The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ are of critical importance for mankind - this is God Himself speaking directly to Man. So that when He gives us a command we have no more important thing to do.But did He do that?
" A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." And the Lord goes on to say : " By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34)
That is crystal clear.
But in the modern Western world an alternative is proposed and generally accepted unthinkingly because it has become " politically correct" . TOLERANCE is the civic ideal. But we need to remember that mere tolerance is NOT a Christian Virtue. Love is what is expected of us , for as we are told, where there is Love , there is God for"God is Love"( 1 John 4:8).
What is the nature of the " Love" proposed? Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us that Love means wanting only the very best for the one loved.And in following the command of Our Divine Lord, that very best means everything that accords with God's Will and excludes anything that does not.
Whereas tolerance would have us watch on while others do wrong and not reprove them, and not seek to persuade them to do the right thing, or to convince them of the Truth.
But is there no room for tolerance?
As regards people, there is not - it is the superior Divinely mandated "Love" that must be our objective.But in other areas, as long as God's Law , the teaching of the Magisterium or the discipline of the Church is not transgressed, tolerance has its place.
Strangely enough, it is in the area of Religion - specifically the Liturgy - that intolerance seems to be systematically entrenched.
In the immediate wake of the Second Vatican Council , the word " Liturgist" became synonymous with a type of radical liberal - a "spirit of the Council" type of intolerant fascist - he was tolerant of everything except orthodoxy and the Rubrics. It was so bad that jokes circulated that the only way to negotiate with a Liturgist was with a sub-machine gun! At the other end of the spectrum there are those who hold that the 1962 Missal saw the end of all legitimate and valid Liturgical change. Accordingly they reject the Ordinary Form of the Mass outright and some of them go so far as to say that there is no Pope and there has not been since Ven. Pope Pius XII.
What is clear, at both ends of the spectrum, is that there is very little , if any "love" in evidence. Of course the dwindling numbers at each end of the spectrum, both hold the that their approach is the correct one, by appealing to the ( false) " spirit of the Council" in the first case and, in the other case, by relying on their own interpretation of the perceived faults of the Council ( oddly for people who would think of themselves as conservative,this is a very Protestant "every man his own Pope" approach.)
For my own part, I stick firmly with the "teach what the Catholic Church teaches, do what the Catholic Church does, and let the chips fall where they may " approach of Cardinal George Pell. I love the Extraordinary Form and always have, since my earliest childhood memories, but, of necessity I happily assist at the Ordinary Form and rejoice when it is devoutly celebrated and get uptight when it is not.I try to avoid labelling people unless they label themselves, as the false " spirit of the Council" folk do. And I strive to be as charitable as I am able - sometimes failing under severe provocation.
|PRIESTLY ORDINATION OF FATHER DAMONN SYPHER F.S.S.P.|
ACCORDING TO THE OLD RITE
I would like to see the Extraordinary Form far more widely available and I am pleased to see the number of young Priests learning to celebrate it. Everyone will benefit from the sense of the sacred it engenders.