Michael Brendan Dougherty

, , , , ,

Chicago rules vs. the Latin Mass: There's more to 'worship wars' than the Tridentine Rite

, , , , ,
Chicago rules vs. the Latin Mass: There's more to 'worship wars' than the Tridentine Rite

Since the late 19th Century, Catholics have recited the Prayer to St. Michael when facing disease, disaster and despair.

It proclaims, in part: "St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. … O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls."

Before Vatican II, this prayer was often recited after Mass, although it wasn't in the rubrics. In 1994, St. Pope John Paul II urged Catholics to embrace it -- while preaching on threats to the unborn.

The faithful at St. Joseph's Parish in Libertyville, Ill., stopped reciting the Prayer to St. Michael aloud after Masses this past summer. While debate continues about what the Archdiocese of Chicago instructed, livestreamed remarks by the associate pastor went viral, during a worship wars surge in modern Catholicism.

"What I'm going to say, I'm going to say this with a lot of respect. Following the directive of Cardinal Cupich, we want to remind everyone that the Prayer of St. Michael is not to be said publicly following Mass," said Father Emanuel Torres-Fuentes. "As a priest, I have to obey, and I obey this at peace."

While Cardinal Blase Cupich's actions have made news, this drama opened in July with a Pope Francis apostolic letter entitled "Traditionis Custodes (Guardians of the tradition)." It restricted use of the old Latin Mass, thus undercutting "Summorum Pontificum (Of the Supreme Pontiffs)" by the retired Pope Benedict XVI. That document said the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo was the "ordinary form" for the Mass, but the Tridentine rite was an "extraordinary form" that could be encouraged.

The Pope Francis letter appeared to give local bishops some freedom to control use of the old Latin Mass. Then the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship released guidelines on Dec. 18, explaining the pope's edict.

Many bishops, for example, had granted dispensations allowing some diocesan parishes to use the Latin Mass. But Rome's new guidelines said this was not permitted -- only the Vatican could grant exceptions. Also, any parish allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Mass could not list this service in printed or online Mass schedules.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Does this ancient document have authority in modern debates about moral theology?

, , , , , , , ,
Does this ancient document have authority in modern debates about moral theology?

THE QUESTION:

What was the ancient Didache and what is its to moral controversies relevance today?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Except for the Bible or Quran, ancient writings rarely pop up in 21st Century public disputes. So it was rather interesting to see that happen with the Didache, whose importance rests on its likely status as the oldest surviving text from Christianity's earliest days other than the New Testament itself. Certain scholars think it was written even before the Gospels, between A.D. 50 and 70, but more common dating puts it in the early 2nd Century A.D.

This text's sudden media appearance involved the unending abortion debate, which is hotter than ever in the U.S. with the Supreme Court set to re-examine the law next term in the Dobbs case and the Catholic bishops' conference considering whether to endorse denial of Communion to "pro-choice" office-holders, President Biden included.

Garry Wills, the Northwestern University historian and renegade Catholic, recently sought to convince New York Times readers that "the cult of the fetus" embraced by Catholic bishops (also evangelical Protestants) is off-base because, among other things, Jesus and the New Testament authors never condemn abortion as sinful.

A blistering response by National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty cited the Didache as prime evidence in contending that Christianity from its earliest phase opposed abortion. The document's second chapter forbids "grave sins," listed as follows:

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge . . . (Roberts-Donaldson translation).

A later section targets "murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God" in a catalogue of people who are living out "the way of death."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Thinking about 'Sodoma': Critics on left, right have many similar concerns about Martel's work

, , , , , , , ,

So, now that the big splash is over in Rome, does anyone need to take the time to read “In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy” by the French LGBTQ activist Frédéric Martel?

That’s the English title. In other parts of the world the book was given an even more provocative title — “Sodoma.”

Everyone agrees, basically, that the book contains some serious allegations about gay life and gay power networks in Catholic life, and the Vatican to be specific.

But what has Martel been able to document with solid, journalistically respectable information? On many crucial points, everything depends on whether readers are inclined to accept the accuracy of the author’s “gaydar,” that gay extra sense that tells him — based on issues of culture, style and his own emotions — whether this or that person (or pope, even) is gay.

This is your rare chance to read radically different cultural voices attack the same book for some very similar reasons. For starters, it doesn’t help when — the critics agree — a book is packed with factual errors and appears to have been edited by someone with years of experience in supermarket tabloid work.

I mean, check this out: Rod “Benedict Option” Dreher pointing readers toward an essay by Michael Sean Winters of The National Catholic Reporter?

Here is a choice bite of Winters review:

Martel sees gay influence everywhere. He has a whole chapter on Jacques Maritain, the gist of which is this: "To understand the Vatican and the Catholic Church, at the time of Paul VI, or today, Jacques Maritain is a good entry point." Why? "I have gradually understood the importance of this codex, this complex and secret password, a real key to understand The Closet. The Maritain code." He mentions in passing that Maritain is the father of Christian democracy, and mentions not at all that Maritain's reading of Thomas Aquinas is critical in understanding how the Second Vatican Council came to many of its conclusions. None of that really matters. The key is that he hung out with gay writers.

Such stereotypes would be denounced as sheer bigotry if they came from a straight man (and would not get reprinted in NCR). Why is Martel given a pass to traffic in them because he is gay? Bigotry is repugnant no matter the source.


Please respect our Commenting Policy