Though I did not feel that he was obliged to, Dr Shaw has offered a timely reply to my previous post. In it he implies what I feel as well, that this is not personal but a discussion, a debate even, concerning the ways and means to a shared goal.
Dr Shaw does not address the whole of my post, just some issues he felt needed clarification. While I take on board what he says, I am not sure I find things much clearer.
I hypothesised that if the restoration of pre-conciliar worship is his goal, and wondering how this would be achieved, then one way that seemed to present itself would be imposing such a change much as the new Mass was imposed in 1969. We do not want a repeat of that. Cheeringly, Dr Shaw said that this was “obviously not” the way to proceed. He clarifies how he sees progress advancing: Continue reading “A Quick Reply to Dr Shaw”→
In this week’s Catholic Herald (which sadly now I must read in the hard copy as the trial period of free editions on the paper’s app has expired) has an interesting, and no doubt deliberately chosen, excerpt from the corresponding edition of 50 years ago. From memory it is on the page with Piers Paul Read’s column near the very back of the paper.
It refers to the then 18-month-old permission given to parishes in England and Wales to celebrate Mass versus populum, facing the people. It notes that only 10% of parishes had taken up this permission; at those 10% of parishes the change was said to be very popular with the people. Mmmm. Continue reading “Catholic Herald, 10 June 1966: Yes, but…”→
Well, it has been hard to get a lot of clear space to read the apostolic exhortation, but I am over a third the way through it. As yet, I’ve suffered no paroxysms or cataclysms. It is rather good in parts. There are a couple of parts pregnant with ambiguity, and I have not yet got to the controversial stuff. There is at least one missed opportunity.
As the Holy Father himself suggested, I am reading this with care and attention, and without rushing. Hopefully tomorrow afternoon I will be in a position to offer comment on it. Many commentators will already have put their oars in the choppy waters, but I shall refrain from reading them for now. Dr Stephen Bullivant’s generously-sized news bite is all I have allowed to intrude so far, other glancing at the secular media headlines proclaiming Francis is saying yes to everyone but homosexuals. But we all know they have their own agenda to pursue. Please do not let the secular media provide your commentary on this document. The Tablet‘s headline is just as mischievous, having a different, though related, agenda.
If I offer anything tomorrow, it will not be a systematic commentary but some reactions and observations, especially on points that some may likely have glossed over. However, so far no foundations have been rocked.
If you have, or have seen, any strong reactions from the Catholic world please do let me know of them. I won’t read them till I have finished the document, but they might serve as good measures for my/our own reactions.
Oh, yes. I have changed the design of this blog. The near collision of post titles with their dates in the headings in the previous theme was beyond my control and driving me potty (-er). It was time to move on. Best to minimise annoyances!
It is unnecessary to retell the horrific story of the disgusting martyrdom of the 21 Coptic men in Libya last week, gloatingly displayed to the world in an online video of the sort that ISIS Daesh* is notorious for producing. Though I have not watched it, those who have say that many of the martyrs had the name of Jesus on their lips as they died. Despite the hair-splitting of the SSPX, whether or not their murder was in revenge for the killing of a senior jihadist is irrelevant: they were murdered because they were Christian, and in hatred of Christ.
*(a name hated by the ISIS jihadists themselves and so most appropriate to give them)
The second objection of the SSPX to granting the title of martyr to the 21 Coptic brethren is that the Copts are heretics. This objection has more weight to it, but how relevant is it to this situation?