www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Catholicism Is Winning

I can't believe my post, which was so obviously light hearted and good natured, got deleted. If there is a member of this forum more able to take, or more deserving of something like grammatical correction than Stuart, I don't know who it is.

No one need delete anything that is ever said about me. I'm a big boy and can take my lumps. Besides, you guys are pushovers. Try growing up in a family of aggressive New York Jewish intellectuals. You either grow a thick skin or spend the rest of your life in therapy. And I hate therapists.

Good music and radical orthodoxy help fill churches but having lotsa babies ensures the future in a way nothing else can. Traditional Catholics are inclined to repudiate the culture of death - those who embrace it destroy their future.

Here in Texas Hispanics are giving birth left and right - consequently they're on the way to becoming the majority. And in Quebec, the students react against the government's raises in tuition. What else can it do? The "Quiet Revolution" included welcoming contraception and later, abortionism. They thus sabotaged their future without forseeing it's destruction.

Choose life. Or else: perish.

How many of the mothers are actually married to their baby daddies?

Lisa,

Don't expect a move back towards traditional Byzantine Liturgy under Metropolitan Skurla. He's a nice guy. But he's pretty far left when it comes to liturgy. His idol and mentor is Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles.

The bishops have made it clear that anyone who does not like the liberal reforms should leave. They call the people who have left to be "disobedient" and "uneducated". They wipe the dust from their feet when such people leave and rejoice. Take the hint.

Jason

Haven't heard the Mahoney angle, have heard the "disobedient" "uneducated" and "should leave" line a lot here before.

This was before my time. Was it ever quoted or a first or second-hand account?

I don't doubt any of it, it's just hard for me to reference in conversation right now beyond "I heard it on the internet."

For that matter, has anyone documented a cohesive account of how the RDL went down? All I can gather is snippets here and there.

Ask the Administrator. Do it in a PM.

Christ is Risen!
JJP et al.,
You haven't heard the "Mahoney angle" in the past because it seems to be meant to poison the well of our most reverend Metropolitan, unless it's based on a forthcoming quote or reference. I await either hearing that it was not a quote, or else I will have more reasons to pray for my Mother Church it seems.

Regarding how the RDL "went down", if you are recommended to find out via a PM, keep in mind that you won't be getting a cohesive, unbiased account. If the criticism of the RDL could simply be explained and defended in such a way, it would already be available in a public manner. The problem as I have seen it in trying to wander through places such as Byzcath is that there is so much of this anti-RDL criticism that is based on bitterness, that it would only come out through that which is private, incomplete, based on one angle, etc. There is the truth which is complicated and then there are assumptions and one-sided narratives.


How would you like a learn about a process that includes an office in Rome, Bishops, and a Liturgical Commission, to be explained in a manner that enlightens all motives, driving factors, and the like? Do you expect it to be cohesive in any real sense of the word? In my estimation, whatever you were to read would be incomplete, given the inherent complexity of the process and history.

If you hear that Bishop X or Commission member Y or Pontifical representative Z said or did anything that determined something, please be aware that you are most likely only engaging in gossip.

This is why I must ask-Why do any of this speculation?
The bitterness wrapped up in all of this is why I tend to avoid this site.

If we are to truly hope and pray that our churches grow through filling them with people and good music, what we need to do is not ask for private accounts of the "real story", but instead we ought to study our musical tradition, and sing our services to the best of our ability. Learn the vespers, hours, matins services, and then participate. We should not live in the past or the future, but live in the present.

Love our hymns, and sing them. Fill the choirs with new voices if you think things are "dying".

Speaking out in bitterness over what happened in the past, or going on a historical quest for how things became the way that they are will not change the way things are. What is needed for change is to change.

And if you love the church enough to lead it, when it comes to choosing hymns, who knows, you one day may influence the character of a new commission, if that is what our hierarchs call for.

One thought for consideration-do the bishops truly ask people who do not "like" things to leave? I think what happens is that when people don't like things and they protest and say things in the bitterness that pervades this website and elsewhere, that the bishops may seek peace and ask people to leave if they will not cease complaining.

There's nothing wrong with not liking something, but seeing beyond one's own preferences for consistency/the way it was/etc., and participating nevertheless. Does every priest who prays "for Christ is good and loves us all" like that more than "for Christ is gracious and loves mankind"?
If you think that, you really don't understand how much our priests love our Church, and those of us who make it up.

One final point about being anti-RDL-in the span of the bishops who so many decry, I would ask that you factor in the other things that seem to be never mentioned on places such as this forum. What of the restoration of infant communion? What of the stress on standing more (despite the fact that many still misinterpret what 'may sit', which is a different point)? What of the calling for priests to wear pectoral crosses?

Sometimes we see what we want to see, and we ignore what we want to ignore. Perhaps the same will be said about me, that this is a Pollyanna-ish ode to the Ruthenian Church. I guess that may be true, I love my Mother, what can I say?

May God cure mankind of our paralysis on this commemoration of the paralytic, that we may all walk in the truth and in love.

In XC,
J. Andrew

By the way, I saw The Administrator today at Liturgy. He's looking better, has lost a lot of weight, and is trying to regain his strength. Continued prayers are in order.

As for J. Andrew's post, one can try to put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

That was my first thought when you advised a PM, glad to hear it. Will take up both suggestions.

I do think a public "accounting" or history of the time period would be useful and appropriate, warts and all.

It would--sunlight is a great disinfectant. But it will never happen. The rampant clericalism of the Ruthenian Church ensures that omuerta will be observed.

Well, anyone can make a website.

Lots of slander and gossip going on here. Feels like people have nothing better to do than grind old axes. How does this help us on the path to transformation?

Give Metropolitan William a chance before you judge him. He has been Metropolitan for less than two weeks.


Pray, fast, and trust in God to guide His church.

Slander isn't called for, and these type of conversations require much grace and charity. But I think it's appropriate to ask what our shepherds have had to say on the matter. If the answers are divisive or uncharitable, I don't think you can fault the questioner or the one providing a truthful answer.

I take being spiritual head of my house seriously, and this has concerned me for a while. If there's nothing to hide, then this should be a quick and easy accounting.

This isn't for the sake of discord. If we blind ourselves to (very recent) history the same issues will only be perpetuated. I don't feel the need to wait and see, because my priority is my family and where we worship, not the Ruthenian Church. If the two are aligned, fantastic. If not, I want to know.

How many chances does one get? It's not like he's an unknown quantity. My guess is he'll stand four-square for drift. He won't repudiate the RDL, nor recall the Teal Terror, but he won't take any action against those parishes within the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh that don't use it, and he won't interfere with other bishops who choose either to enforce the new liturgy or look the other way. From what I have seen of Metropolitan William in the past, his interests don't run to liturgics, in any case.

The problem with whitewashing one's own history is soon one begins to believe it. In the intelligence business, believing one's own propaganda is called "drinking one's own bathwater"--in the long run, it's an unpleasant and unhealthy habit.