Thanks! This is both timely and clarifying. I've been reading through the two different Christ the King liturgies myself. And it led me to dust off my long-forgotten college textbooks in order to confirm my recollection that the liturgical reform happened during the exact same years when progressive Catholics were also fomenting the collapse of the Portuguese Empire and the spread of Communist insurgencies across Africa. Most people associate Liberation Theology with Latin America in the 1980s. But Angola and Mozambique were both at war during Vatican II. And the Church was under tremendous pressure in both countries. So it's hard not to wonder if the eschatological overtones and the language about "freeing us from slavery" betray the subtle influence of OstPolitik. I would be very curious to hear what you think about this....
For sure. There was already a strong pro-democracy push going on from the 1940s onward, largely as a reaction against fascism and communism. The "secular Christendom" model of Maritain and Journet was also very influential: the idea that you could have a purely secular state ("laicite") but informed by the consciences of believers who adhered to the natural moral law and were inspired by Christianity. So after Vatican II a number of states, with Vatican approval, actually removed from their laws or constitutions privileges that had been granted to the Church. In retrospect it seems like madness.
I grew up with Christ the king being in November. I did not know it was originally in October until I started going to the TLM. It makes more sense for it to be right before we celebrate All Saints day.
Thank you, Dr. K for this excellent article . I will be getting the book.. It amazes me how “right on “you are about so many matters and especially this and how you are able to articulate my gut feelings exactly.
"...part of a multi-pronged apologia for abandoning the TLM and 'unifying' around the Novus Ordo as per his bishop’s (narrow) application of Traditionis Custodes...Very Rev. J. David Carter, very deliberately commented on this discrepancy..."
As an outside observer to the scandal, I'll admit, witnessing this particular pastor's response to his bishop's decree has been the most disturbing aspect. It's equally heartbreaking to see some of his parishioners defending his intentions online--because they trust and love him, as a pastor's spiritual children ought to. It brings to mind Father Z's discussions about moral injury, not only as inflicted upon priests by their bishop, but now also upon the faithful by their priest.
I'm not an SSPX exclusivist like some of my peers, yet situations like this make me completely sympathetic to their wariness regarding other tradition-friendly priests. These situations are painful reminder that many priests, even if they value Tradition's goods, fundamentally reject the idea that the faithful have an immutable right to the Sacred Tradition. When push comes to shove, many TLM priests will side with the bishop if he chooses to deprive the laity of their birthright.
It's tragic enough when a goodhearted priest stops offering the TLM under duress; it's outright horrific when a priest who once said the TLM begins actively trying to "re-educate" the faithful into accepting their deprivation.
This statement -- "When push comes to shove, many TLM priests will side with the bishop if he chooses to deprive the laity of their birthright. It's tragic enough when a goodhearted priest stops offering the TLM under duress; it's outright horrific when a priest who once said the TLM begins actively trying to 're-educate' the faithful into accepting their deprivation" is so absolutely on target.
It's as if such a priest never actually understood the good of the thing he was celebrating, or as if he's trying to delude himself into thinking that whatever an authority orders must be for the best and must be embraced to the point of denying whatever one used to think. It's Orwellian.
Thank you again for another enlightening take on current events. I always learn more about things that I thought I knew enough when reading these articles.
I wonder if that same shame in the Church’s mission that prompted the replacement of the feast (so as to not offend our “separated brethren” in their triumphant celebration?) also led to the bowdlerizing of the act of consecration to the Sacred Heart.
Sadly it was this edited version of the consecration that was used at my FSSP parish yesterday, though my family continued on with the original in our Fr. Lassance missal.
How strange! Yesterday, I was in Vancouver, and everyone had the full text of the prayer of consecration - but then the priest skipped the paragraph about Islam and Judaism! Is that the editing you're referring to? It was very confusing and disappointing.
Dr. K, in this article, I think you plainly answer the question, "Why are you taking away a beautiful ancient liturgy that helps them pray and nourishes their souls?"
"Catholic" simply does not mean what our opponents insist it means and what pontiffs, prelates, and clerics require it to mean if you worship that other way. It just doesn't.
Put another way -
When my Jewish brother-in-law asks me about this feast because some unintended turn of events has made him aware of its existence and he's the type that enjoys making conversation, I can't tell him that we're celebrating the fact that Christ is king of every person, place and thing! Don't you understand how that will start a war in the family?! I'm surely not going to say it at work, or admit I'm voting for political candidates who most closely agree with that truth! Do t you understand I need to interact with non-catholic every day?!
Thanks! This is both timely and clarifying. I've been reading through the two different Christ the King liturgies myself. And it led me to dust off my long-forgotten college textbooks in order to confirm my recollection that the liturgical reform happened during the exact same years when progressive Catholics were also fomenting the collapse of the Portuguese Empire and the spread of Communist insurgencies across Africa. Most people associate Liberation Theology with Latin America in the 1980s. But Angola and Mozambique were both at war during Vatican II. And the Church was under tremendous pressure in both countries. So it's hard not to wonder if the eschatological overtones and the language about "freeing us from slavery" betray the subtle influence of OstPolitik. I would be very curious to hear what you think about this....
For sure. There was already a strong pro-democracy push going on from the 1940s onward, largely as a reaction against fascism and communism. The "secular Christendom" model of Maritain and Journet was also very influential: the idea that you could have a purely secular state ("laicite") but informed by the consciences of believers who adhered to the natural moral law and were inspired by Christianity. So after Vatican II a number of states, with Vatican approval, actually removed from their laws or constitutions privileges that had been granted to the Church. In retrospect it seems like madness.
I grew up with Christ the king being in November. I did not know it was originally in October until I started going to the TLM. It makes more sense for it to be right before we celebrate All Saints day.
Thank you, Dr. K for this excellent article . I will be getting the book.. It amazes me how “right on “you are about so many matters and especially this and how you are able to articulate my gut feelings exactly.
"...part of a multi-pronged apologia for abandoning the TLM and 'unifying' around the Novus Ordo as per his bishop’s (narrow) application of Traditionis Custodes...Very Rev. J. David Carter, very deliberately commented on this discrepancy..."
As an outside observer to the scandal, I'll admit, witnessing this particular pastor's response to his bishop's decree has been the most disturbing aspect. It's equally heartbreaking to see some of his parishioners defending his intentions online--because they trust and love him, as a pastor's spiritual children ought to. It brings to mind Father Z's discussions about moral injury, not only as inflicted upon priests by their bishop, but now also upon the faithful by their priest.
I'm not an SSPX exclusivist like some of my peers, yet situations like this make me completely sympathetic to their wariness regarding other tradition-friendly priests. These situations are painful reminder that many priests, even if they value Tradition's goods, fundamentally reject the idea that the faithful have an immutable right to the Sacred Tradition. When push comes to shove, many TLM priests will side with the bishop if he chooses to deprive the laity of their birthright.
It's tragic enough when a goodhearted priest stops offering the TLM under duress; it's outright horrific when a priest who once said the TLM begins actively trying to "re-educate" the faithful into accepting their deprivation.
Yes, yes, yes!
This statement -- "When push comes to shove, many TLM priests will side with the bishop if he chooses to deprive the laity of their birthright. It's tragic enough when a goodhearted priest stops offering the TLM under duress; it's outright horrific when a priest who once said the TLM begins actively trying to 're-educate' the faithful into accepting their deprivation" is so absolutely on target.
It's as if such a priest never actually understood the good of the thing he was celebrating, or as if he's trying to delude himself into thinking that whatever an authority orders must be for the best and must be embraced to the point of denying whatever one used to think. It's Orwellian.
Dear Dr. K.,
Thank you again for another enlightening take on current events. I always learn more about things that I thought I knew enough when reading these articles.
I wonder if that same shame in the Church’s mission that prompted the replacement of the feast (so as to not offend our “separated brethren” in their triumphant celebration?) also led to the bowdlerizing of the act of consecration to the Sacred Heart.
Sadly it was this edited version of the consecration that was used at my FSSP parish yesterday, though my family continued on with the original in our Fr. Lassance missal.
Pax Christi,
-Ed Crow
Ed,
How strange! Yesterday, I was in Vancouver, and everyone had the full text of the prayer of consecration - but then the priest skipped the paragraph about Islam and Judaism! Is that the editing you're referring to? It was very confusing and disappointing.
That’s exactly what I was referring to. Yes, disappointing to say the least.
Dr. K, in this article, I think you plainly answer the question, "Why are you taking away a beautiful ancient liturgy that helps them pray and nourishes their souls?"
"Catholic" simply does not mean what our opponents insist it means and what pontiffs, prelates, and clerics require it to mean if you worship that other way. It just doesn't.
Put another way -
When my Jewish brother-in-law asks me about this feast because some unintended turn of events has made him aware of its existence and he's the type that enjoys making conversation, I can't tell him that we're celebrating the fact that Christ is king of every person, place and thing! Don't you understand how that will start a war in the family?! I'm surely not going to say it at work, or admit I'm voting for political candidates who most closely agree with that truth! Do t you understand I need to interact with non-catholic every day?!