Thursday, November 10, 2011

Are you now, or have you ever been...

Sorry, but I'm in negotiation with someone to sell this post for money, so I'm putting it on ice for the moment.

Thanks for the fun comments.

H



~

17 comments:

Gregory said...

Hilary, W.F. Buckley, by his own account, served for a time as a lector at NO Mass because he thought that the person who did the readings should someone capable of pronouncing the words. After a while, though he gave up on the whole thing as useless, and resolved to sit at the back of the church and pray God that He NEVER forgive those who did what they did what was done to the Mass after Vatican II.

Survey says: TRAD!

Gregory said...

Sorry, I'm tired, that comment is a bit of a grammatical mess.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

It's not about the liturgy, Greg. As you well know.

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

Buckley, however, dissented on Humanae Vitae, and I believe continued to do so until he died. Hence, would he qualify as a "Trad"?

Notwithstanding all his gifts and contributions, in his personal life Buckley married a non-Catholic, his only child is an atheist, and he disowned a grandson who through no fault of his own was produced by an illicit liason. Of these three, only the disowning of the grandson is inherently "wrong", but together the factors suggest that Buckley's Catholicism was wanting on a substantive level, regardless of his fondness for the "old Mass" and Latin in general. Indeed, one can possess a purely "natural" attachment to the "old Mass", Latin and the old devotional practices.

In a somewhat related vein: One hopes the SSPX will soon be fully re-integrated into the Church. However, if the current process leads to a "negative" clarification - i.e., that the SSPX unequivocally rejects the post-V2 magisterium - the rubber will hit the road for many in the "Trad" movement. It will be time to define one's true beliefs.

GJJ

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Glen,

I see no reason whatever to think that what the SSPX does has any bearing on what I do. I think you are greatly overstating the significance of the Spixers to the greater Traditionalist movement in the Church. Perhaps you are one of the people who suffer from the misconception that all Trads are somehow connected with them in some way.

Dymphna said...

Thank you for spelling out what a Neo Cath is.

Anonymous said...

Hijacked?

Mark Scott Abeln said...

Don’t forget that <a href="http://www.romeofthewest.com/2008/02/william-f-buckley-jr-rip.html”>Bill Buckley’s</a> political philosophy, Fusionism, was a compromise between Freemasonry and "conservative" Christianity. Even though the Lodge did seem preferable to Commies with nukes, they aren’t with us.

It is so hard for a typical American Catholic — conservative or liberal — to avoid these faults, especially if they limit their studies to recent decades. There is so much intellectual treasure to be found in ancient books and art.

hjw said...

Anon,

How do you do. I'm Hilary. And you are?

DP said...

I'm flummoxed by where I fit on the scale here. NFP/Theology of the Body boosterism makes my teeth itch. I can't imagine parsing an encyclical. I enjoy the Potter books but don't see the need to get into combat about the subject (Tolkien, on the other hand, is to be defended in a war to the knife). I think the phrase "it can be celebrated reverently" is probably the most devastating riposte one can launch against the 1970 Mass, but am delighted with Liturgiam Authenticam (our parish has altar rails, a baldaccino and is getting a new marble altar, so that helps).

I love Leo XIII and St. Pius X (and think the latter wielded the hammer properly). I'd be fine living with my family in a Catholic confessional state, but can't seem to find one.

As to the rest, it's already long enough. But I've converted from beer to port, which probably means something, too.

hjw said...

As I think I said, Dale, most of them don't know.

Aaron Traas said...

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, to me, is the real doctrinal divide. And watching them skirt around it is... just silly.

I was never taught it growing up, of course, but as a child, I pieced it together myself. If a) dying in a state of mortal sin damns one to hell, b) you need confession to remove any mortal sin committed after baptism, and c) giving absolution could only be done by a Catholic priest, and only to a baptized Catholic, then it's pretty obvious only either Catholics who confessed their sins or baptized protestants who never committed a mortal sin between baptism and death were going to heaven. Combine that with not going to mass = mortal sin... you get the picture. I figured that out shortly after receiving first communion in 3rd grade.

DP said...

Fair enough. Such are the times.

BillyHW said...

Anon is me. Just clicked on the wrong bullet by mistake.

Anonymous said...

Hi Hilary,

I'm pleased to read you're recovering. The ravages of late middle age and illness are catching us all, it seems.

Actually, my comment was truly and genuinely generic; you weren't in any way the subject of my comment, or in my contemplation when I wrote it. (If anything, I was thinking of certain writers for the The Remnant website and certain posters who comment at Rorate Caeli. Some of them are now openly repudiating the continuity school in favour of the rupture position, which to me is nothing short of madness).

Pax,
GJJ

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Good lord, you make it sound like I'm a greying old lady. Speak for yourself, mate.

And I also meant my response to be generic. The greater number of Trads in the world are like me in that they have come to the conclusions independently by simply examining the facts, and have never had the least thing to do with the SSPX.

I would stop reading R. Caeli if I were you. Or at least their absurd commentariat. It seems to give nothing but a hopelessly skewed - and bleak - view of the Faith and the world.

Anonymous said...

What did I miss? - Karen