Sunday, January 27, 2008

The Purpose of Damien Thomson's Cheerleading

Readers of this blog will have anticipated this since November 2007 when Damien Thomson's strange campaign to paint Benedict as a staunch conservative was addressed. Read that blog entry here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/11/benedict-has-fans-in-neocon.html

A few days ago we disposed with the argument that the language of the prayer for the conversion of the Jews from the Good Friday liturgy is "offensive" "antisemitism", showing that the language is taken from the Old Testament which today's "Jews" hold up as their totem. Read that blog entry here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/01/rabbis-hatred-for-good-friday-liturgy.html


Now, from The Catholic Herald, a truly offensive neocon rag for which Damien Thomson serves as chief editor, we see this editorial in which it is argued that the language of the Good Friday liturgy should be changed because it is "insulting," "offensive" and "antisemitic."

Also, a strange historical-relativist argument is put forth that in order for the 1962 Latin Missal to be part of a "living heritage" it must conform to the present "legitimate" zeitgeist, which, consequently, is absolutely foreign to, and is indeed hostile to the 2000-year tradition of the Church founded on immutable truths. The implication is that failure to bring the Latin Missal into conformity with the Holocaustolatry of our times, where everything is gauged in reference to the Auschwitz homocidal gas chambers myth instead of the true point of reference-- Calvary, will render the Latin Mass part of a "dead," "antisemitic" heritage, and those who adhere to it, loathsome "Jew-haters."


A Missal for the 21st century

If it is true that Pope Benedict is to rewrite the traditional Latin Good Friday Prayer from the 1962 (Tridentine) Missal to remove insulting references to the “blindness” of the Jews, then we warmly welcome his initiatives. For, in doing so, the Holy Father will send out two powerful signals.

First, that the language of the prayer is offensive. These patronising references to the Jews are an invitation to anti-Semitism – indeed, precisely the sort of anti-Semitism that lurks on the fringes of the traditionalist movement, though the problem is largely confined to communities outside the official structures of the Church. In future, no one will be able to invoke an approved Missal to justify anti-Jewish feeling. Some Lefebvrists may throw up their hands in horror, but that helps explain why they are not in full communion with the Holy See.

Second, the apparent willingness of the Holy Father to rewrite a controversial prayer from the “Tridentine Rite” (as it was once known) underlines a crucial point: that the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII forms part of the Church’s living liturgical heritage. As Pope Benedict’s apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum made clear, the classical form of the Roman Rite may not be the normative text of the Mass, but it enjoys full parity with the 1970 Missal.

The rights of Catholics who prefer the classical form to the Novus Ordo have been obscured for 40 years; they were restored on July 7, 2007, though we may have to wait before local bishops accept the new reality. But with rights come responsibilities. If traditionalists are to rebut the charge that their liturgical preferences are a reflection of their nostalgia, then they must demonstrate that the classical rite is as suited to the 21st century as it was to the 16th. One way to do this is to accept that the older Missal is not set in stone – how could it be, when it bears the date of 1962? – and can be revised to take account of the legitimate sensibilities and insights of our own generation. Then it will truly deserve the title of the Missal of the Ages.

The rights of Catholics who prefer the classical form to the Novus Ordo have been obscured for 40 years; they were restored on July 7, 2007, though we may have to wait before local bishops accept the new reality. But with rights come responsibilities. If traditionalists are to rebut the charge that their liturgical preferences are a reflection of their nostalgia, then they must demonstrate that the classical rite is as suited to the 21st century as it was to the 16th. One way to do this is to accept that the older Missal is not set in stone – how could it be, when it bears the date of 1962? – and can be revised to take account of the legitimate sensibilities and insights of our own generation. Then it will truly deserve the title of the Missal of the Ages.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features_opinion/features_4.html


One statement from Thomson's scribblings is worth repeating:

In future, no one will be able to invoke an approved Missal to justify anti-Jewish feeling. Some Lefebvrists may throw up their hands in horror, but that helps explain why they are not in full communion with the Holy See.


Thomson is either too stupid to realize that the Good Friday liturgy's "anti-Jewish" language is scripture-based, or he thinks traditionalists are too stupid to know it themselves. Judging from the wholly inadequate traditionalist commentary on this issue, one wonders if he'd be correct in assuming ignorance on their part.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Herald was spewing this garbage during Vatican II. The Catholic Herald during Vatican II were running stories that pretty much wanted to absolve the Judaics along with their printing of the fabricated Malachi Martin "prayer for the Jews".

As for the Traditionalist response, is an inadequate response one where Trads vehemently disagree with changing the prayer yet don't have the time or scholarship to go into detail about the prophet Isaiah. Seems a little harsh. I think an example is in order to show what an inadequate response is. Not all Trads are able to dig their noses into various books about Judaism.

Maurice Pinay said...

I think an example is in order to show what an inadequate response is.

I think I've made clear what I believe an adequate response should be, and that is what matters.

If they want to call the prayer "antisemitic," let them call the Old Testament and the Prophets whom the prayer originates with "antisemitic." No "trad" I'm aware of has taken this obvious approach. Until they do, they'll continue to be on the defensive against ridiculous, slanderous accusations against the liturgy and themselves.

As for the Traditionalist response, is an inadequate response one where Trads vehemently disagree with changing the prayer yet don't have the time or scholarship to go into detail about the prophet Isaiah. Seems a little harsh.

It's too much to expect that traditional Catholic pundits have a familiarity with the Bible? This is harsh and unreasonable?

Not all Trads are able to dig their noses into various books about Judaism.

They don't have to when Michael A. Hoffman, Craig Heimbichner and your's truly do the work for them. But there seems to be a blackout on said researchers and their research among "trad" pundits, many of whom do, in fact, make weak attempts at research into Judaism, in spite of the reliable information readily available to them from the above mentioned researchers. This is a horrible disservice to the traditionalist community.

There has been a great deal of information pertinent to traditional Catholics uncovered and posted on this blog, which aside from a few lesser known exceptions, has been blacked out by every popular "trad" website, blog and discussion forum. Not only this blog and author, but the information itself is blacked out. Not receiving recognition is a non-issue for me. What I take very seriously is that this information gets to those who need to know it.

There is something seriously wrong here. Do these "trad" pundits want their readers to remain in the dark on these things?

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised by Thompson's comments, given that he doesn't seem to have a clue as to what Catholicism, and especially traditional Catholicism, really stands for.

It's a bit distressing that he has a strong following among traditional Catholics.

Mr. Pinay, could you please tell where it is that you found the quote by Thompson regarding the "Lefebvrists?" This quote shows that Thompson is obviously anti-SSPX.
Thanks.