January 30, 2010
-
A correction – and an apology – is in order.
I believe that in Friday’s post, I have misconstrued the point being made by our friend at Libera Me, and so I thought it only proper to correct that mistake, and offer a heartfelt apology for any aspersions unjustly cast in his direction.
The mistake I made was in misinterpreting the referent of the pronoun “that” in his statement about “those who would disagree with [that] are, at best, in schism” into applying more broadly to those who might disagree that “it doesn’t matter whether it’s 1962 in cloth-of-gold or EP2 in polyester”, and then taking this in combination with his statement that “The externals of the Rites, and matters of Church furnishing and ordering, are, on the whole, inessential; and we are therefore at liberty to hold what opinions we choose . . .” without noting the important point that his statement identifying a schismatic attitude was limited only to those who disagree that the Novus Ordo is *valid*, not those who may, as I do, disagree with the idea that the “externals” as he defines them, are “inessential” so that in some sense “it doesn’t matter” what those externals might be.
I still disagree with the latter point, and I think that in my posts (both before and since) I’ve made at least a stab at beginning to explain some of the reasons why. But I find in re-reading his post more carefully that in fact, I agree that one cannot safely believe a Novus Ordo Mass to be *invalid* simply because it is Novus Ordo, nor is it safe to assume that a Novus Ordo Mass is invalid (as opposed to inappropriate) simply because it may not have been celebrated with the reverence with which it ought to have been celebrated.
Validity is not my primary concern in these posts, as such a determination is ultimately “above my pay-grade”. What I do address is congruity and “meetness”, and the many ways in which the *manner* in which the Mass is celebrated affects people’s perceptions of, and confidence in, the teachings of the Magisterium, not only about the Mass and the Priesthood, but ultimately, about anything at all.
I am sincerely sorry for having made it sound like he was branding people (like me) who care about the things that he labeled “inessential” as schismatics, when that was not what he said at all. I honestly don’t believe my mistake to have been malicious, but rather due to reading too fast the first time, but when one takes it upon oneself to pontificate online about someone else’s post, one must bear the responsibility when one fails to correctly ascertain the true intended meaning, and attempt, as best as possible to correct the error.
I am therefore revising my original Friday post to remove the offending matter, but I will leave this post here if nothing else, as a reminder to myself to read other’s blog posts more carefully before assuming I understand what they meant to say - and then proceeding to prove to everyone that I don’t!
Before closing, I should be remiss if I failed to point out how ironic it is that a post he no doubt intended in a completely irenic manner should be construed by me in such a way as to risk a breach of the very charity he was seeking to encourage amongst all Catholic Christians - as we “trads” are so fond of saying, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!”
And finally, I would also like to offer my sincere best wishes to the author of the Libera Me blog, and encourage him to keep up the good work, as I’m sure that many others profit, as I do (even when I occasionally disagree) from regularly reading his blog.
