stand on two issues: marriage and abortion.
Here below, I copy my response but I would like to remember her as seeing WACSA as “concerned at the slow but steady drift towards Triumphalism”. Her belief is that this would lead us to being ruled: ‘As the gentiles are’(Matt.20:24-48) i.e. by hierarchical dictates which she discerns in certain prelates.
The challenging letter from Aideen Gonlag (9-15.02) refers.
Ms Aideen Gonlag (February 9) asks for clarity from the newly–established born [in SA South Africa] movement “We are Church”, which is affiliated to the international movement IMWAC.
As yet, no spokesperson has been elected. I do not presume to give anyone clarity on where the movement stands on controversial issues. However, I can state clearly and categorically
• we want and work for the will of Christ;
• we are not a movement in opposition to the church’s teaching authority but we want dialogue and inclusion;
• we are all loyal members of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The world may very well be hostile to our faith because of institutional, as well as individual, faults and failings, but we will never be hostile towards the “People of God”.
Asking less than a hundred concerned Catholics for clarity on critical issues such as same sex unions and abortion on demand is like asking for fruit from a sapling.
We are also, I might add, not a local clone of IMWAC.
END of letter
