Some Thoughts on Motu Proprio Mania

Mark Shea

by Mark Shea on January 9, 2008 · 0 comments

I was gratified when the long-awaited motu proprio from Pope Benedict, urging a wider celebration of the Tridentine Rite, came out. I’m happy for those, including my son, who love to worship in that way. More power to 'em. Some of the loveliest Catholics I know are devotees of the Tridentine rite.

That said, I was not personally excited by the news of the motu proprio since it doesn’t especially affect me. I attend a Paul VI Mass that is reverently celebrated by the Dominicans of Blessed Sacrament parish in Seattle. My attitude toward liturgy is "Just give me my lines and my blocking." I then endeavor to learn and forget about them in precisely the same way I endeavor to break in my shoes. The point of shoes is not to notice them, but to walk in them. Shoes you constantly notice are Bad Shoes. Liturgy you focus on is liturgy that's not doing its job, which is to refer us to God, not to itself.

Now there are two basic reasons people focus on liturgy instead of God, just as there are two reasons a person will focus on his shoes.

The first reason is that the shoes hurt. Lord knows that in a time of widespread liturgical abuse, people have been hurt by badly celebrated liturgy and I empathize with those who have. Many have suffered from self-styled “progressives” who regard the Paul VI rite as their personal playground and laboratory. Worse, they have treated the Tridentine rite and those who attend it as throwbacks to some imagined Dark Ages. In place of the authentic Paul VI Mass, many Catholics have had to endure a perpetual Feast of St. Narcissus celebrated by Fr. Heylookatme at what writer Amy Welborn has aptly called the “Church of Aren’t We Fabulous”. Instead of the worship of God, we get perpetual hymns like the execrable “Anthem” celebrating our Usness, affirming ourselves in our okayness, and glorifying our wonderfulness for being kind enough to admit God into those parts of our lives where we feel comfortable with him. The notion among such “progressives” often seems to be that Mass isn’t enough. They appear to think people who come for the Christ who is present in word and sacrament have to be bludgeoned into a sort of plastic bonhomie with artificial glad-handing and yukitup homilies about sports and TV shows. The phoniness of such “community-building” experiments on the lab rats in the pews can be awfully wearying for those who have lives and who do not require that Mass be transformed into a Kiwanis club meeting in order for them to be socially fulfilled. We like our commandments in the proper order: Love God, then neighbor.

 That’s one of the reasons for the motu proprio, to try to give succor to those injured by dreadful abuses of the Paul VI rite. I wish fans of the Tridentine rite well in finding a Mass that is reverently celebrated and in receiving redress for legitimate grievances about real abuses, just as I hope a man with painful shoes will soon get new and comfortable shoes: so that they can get on with the business of walking with God.

But I also note that there is another reason some people become focused on their shoes—or the liturgy: oversensitivity. Some people are hypochondriacs who imagine injury where there is none or who grossly exaggerate small irritations into great big ones. Did the priest hold the Host high enough during the Consecration? I can’t stand that hymn! Is that person dressed in a way I think fitting for Mass? I can’t bear altar girls! Those people held hands during the Our Father! There’s a parish “renewal” program in the bulletin. I wonder what that’s supposed to mean? I see they’ve added that 15th Station of the Cross. That tells me all I need to know about this place.

Some people become so inflamed about such matters that they sacrifice the love of neighbor on the altar of liturgical correctness. Some can even reach the point where they regard those who attend the Paul VI Mass—even a reverently celebrated one—as second-class Catholics. I know this, because I’ve been on the receiving end of such judgments repeatedly. When I’ve stated that I believe the Mass is the Mass is the Mass and so I’m content with either the Tridentine or Paul VI liturgies, I’ve been asked by Tridentine enthusiasts, “Is a Black Mass a Mass also?” (talk about telegraphing contempt!). I’ve been told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the only reason I like the Paul VI rite is that I a) don’t know any better, b) am still a Protestant at heart, or c) need to have exposure to the true Mass, which is vastly more nourishing to the soul than the pathetic dessicated “Novus Ordo”.

When I reply that I have been exposed to the Tridentine Rite and that my chief impression from the experience was, “Ah! Now I see why they wanted to reform the liturgy!” I elicit frowns of disdain. Mind: I don’t mean that I think the Tridentine rite “inferior” any more than I think the Paul VI rite inferior. I think my proper response to the Mass is gratitude, not a critical spirit. But, speaking only for me, I find the Paul VI Mass more spiritually nourishing (though any liturgy promulgated by the Church is good enough for me and I wish all good to those who attend the Holy Liturgy in any of its approved forms).

For this sin of believing and professing that any approved liturgy of the Church is good enough for me and that it’s not my job to find fault but to gratefully receive, I’m told that what I’m really saying is “it is all about me and what the liturgy does or doesn't do for me.” In that marvelous "heads we win, tails you lose" arrangement, I am supposed to feel the superiority of the Tridentine rite and if don't feel it, it's because I'm selfishly putting my feelings ahead of the TRVTH, which is fully expressed by the feelings of Tridentine rite fans.

I don't think those who prefer the Tridentine Rite are either better or worse Catholics than those who are at home in the Paul VI rite. Nor do I regard the Mass as something we are commissioned by Christ to weigh in the balance and find wanting. To be sure, I dislike liturgical abuses, whether they be the apocryphal clown Mass or the five minute Tridentine Hunting Masses of European nobility (in which the Mass was sped along at light speed so m'lord could get on with his fox hunting expedition). But I don't throw the babe out with the bath and say that because the Paul VI liturgy is often abused, it is therefore an abuse itself. I go to a parish where the Mass is reverently celebrated and we find it every bit as nourishing to our souls and as full of praise to God as the Tridentine rite is for others. I have this weird notion that my business is to listen and receive, not to compare and contrast.

Consequently, I lack a lot of interest in the motu proprio. I'm glad Benedict is interested in it. That's his job. I simply don't see why it's my job. My parish is reverently celebrating the Paul VI rite. My job is to receive that gift, not to look it in the mouth. Nor is my job to suggest that if you like the Tridentine rite instead you are a second-class Catholic and a narcissist. It would be nice if many enthusiasts for the Tridentine liturgy could return the favor.

  • Guest

    M.Andrews,

    You might want to actually read what I wrote in both posts.  What does the fact that the pope wrote Summorum Pontificum have anything to do with one missal being a feast and the other being mere meal?  Nothing.  If such an assertion was true, then he would have made the Tridentine the ordinary and not the extraordinary form.  Unless you are suggesting that the Holy Father intends to hold back on insisting the best for his children always.

  • Guest

    goral,

    I told my wife I'm an extraordinary Catholic and she's an ordinary Catholic.  Did I say anything wrong?  Now, I'm eating oatmeal for lunch and dinner.  How can I patch this up?

  • Guest

    Here's my reply to Mr. Shea's pathetic attempt at a rebuttal: http://southbendtrad.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-sheas-reponse.html

  • Guest

    How did the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit of Truth, get it right in the past, but fail so miserably at Vatican II?

    What documents contradict Church teaching?

    In Christ,

    There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me…

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Devoncroix:

    After sincerely congratulating devotees of the Tridentine liturgy for the motu proprio, I basically said "I'm grateful for any Mass the Church offers".  For this sin of expressing my contentment with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of Holy Mother Church, I have been called pathetic, had my relationship with my son maliciously psychoanalyzed, and the Mass I attend compared to a Black Mass.

    And when I suggest there is something wrong with this, you tell me I'm being mean.  I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.  Instead of emoting at me, could you actually give me an example of what was so mean about my article, about defending my son from defamation, or about protesting blasphemy of the Mass?

  • Guest

    "How did the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit of Truth, get it right in the past, but fail so miserably at Vatican II?"

    You know, David, that's a good question.  I wouldn't say she failed miserably, but Paul VI gave an intriguing answer to the jist of your question (which it seems was on the mind of alot of Catholics after the Council).  It always stuck in my mind because it offers a very real answer to an undeniable question, and is given by the most trustworthy source at the time.  There are several different translations of it, but they all say basically the same thing:  "We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation…. We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. [Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation]   This quote can be confirmed on the vatican's site: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_   

    What a quote!  Sometimes it is hard to comprehend the magnitude of the battle at stake. 

  • Guest

    DTG,

    I can't comment on other parishes, but where I attend the TLM does not. I suspect that's for a couple of reasons:

    1) Logistics. I think that the closest (geographically) members of our community drive 30 minutes one way to get to Mass. Most drive much further…it's not unusual to see people driving 2 hours.

    2) We share the church. We are actually renting the space for when we have Mass…it's not actually "our" parish. This is not an unusual arrangement, unfortunately.

    A number of parishioners therefore participate in adoration (if it's available) at a geographically closer parish to them. That's what my family does. We would not be able to do the late evening time slot that we do if we had to drive 40 minutes (not to mention to a "bad" neighborhood.)

  • Guest

    Just a word about this quote: 

    "We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation….

    It is curious that this quote from Paul VI seems to be constantly given the weight of an ex cathedra definition of the Faith and constitutes almost the only words Paul VI ever spoke that I have ever heard quoted by Traditionalists.  The words themselves are true and I agree with mom of 5 that they illustrate the magnitude of the battle we are in.

    I simply want to note (not for mom of 5 but for some of the more nasty critics of the Council), that these words are often cited for the none-too-subtle purpose of suggesting that the actual magisterial teaching of the Church in Vatican II (and, I might add, in approving the Paul VI Mass as valid and licit) is an error.  Speaking of sowing doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation….

    The opposite of Progressive Liberal Dissent from the Magisterium is not Reactionary Dissent.  It is orthodoxy and fidelity to the Magisterium.  Both the Progressive and the Reactionary Dissenter have this in common: they are dissenters.  Those who say the Tridentine Mass is an evil relic of the Dark Ages and those who compare the Paul VI Mass to a Black Mass have this in common: they are hostile to the teaching of Holy Church.  They are also ingrates for the great gift of the Eucharist.

  • Guest

    mark,  it is with eagerness that I read your few responses to this forum, only to be disappointed with each one.  When will you tackle some of the intelligent questions raised in response to your article, instead of bringing it down to a personal issue.  Only one person did what you said: "called {you} pathetic, had my relationship with my son maliciously psychoanalyzed, and the Mass I attend compared to a Black Mass."  Why do you let ONE person take over the whole discussion by focusing solely on that?  There are over FORTY intelligent replies to your article in this forum.  Could you please respond to some of those and ignore the personal accusations.  Any editor or person in the limelight knows there will always be few petty, personal remarks about what he said, but it takes maturity to look past them and focus on the real issue.  This topic is too important to get bogged down by the small things.  I would love to hear your response to the real questions raised in this discussion.  You usually approach topics in an objective and intelligent way – keep up the good work.

  • Guest

    Mom and Mark, 

    Do we have an understanding of the context in which he used those words? I am still trying to navigate to the entire homily…

    In Christ,

    There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me…

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    I can only find it in Italian…

    There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me…

     Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest
    Mark – 
     Your article is thick with a condenscending, insulting attitude. I see no sincerety in it at all. I cannot imagine an article like that coming from Jesus or the Saints and I stand by my assertion that it is un-Christian in it's tone.
    And parts of it such as:
    "Some people are hypochondriacs who imagine injury where there is none or who grossly exaggerate small irritations into great big ones. Did the priest hold the Host high enough during the Consecration? I can’t stand that hymn! Is that person dressed in a way I think fitting for Mass? I can’t bear altar girls! Those people held hands during the Our Father! There’s a parish “renewal” program in the bulletin. I wonder what that’s supposed to mean? I see they’ve added that 15th Station of the Cross. That tells me all I need to know about this place." 
    are hyperbole at best, calmuny at worst.
     And your replies to others have been full of spite and anger:
    "Thanks for providing a marvelous illustration of the common inability of Traditionalists to take yes for an answer."– "Deal with your rage and bitterness"– "the fruit of Traditionalism is, all too often, this sort of paradoxical blasphemy of our Lord" –"the principle fruit of the spirit for much of what styles itself as Traditionalism is rage and bitterness." 
       
     Emphasis is mine ~ to demonstrate that this is apparently your feeling towards the majority of those attached to the Extraordinary Form and not just those you may have had words with.
  • Guest

    I think the Pope is well aware of the concerns you voiced.  That, I believe, is the genius of the Moto Proprio, bringing the TLM back into mainstream Church life -   that this treasure doesn't belong just to the hardliners, but to the whole Church. Your son is a wonderful example of the balance this can bring.

    Forgive me for writing so much.  God bless.

  • Guest

    Mom:

    There's only one of me.  Do you really think I have time to respond to forty people individually?  The purpose of the forum is not so that writers can drop everything and respond to every reader.  It's so that readers can talk amongst themselves.  I addressed a couple of posts that seemed to me to illustrate exactly what I was trying to address in my article.  Lots of the posts here agreed with what I initially said and didn't need me to write back and say, "I agree with you that I'm right."  A couple of people made a number of points that were nicely addressed by others.  When people like Devoncroix write the sort of things that they write and I *don't* reply, I get hammered for "refusing to face criticism".  When I do reply, I get hammered for speaking to them and not forty other people.  Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

  • Guest
     Mark,  I have not seen anyone call you pathetic, defame your son, or blaspheme The Mass. Could you please show me examples of these?
    Edited to add~ Also I was curious as to your source for "the five minute Tridentine Hunting Masses of European nobility (in which the Mass was sped along at light speed so m'lord could get on with his fox hunting expedition)."
  • Guest

    Devoncroix:

    Condescension is what you brought to the article, not me.  I am perfectly sincere in my happiness over the motu proprio and in my accolades to the (non-bitter and rage-filled) Traditionalists I know.  If you choose to believe otherwise, there is nothing I can do about that.

    The examples you assume are hyperbole or calumny come, like it or not, from personal experience.  And they are not the worst samples.  I have known very wonderful Traditionalists who have actually received death threats from the bitter and rage-filled types for going to a Paul VI Mass.  I have known people at my own parish who have been physically threatened and shouted down by the bitter and rage-filled types.  I have watched as bitter and rage-filled Traddies have spread gossip and calumny of the ugliest sort against a holy priest I know whose sandals they were not worthy to untie.  The examples I gave of the sort of unpleasantness I have seen from not a few Traditionalists were actually rather mild.  There's plenty more where that came from.  But I chose to try to focus on what is good in Traditionalism precisely because I meant what I said when I said that that some of the very best and most beautiful Catholics I have known were Traditionalists.

    I'm sorry that you cannot cope with the fact that not a few Traditionalists have made Traditionalism a *very* ugly thing in the experience of those of us who have been their victims.  But that's how it is.  Rather than try to shout down somebody who is (I repeat again, wearily) basically empathetic to their concerns, suggest that the Paul VI Mass is like a Black Mass, mutter scurrilous gossip about my son, and snarl when somebody tries to say something nice to you, it would be really nice of Traditionalists could admit that there is a problem in the way a lot of Trads relate to those outside their tribe.

  • Guest

    Devoncroix:

    Go to page 2 of the comments and read fedelm's nastygrams.

  • Guest

    Sorry, Marc, I didn't mean to add to your frustration.   I certainly didn't expect you to address each comment personally.Smile  Thanks for explaining why you chose to answer the ones you did.  You certainly aren't damned!  You're alive and well and hopefully, enjoying your day, and you started a wonderful exchange of ideas!  God bless!

  • Guest
     I read what fedelm wrote and he never said anything bad about your son. He did not blaspheme The Mass and he called what you wrote pathetic, never you.
      But all that aside your last post has hurt me so much I think it is better if I don't respond any further. I am sure that will make you happy. I do think though if as you say death threats have truly been made, those are serious accusations and proof (police reports, witness verification) should be required before you post them here. I humbly request that you retract that whole last post you directed at me since it was obviously done in anger and is so very hurtful. I am just a wife and mother who is trying to do my best to follow Christ. I am hurt to my very core by your scathing reply. This is not "emoting". But rather real emotion.
      God bless you Mark and I will say a prayer for you.
  • Guest

    I read what fedelm wrote and he never said anything bad about your son

    Sure he did.  In writing, "[It would appear that Mark has some personal baggage here, which might explain what is latent in what we read below.]" he was suggesting there was some sort of conflict or hostility between my son and me.  Indeed, he uses this imagined conflict as the basis for his equally imaginary charge that, in congratulating devotees of the Tridentine Mass for the motu proprio I was actually saying I am "less than gratified by those who are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass".

    The clear suggestion is that I am, in this piece, somehow working out my "baggage" with my son, at whom I am (it is insinuated) displeased for his participation in and love of the Tridentine rite.  It's a sleazy bit of cheap psychoanalysis that has no basis in fact.  fedelm should be ashamed of himself.

    He did not blaspheme The Mass

    Sure he did.  In suggesting that it's perfectly fine to compare the Paul VI rite with a Black Mass.  It's not. It is the Mass of our Lord Jesus Christ and ought not be compared to the offerings of demons.

    I don't know why you want me to retract what I wrote, since none of it was untrue and none of it was, so far as I can see, uncharitable. You charged me with various things, I answered the charges.  Now you are hurt that I have done so?  I don't get it. 

  • Guest

    Mom:

    Sweat thou it not!  Thanks!

  • Guest

    Fedelm is greatly upset that after our leaving links to his screeds up here (on page 2 of the comments) so that people can read them for themselves, pointing people to these links, and even letting them be republished again in Mr. Garrison's post above, we are not allowing fedelm to keep posting the links along with his charity-filled commentary, yet again.

    The answer is simple: fedelm is being nasty and CE has no obligation to give him a platform.  Readers are welcome to discuss my evilness at fedelm's site. 

  • Guest

    Mark, I have to take issue with both sides of this (made-up) controversy. 

    The "issue" I take is that some very "un-Christian" things have been said and done by both Paul VI advocates and Tridentine advocates.  (And, I'm not just referring to this article and following comments.)  I have neither seen nor heard some of the more outrageous specifics, but I've seen and heard enough to make me cry (and I'm not an emotional woman).

    Folks, how are we making our faith 'enticing' to others when we are at each others' throats?  Didn't Jesus–our LORD!–pray for unity among His followers?  The only unity I've seen here is the "us" vs "them" variety.  What about "love your enemies" and "do good to those that persecute you"?  What about "forgive 70 X 7 times"?

    We do have an enemy to fight!  And, he ain't us!  But, he sure is using us!  Shame on us all!

  • Guest

    Cooky:

    I quite agree that Traditionalists have been abused.  I said as much in my article and attempted to express my empathy with those who have suffered at the hands of Progressive dissenters.  For my troubles, I was called pathetic, insincere, and condescending and my relationship with my son was called into question.

    I'm quite willing to forgive folks like fedelm for their abuse of me.  But CE doesn't owe abusive people a forum so they can go on abusing.  If he wants to apologize, I'm quite happy to listen.  If not, he's got his own blog and can abuse me there.  Forgiveness does not mean saying, "Thank you sir!  May I have another!"

  • Guest

    {edited post}

    By the way, have you all read Summorum Pontificum? Some, if not most of the comments here, begs the question.

    There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me…

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Cooky, I understand your point.  However, if we are spiritually mature, we should be able to discuss these issues without being at each other's throat.  We need not panic if we don't agree on everything.  Blessed be God for the work He is doing through Catholic Exchange, however, I think this was a missed opportunity.  

    I've been in traditional circles for some time now and Mark's point is valid.  There are extremes.  However, I agree with momof5 that hopefully the Moto Proprio should bring balance back into the Church.  (Let this be the focus.)  The traditional mass does not belong to extremists, but to the whole Church!   Perhaps this is naive,  but it is the thinking of the Holy Father: let us rejoice!  God bless.

  • Guest

    Mark, 

    Readers may be welcome to discuss your evilness at his site, but you are not able to discuss his intentions or receive answers to his claims. My posts have been removed.

    He states that Vatican II produced documents that contradicted previously promulgated or established documents. As of yet, the only response was to remove my posts and question my sincerity.

    I asked if his desire was to attack Mark, his opinions, the Norvus Ordo, Vatican II, etc., etc., because I really couldn't tell if it was one or all of these that he held in contempt. I was called coy and disingenuous. It is now clear that it is all of the above.

    I do not see why it is such a shock for people when incendiary comments or illicit posts are removed from CE. I am removing my links to his site, posted to show another poster what she might have missed, because it should be more difficult for someone to find.

    In Christ,

    There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me…

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Does anyone have access to an English version of Pope Paul VI homily from 1972 on the 9th anniversary of his pontificate?

    In Christ,

    There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me…

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    At first, I thought the use of the word "mania" in the title to the essay was derogatory (and it still seems a bit so to me).  I would have preferred the word, "excitement," in its place.  But Mr. Shea is the author and has a right to his own title. It did rub me the wrong way, however.  I wonder if perhaps the essayist paints too broadly concerning his views regarding certain Catholics.  I still maintain that the "black mass" comment was not necessarily intended to be a comparison to the new Mass, but seemed to be more a reaction to the "mass is the mass is the mass" remark, which I agree with. I just think that some masses are more reverent, beautiful and appropriate that others, as does the essayist.  But I tend to prefer the Extraordinary form when it is available. But that is a position I've grown into in my Catholic life, and the essayist is a convert, so give him time and an open mind.  

     

    M. Andrews

  • Guest

    Sorry, David, it's hard to find an English translation of the entire homily.  Looks like you're going to have to brush up on your Italian and translate it yourself or find an Italian friendUndecided.

  • Guest

    There are English translations of the homily, they're just not floating around on the web.  Probably in some archive of a periodical at the time.  Let us know if you find it.

  • Guest

    Mark, I apologize for antagonizing you further.

    Yes, you did indeed show empathy for the Traditionalists who have been abused.  I didn't mean to imply that you didn't.  I didn't mention it, but I have also been 'bashed' (altho' not 'trashed') by BOTH TLR and P VI advocates.  I've learned a lesson our mothers taught us: consider the source…..and let it go.

    As for "asking for more", no, I agree that one doesn't "earn any Brownie points" by standing meekly by and letting all comers get their hits in.  However, I learned many years ago, from an incident within my marriage that remains unresolved, that forgiveness isn't dependent on the repentance–or, even, acknowledgement–of the offender.  It's something we do because Jesus commands us to, because we want to be like Him.  No?  By 'releasing' the offender (i.e., forgiveness), we allow God to work in his/her soul as it pleases Him.  Perhaps the offender will, by God's grace, see his culpability and repent and be won!  Or, perhaps, not.  That's between the offender and God; it no longer has anything to do with me (which is how I've been able to stay married to my offender for 47 years).  God has already given me justice: He died on the cross for all the times I offended Him!

    As for your own feelings, I propose you look up Matt. 5: 11 & 12.  In two seperate instances with priests "dressing me down" at Mass, that has kept my soul right where it belongs: in Christ.

    God bless you, kiddo.

  • Guest

    Randallino: I agree that we "should" be mature enough to discuss our differences without getting into "knock down – drag out" fights.  That seems not to be the level of maturity, here (and, I'm not faulting Mark for that). 

    Additonally, I agree that BOTH the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of Mass belong to the Church.  God willing, those advocates of either will come to realize this truth…..but not, it seems, without some bloodshed.  That's not our German Shepherd's fault.  Nor, is it God's: He already shed His blood.  I was merely trying to point out that it is not incumbent on us to try to supplement that!

    As for CE, I am blessed by it every day.  I read this even when I don't have time for any other site.  I love what they do and–mostly–how they do it.  But, I reserve the right to "correct" when I perceive a need for it (see 2 Tim. 3:16), as I expect to be corrected.

  • Guest

    Cooky:

    I agree with have to extend forgiveness even when the person does not repent.  That's why I said I was willing to forgive.  But that's still no reason to let fedelm go on abusing me, hence the deleted posts.

    Thanks for your good heart!

  • Guest

    Dear Mark: I never meant to suggest that you shouldn't cut off fedelm–and devoncroix, as well.  In fact, I wish you'd done it sooner, since they seemed to be the most virulent. 

    I'm also glad you've come to an understanding with your son.  If it's any comfort, my youngest daughter left Catholicism and is currently studying for an M. Div. at a United Methodist seminary.  It could be worse!  Wink

  • Guest

    Hi Cooky:

    Actually, I wish devoncroix had not chosen to end the conversation, and I had no intention of hurting her feelings, but I agree with you that fedelm was over the top.

    FWIW, I haven't come to any understanding with my son, because there was never any disagreement to begin with.  He likes to wander off to the Tridentine Mass with a local family we know.  Really wonderful people with absolutely outstanding kids.

    I'm sorry about the difficulties with your daughter.  If it's any consolation, Jeff Cavins followed a similar route.  You might want to check out his book, My Life on the Rock.