After reading many threads here, I've noticed somethng disturbing

[goat]

I am a Novus Ordo born-and-bred Catholic.

I only recently attended my first Traditional Latin Mass. It takes time to become acclimated to it, but there is one thing I love about it more than anything: the reverence for Our Blessed Lord that saturates the ancient liturgy.

It’s also so much simpler than the hoops we sometimes jump through in the New Mass, what with armies of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, awkwardness in posture for anyone who wishes to receive on the tongue, kneeling in this parish, standing in the next, etc., etc.

How I wish we could go back to the practice of using altar rails…just to begin with.

I guess I’m a traditionalist, but I am unapologetically in union with Rome.

I think it would be good for people to give those of us who find the Traditional Latin Mass preferable the respect and consideration for which the Holy Father has asked in Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Hananiah]

Graffiacane:

I was not so much offended by it as desirous to delineate in fact the difference; because whether or not we ought to call ourselves by different appelations, the reality of the situation delineates major groups as such:

Traditionalist Catholics- Reject Novus Ordo and Vatican II entirely; see: Traditio.com

Traditionalism is not a monolithic movement. You’re confusing one element for the whole. There are some who fit this description, but certainly not all.

Graffiacane:

Conservative Catholics- Critical of Novus Ordo and Vatican II; criticized heavily by Traditionalists

This definition actually better describes the non-schismatic wing of traditionalism. This is the traditionalism of Deitrich Von Hildebrand, and myself. “Conservative Catholic” is the term which is usually used to desribe people who are theologically orthodox, but who describe John Paul II as “the great,” agree with him when he calls Vatican II a new Pentecost, and otherwise stick their heads in the sand. www.catholic-legate.com is a site full of conservative Catholics. www.catholicintl.com is a site full of non-schismatic traditionalists. This should help you differentiate.

 

[Bud_Stewart]

goat:

… one thing I love about it more than anything: the reverence for Our Blessed Lord that saturates the ancient liturgy.

It’s also so much simpler than the hoops we sometimes jump through in the New Mass, what with armies of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, awkwardness in posture for anyone who wishes to receive on the tongue, kneeling in this parish, standing in the next, etc., etc.

How I wish we could go back to the practice of using altar rails…just to begin with.

I guess I’m a traditionalist, but I am unapologetically in union with Rome.

I think it would be good for people to give those of us who find the Traditional Latin Mass preferable the respect and consideration for which the Holy Father has asked in Ecclesia Dei.

Well done, I couldn’t say it any better than this, so I won’t even try.

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

““Conservative Catholic” is the term which is usually used to desribe people who are theologically orthodox, but who describe John Paul II as “the great,” agree with him when he calls Vatican II a new Pentecost, and otherwise stick their heads in the sand.”

Pardon me while I get the dirt out of my eyes.

Since I have been doing that, I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread. So, maybe this question has already been answered somewhere. Why is it that a “conservative Catholic” is “theologically orthodox” BUT agrees with the Pope and thinks he’s great? In other words, why is the Pope seen as less than theologically orthodox?

 

[Trevelyan]

Graffiacane:

I believe that changes … in the Church after Vatican II have been greatly detrimental to the Faithful

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
“the Pope with General Council cannot err, either in framing decrees of faith or general precepts of morality;…the Pope when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful.”

According to St Robert, no Catholic can refuse to accept the Novus Ordo by claiming that the Pope was mistaken in instituting it.

Cardinal Newman wrote:
“I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.”

We won’t be asked at our judgement ‘What did the Pope do wrong?’, we will be asked ‘Were you obedient to my vicar?’

 

[chosunhoon]

I’m also a convert, and I realize I love ancient liturgy over Novus Ordo. While I haven’t attended the Tridentine Mass as of yet, I’ve attended liturgies of other Christian traditions: Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and Anglo-Catholic High Mass.

And here’s what I noticed: They’re both more ‘impressive’ than Novus Ordo. Nearly everything in Scott Hahn’s the Lamb’s Supper became more of a reality to me by attending ancient liturgies. Naturally of course I didn’t take Eucharist at an Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic parish. I had to go to a local Catholic parish for Eucharist.

But to use a ‘crude’ analogy, these old liturgies made Novus Ordo look like a formal presbyterian service. I actually attended a presbyeterian church whose worship was like a ‘wannabe liturgy’.

I have nothing against presbyterians, it’s just that I prefer ancient liturgies that aren’t ‘protestantized’ in anyway (especially with the use of modern worship and such). I’m not saying the Mass is not a valid Mass, it’s just that the Mass with modern music doesn’t really do it for me.

It almost pushed me to deconvert and go Eastern Orthodox. But then I realized there’s the Eastern rite, and several valid Traditional Latin Masses (which is similar to Anglican High Mass)

The beautiful thing (for me at least) with these ancient liturgies is that I understand maybe 1% of what was said, but all the theology that we talk about was literally present before me in the icons, the candles, the incense, the shape of the church, the bowing, the constant signs of the cross, the ‘smells and bells’, etc. It’s exactly what I longed for as a protestant: A worshipful atmosphere where theology literally comes alive right in front of me. The reality of heaven on earth was so real to me that I didn’t have to understand virtually all of it to know that I was literally experiencing the pages of Revelation.

I suppose I’m a traditionalist But I’m also a big time believer in the gifts of the spirit, so I’d be considered a Charismatic…but I totally prefer seeing charismatic worship completely out of the liturgy (as I implied before).

But I wonder: Why didn’t the Catholic Church simply translate the Traditional Latin Mass into the vernacular (somewhat like in the Anglo-Catholic tradition) without simplifying the Mass?

-Jason

 

[Debbie]

Hananiah:

This is the traditionalism of Deitrich Von Hildebrand, and myself. “Conservative Catholic” is the term which is usually used to desribe people who are theologically orthodox, but who describe John Paul II as “the great,” agree with him when he calls Vatican II a new Pentecost, and otherwise stick their heads in the sand.

I’m curious, Hanahiah, 1) What is the traditionalism of DvH with which you compare yourself, and 2) what am I sticking my head in the sand about?

Thanks,

Debbie

 

[EUSTACHIUS]

Just recently I also went to my first Tridentine Mass and I loved it. The reason is because there was so much more reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament. But the one thing that I think is truly missing from the Novus Ordo mass is the universality of the Tridentine Mass. My Father was in World War II and he has traveled all over the world and he said that back before Novus Ordo you could go to Mass any where in the world and you always knew what was going on. Now you can’t even say that here in the U.S. with the Novus Ordo Mass because so many priest don’t follow the rubric. I know this thread isn’t about the Tridentine Mass, but I thought I would put that in.

As for critizing the Pope here is what St. Robert Bellarmine a Doctor of the Church said in De Romano Pontifice:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these acts are proper to a superior.”

I don’t have any problem with people critizing the Pope ( and bishop, or priest) as long as it is done charitible, especially when the Pope sets a bad example; such as allowing a buddha to be place on the Tabernacle or kissing the Koran. St. Paul critized Peter when he set a bad example. The problem is when people make Luther’s mistake and abandon the Church because of the actions of clergy who have gone astray. We have to pray for our priests not abandon them.

 

[ralphinal]

Ok, I may totally be missing something, but isn’t it possible that the problem is not the form or language of the mass, but the way people approach it? When the mass was in Latin, it was different from daily life, set apart. That helped with the feeling of reverence. This was not like anything else you did during your week. Once the mass went vernacular, it was only a matter of time before people started seeing it as the same as everything else. I have been to many of the “new masses” that had a reverence to rival any of the latins and I have been to some where I left the church, drove to another mass and attended then because I felt like I did not attend mass at all. IN both cases, the priest and the congregation were the problem, not the ritual itself. Yes, the translation may not be the best, and yes it is missing some of the wonder and reverence of the older style, but the important part is still the important part.

 

[Hananiah]

Br. Dan:

Since I have been doing that, I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread. So, maybe this question has already been answered somewhere. Why is it that a “conservative Catholic” is “theologically orthodox” BUT agrees with the Pope and thinks he’s great? In other words, why is the Pope seen as less than theologically orthodox?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the Pope was less than theologically orthodox. The “but” was to contrast conservatives with traditionalists, who are also theologically orthodox, “but” don’t share the enthusiasm for John Paul II. The biggest gripe traditionalists have with him is not his theology but his extraordinarily weak exercise of church discipline.

 

[Crusader]

Graffiacane:

I was not so much offended by it as desirous to delineate in fact the difference; because whether or not we ought to call ourselves by different appelations, the reality of the situation delineates major groups as such:

Traditionalist Catholics- Reject Novus Ordo and Vatican II entirely; see: Traditio.com

Conservative Catholics- Critical of Novus Ordo and Vatican II; criticized heavily by Traditionalists

Liberal Catholics- Generally neutral or left-leaning

Ultraliberal Catholics- The sort of people who want women priests and abortion yet still claim to be Catholic

It is in fact out of defference to Traditionalists that I take exception to being called one; since whatever they think of my stance in the Church, I respect theirs and ultimately agree with their aims, even if they are a little extreme about things.

Addendum: I’m not talking about schismatic crazies like the “True Catholic Church” in the South who follow the Antipope, Pius XIII, and believe John XXIII was the Antichrist because the date and time of his coronation read in the register VI VI VI (which doesn’t add up to 666 last I checked; maybe the True Catholic Church should learn Latin numerals if they’re going to defend Romanism?)

Leave the liberal/moderate/conservative tags for politics…

How about orthodox or heterodox to describe Catholics…

 

[Hananiah]

1) What is the traditionalism of DvH with which you compare yourself

DvH was very critical of the Novus Ordo mass, associated with Una Voce, and wrote for The Remnant. However, he did not charge Vatican II with errors, nor did he run off and join the SSPX. Like St. Paul and St. Catherine of Siena before him, he was able to be critical of his superiors without going into schism.

Great DvH quote: “If one of the devils from C. S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters were entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.”

2) what am I sticking my head in the sand about?

Vatican II did not usher in a New Springtime for the Church. While it did not alter any of the doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic faith, nevertheless the changes it wrought in matters of discipline, practise, and method of presenting the faith have been an unmitigated disaster for the Church.

seattlecatholic.com/article_20040119.html
seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html

 

[Thomas2]

Oi! I think this thread is getting way off topic. In fact, I think alot of the discussions would be better discussed elsewheres, perhaps even under different categories even! Sheesh. Opinions are like belly buttons - everyone has one! Everyone’s got their own belly button showing! Cover up folks - there’s some lint in a few.

If I claim any “label” for myself it is Catholic, Roman Rite, PERIOD. For the sake of unity I refrain from calling myself conservative, liberal, funkidelic, dissenting, or whatever. Besides it is much more interesting to see what others think I am. Oh one other thing - I make sure that another label fits - FAITHFUL! I think that is the one that really counts.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[Debbie]

Hananiah:

Vatican II did not usher in a New Springtime for the Church. While it did not alter any of the doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic faith, nevertheless the changes it wrought in matters of discipline, practise, and method of presenting the faith have been an unmitigated disaster for the Church.

Dear Hananiah,

While I am none too thrilled with many things that have happened in the Church since Vatican II, I must respectfully disagree with your negative stance.

Vatican II did not occur in a vacuum. Our country was in turmoil in many areas and rebelling against any type of authority was de rigueur. Unfortunately, this attitude crept into our Church as well–rather into some of the people in our Church.

It has been almost 2000 years since Christ walked the Earth. The past 40 years are but a bump in the road. We see a resurgence of orthodoxy in our people and parishes. There is great strength in the young people who see how the previous generations have strayed from the straight path to God.

You say “unmitigated disaster for the Church.”? I say, “Not on your life!” We should all take great comfort in Matthew 16:18 - “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

We need to pray diligently for our Holy Mother Church, our Holy Father, our bishops, priests, consecretated, and the lay people–that we may ALL be open, and have the strength, to follow the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit.

A.M.D.G.

Debbie

 

[wet-rat]

Graffiacane:

Traditionalist Catholics- Reject Novus Ordo and Vatican II entirely; see: Traditio.com

The CA folks tend to separate Teaditionalists into two sub-groups. Traditionalist and “Radical-Traditionalist.” “Tradiationalists” believe that Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, etc. constitute a serious lapse of prudential judgement. “Radical Tradiationalists” reject Vatican II and the Novus Ordo as invalid.

 

[Maggie]

One of the most wonderful aspects of being a Catholic is that the mystery of the Eucharist unfolds the same way everywhere. No matter what language or country, what state, city, or location. You can walk into church and follow Mass. You know what is happening and regardless of whether you know the language you know what is happening during Mass. God said all nations would come, but nowhere did He say we would all have to speak the same language to be admitted to His table.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

You are right, it is nice that everyone can understand the mass where they are rather than making them all learn latin. I tried to learn spanish once and that didn’t go so well.

 

[baltobetsy]

Veronica Anne:

Still have my St. Joseph’s missal. (digression – nowhere does the missal for the Tridentine Mass have people holding hands!)

Nowhere in the missal for the Novus Ordo does it call for people holding hands, either.

And to address those who say that Vatican II was a disaster, please remember that it takes more than 40 years for the fruits of the councils to become apparent. The first years afterward are rife with confusion, and it is easy to think that the council was all a big mistake. As time goes by and there begins to be a true understanding of what the council said, the fruits begin to appear. I think we are beginning to see the fruits of the Second Vatican Council now - the people who saw it as an opportunity to advance their liberal ideals, having been largely without success in passing on their ideas to the younger generation, are now retiring and dying, taking their confusion with them. Jesus promised (promised) that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church. I, for one, trust in that promise. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Betsy

 

[Graffiacane]

Trevelyan:

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
“the Pope with General Council cannot err, either in framing decrees of faith or general precepts of morality;…the Pope when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful.”

According to St Robert, no Catholic can refuse to accept the Novus Ordo by claiming that the Pope was mistaken in instituting it.

Cardinal Newman wrote:
“I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.”

We won’t be asked at our judgement ‘What did the Pope do wrong?’, we will be asked ‘Were you obedient to my vicar?’

Are you suggesting I am a schismatic?
Are you suggesting that we should form a cult of the Pope and slaver our tongues before him like sycophantic dogs whenever Vatican policy might be in error? Somehow your post strikes me rather as saying, “Okay, John Paul has made some huge mistakes and Vatican II caused a lot of problems, but don’t rock the boat–I’m scared!”
Or perhaps you missed where I said that I accepted the Novus Ordo, but am simply critical of it in comparison to the traditional rite and to the state of the Church before its enactment.

 

[Graffiacane]

baltobetsy:

the people who saw it as an opportunity to advance their liberal ideals, having been largely without success in passing on their ideas to the younger generation, are now retiring and dying, taking their confusion with them.
Betsy

I wish I could share your enthusiasm; and while it is true that many young people are returning with vigour to the Church and its traditions, I cannot but lament the many hundreds of thousands who fell prey to the “liberal ideas” you say were passed on without success. In the Boston Archdiosece they recently closed 66 parishes due to poor, aging attendance. In my Catechism, I was one of only two out of twenty who were not openly atheist or agnostic when confirmed.
And so while I pray with you that the young coming to the fold is evidence of a new and holy shift in attitude; can that really justify 40 years of precipitous calamity in misinterpretation and abuse?