Should we expect apologies?


#1

Now that the Pope has admitted that the old Mass " was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted", I wonder if we will get any apologies from those who ridiculed the faithful Catholics who claimed that the old Mass was never abrogated?

For years the Catholics who knew the truth were labeled schismatics, and “radical traditionalists” for claiming that Paul VI never abrogated the old Mass.

SeanOL, for example ridiculed such Catholics by claiming repeatedly that the old mass was obragated (replaced). Now we learn, after nearly 40 years, that the Traditionalists were right and those who ridiculed them were wrong.

Just as the Traditonalists were right all along about the “pro multis” argument, so too they were right all along about the old Mass.

So, should the Traditionalists expect any apologies for the ridicule they experienced for all those years? Will their persecuters have the humility to admit that they were wrong all along, and thereby misled millions of sincere Catholics? That will require a lot of humility from those apologists.

Since we all need humility, this will give them a chance to practice that virtue. Will they have the humility to admit that they werw wrong and the Traditionalists right? We’ll see. Let’s just hope they don’t pretend that they were on the right side of the issue the whole time, like some did over the “pro multis” argument.


#2

i don’t think this post is going to be productive. its like pointing fingers. its not going to lead to anything good in my humble opinion.


#3

Interesting point, except that our call to humility would mean that we should not be expecting an apology. :slight_smile:


#4

I agree with TraditionalCath, this seems more like an opportunity to gloat than anything else. I’d also like to point out that the OP’s complaint about SeanOL doesn’t make very much sense because quite a few posters here have argued that 1) the missal of Bl. John XXIII was never abrogated while simultaneously arguing that it was 2) obrogated or derogated. They’re not mutually exclusive positions.


#5

In Sean OL’s instance, I’d like to see the supposed “ridicule.” What he actually said, in response to the assertion that the TLM was never abrogatted was this:

""BUT the LAWMissale Romanum

I agree that this is not productive. Given the speed with which the Church resolves issues, there’s bound to be commentary and people are going to make the best point they can given the information they have. Do the traditionalists owe the faithful an apology when some of them maintained that “*for all” *invalidated their masses, despite the Holy See’s clear statement that it did not? I didn’t look for one and I don’t expect one.


#6

Wait, I thought Jesus command to forgive others meant that we don’t go seeking apologies or sticking it to those who have wronged us, but rather we forgive those who have offended us without any self-seeking motives, with no demand for retribution :shrug: That is true humilty and true mercy :slight_smile:


#7

I agree that this is not productive. Given the speed with which the Church resolves issues, there’s bound to be commentary and people are going to make the best point they can given the information they have. Do the traditionalists owe the faithful an apology when some of them maintained that “*for all” *invalidated their masses, despite the Holy See’s clear statement that it did not? I didn’t look for one and I don’t expect one.

:thumbsup: PEACE to ALL


#8

Did I say I was seeking an apology, or did I simply ask if they were going to apologize? As a matter of justice, should they not apologize? After all, they ridiculed Traditionalists for years, commit untold sins of detraction, calumny, and scandal. Don’t you agree that it would be good for them to publicly apologize?

I’m curious, were you one of those who ridiculed Traditionalists for claiming that the Old Mass was never abrogated?


#9

No. In the absence of this clarification, they were giving the best information that they could. Pope John Paul II requested a more generous application of the Indult OF the bishops. This seems to imply the episcopal approval was necessary.

Everyone should apologize if they’ve been nasty or hateful. But for arguing with the best information they have? I don’t think so.


#10

I am sorry if I misread you (as it seems others have as well), but the tone of your posts does seem to be one calling for apologies and looking to broadcast the fact that you think your position has been vindicated and others defeated. Why not make a positive post seeking to let past differences be bygones, urging supporters of both missals to acknowledge the truth and sanctity found in both forms, and to allow the diviersity of liturgical form to be a source of vitality? This is how true reconciliation occurs, in that love that seeks nothing for one’s self, but only the good of the other, one that lives by mercy and authentic revelation, allowing God to be the minister of justice.

As St. Francis of Paola said,

“Pardon one another so that later on you will not remember the injury. The recollection of an injury is itself wrong. It adds to our anger, nurtures our sins and hates what is good. It is a rusty arrow and poison for the soul.”

I’m curious, were you one of those who ridiculed Traditionalists for claiming that the Old Mass was never abrogated?

I have never intended to ridicule anyone of such an opinion, but if I ever came across that way to you or others, I extend my deepest heartfelt apologies. I cannot remember ever arguing for abrogation–although on many occasions I have supported the validity and legitimacy of both forms, and have supported wider use of the older forms. Ridicule is not the way we should approach disagreement–such a bitter zeal does do harm to the listener and the speaker.

But, the best thing to do is keep St. Francis’ words in mind above. Both the bitter zeal and the recollection of injuries are both poison to the soul.


#11

But you are missing the point. It is not just that they were mistaken. We are all mistaken from time to time. They were not merely mistaken. They actually persecuted and ridiculed those who were right. The Traditionalists were right all along in saying that the Old Mass was never abrogated.

The Traditionalists brought forward all of the necessary documentation to prove it, yet it was rejected outright. Why? Because it came from Traditionalists, who had been so slandered that anything they said was held to be suspect at best. But low and behold, they were right all along.

Don’t you agree that those who ridiculed them publicly for all those years should now apologize and admit that they were wrong and the Traditionalists were right all along? Doesn’t that seem to be the right thing to do?


#12

See my post above regarding “pro multis.”

And I’m not missing your point, as I explained in the previous post.

Also, I’ve always wished the best for the folks who wanted the Tridentine in terms of their aspirations, even those who’ve dumped all over ME for prefering Mass in the vernacular, regarding John Paul II with affection, etc. (to me, it never seemed fair to embrace the Anglican Use crowd and deny the TLM crowd). Instead of looking for apologies, I congratulate them on getting their hearts desire.


#13

Forgive and forget. Right?


#14

Deo gratias!

[I think Fr. Z’s Rule’s of Engagement are in order here](I think Fr. Z’s Rule’s of Engagement are in order here) :o

  1. Rejoice because our liturgical life has been enriched, not because “we win”. Everyone wins when the Church’s life is enriched. This is not a “zero sum game”.

  2. Do not strut. Let us be gracious to those who have in the past not been gracious in regard to our “legitimate aspirations”.

  3. Show genuine Christian joy. If you want to attract people to what gives you so much consolation and happiness, be inviting and be joyful. Avoid the sourness some of the more traditional stamp have sadly worn for so long.

  4. Be engaged in the whole life of your parishes, especially in works of mercy organized by the same. If you want the whole Church to benefit from the use of the older liturgy, then you who are shaped by the older form of Mass should be of benefit to the whole Church in concrete terms.

  5. If the document doesn’t say everything we might hope for, don’t ***** about it like a whiner. Speak less of our rights and what we deserve, or what it ought to have been, as if we were our own little popes, and more about our gratitude, gratitude, gratitude for what God gives us.

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/07/fr-z%e2%80%99s-5-rules-of-engagement-for-after-the-motu-proprio-is-released/


#15

Does all this really matter in the long run? no. who does this or that is irrelevent. its not charitable to bring up things that others do all the time. it is best to lay it to rest and move on.


#16

BTW, Sean OL is a Tradationalist. He can hardly be accused of the “evil” three for posting letters, documents and comments from the SSPX. This brings to mind something about a plank and an eye.:rolleyes:

While we’re all celebrating you’re perpetuating division. You should jump on the party bandwagon and leave the accusations at home.:grouphug: :dancing:


#17

:amen:


#18

exactly bear.

this post is only going to deteriorate and it is not going to serve any purpose. its like finger pointing. forget the old stuff. move on. live your life to please God. Be as good and charitable Christian as you can and forget the past of who done this and who done that.
it wont serve any valuable purpose to bring things like this up.


#19

:thumbsup:


#20

We discussed bitter zeal in another thread. I wanted to respond to your last post to me in that thread, but after you posted the moderator asked that the thread get back on track so I let it go.

I agree that bitter zeal is not good, but a disctinction needs to be made between zeal, and bitter zeal. After reading your post in that other thread, it seemed to me that you were confusing zeal and bitter zeal. I was going to ask you if Jesus was guilty of bitter zeal when he turned over the tables in the Temple and ran the people out. I think you would consider this bitter zeal, when in fact it was only zeal.

The opposite of zeal (which is good) is indifference (which is bad). A person who is indifferent will remain very calm in the face of evil because they don’t care about it. A fervent and zealous person will become zealous in contering evil because they care. Zeal is good. It is bitter zeal that is bad.

If you read the writings of the saints and past Popes, you will find a lot of zeal in refuting errors.

I wanted to mention this because it seemed as though you were implying that zeal and bitter zeal were one and the same thing. Be sure to consider the distinction between the two.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.