Progressives and Abusive Liturgical Practices
Posted by: tony on 09/15/2006 09:53 AM
Updated by: tony on 09/15/2006 09:54 AM
|
Expires: 10/16/2006 12:00 AM
|
A must read for me is Catholic Sensibility. Being a somewhat contentious guy, I enjoy reading Todd because I'm sure that sooner or later he'll hit an issue that's close to my heart, and many times he'll be on the opposite side of said issue.1. He writes:
Liam gave a more diplomatic reply in the thread below, but I would be in solid agreement with his reply on this first question:
Is the 'progressive' position capable of defending the Roman rite against practices that are illicit and abusive? On what grounds?
Any priest, liturgist, or other person who wanted to employ an illicit or abusive practice would indeed be working against the good order of the local community, let alone the Church. Let me offer a concrete example.
But my question would be, (and I'm going to go into a classic reductio ad absurdum for this one) what if the whole local community approved of a "clown mass"?
Todd then hits on something near and dear to my heart. A problem that I experienced in my local community, and lacking the theological information I now have, sat back and did nothing.
Another example: the use of additives in Eucharistic bread. Many years ago, I was on staff in a community that baked Eucharistic bread and they did use additives. It was a fairly long-standing tradition and I did not confront it, mainly because I had a lot of other things on my plate in those days. But I have publicly argued against it on the grounds of tradition and social justice: the Jews didn't use additives, neither did Jesus, and it is the bread (in each case) of the poor. My social justice friends seem to respond when I make it into a social justice issue. I might not use the wording of the curia, but I accomplish the same end.
I suppose that for conservativves(sic), I'd ask: Must my defense of the Roman tradition be as you would defend it?
I'm grateful that Todd assists in combating this abuse, but in the case of additives in altar bread, it deprives the faithful of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation is not effected on invalid matter. So contaminated altar bread deprives the faithful of the source and summit of our faith.
And couching it in a "social justice" format deprives the faithful of proper catechesis, so yes, you should defend the practice with church doctrine, not "spin" it so as not to offend liberal sensibilities.
--
|
