There is a YouTube video making the rounds, in which Professor Scott Hahn makes a statement describing as "servile," the attachment of many "traditionalists" to such traditional liturgical elements as chant.
I found this rather odd, and from my perspective, more telling about the speaker than the subject. While Islam can be considered a "servile" religion, one which demands strict obedience to every jot and tittle, to ascribe as "servile" those who obey every jot and tittle of our religion, is to neglect the effect of grace on nature, for the expression "perfect freedom through perfect obedience" is our expression, not theirs.
To equate the path to freedom with servility is something I wouldn't have expected to hear him say, and to be charitable, it may be that he only meant to imply that some traditionalists take a servile approach, just as others might observe that some charismatics hold less that orthodox belief. Please note: I did not say all charismatics, and I don't think Dr. Hahn said all traditionalists either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I mentioned this on Paramedicgirl's blog. The problem is one in labeling. The term "traditionalist" is being used very frequently in apologetics circles not for traditional Catholics (those who prefer the Tridentine right, submit to the teachings of the magisterium, and adhere to more traditional practices and devotions) but for what Pope John Paul II referred to in Ecclesiam Dei as Integrists or Integralists.
ReplyDeleteI do think it was an unfortunate choice of words. However, we also only have that short snippet of video—just enough to condemn but not enough to exonerate.