Aspirations of those attached to the EF

  • Thread starter Thread starter floresco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

floresco

Guest
When Pope Benedict wrote of the rightful aspirations of those attached to the EF, he was obviously talking about giving us access to this form of the Mass. But I think it is also a rightful aspiration to want a way to identify ourselves and find others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns.

There is already some history of using the term “traditional Catholics” for those who are attached to the EF. Very often when people do that here on CAF, someone turns up to say that we are all just Catholics and all faithful orthodox Catholics are traditional. Most recently this happened to me in a thread for collecting information about traditional Catholics who are obedient to the Pope. It should have been clear that I was not using the term in a divisive or ill-intentioned way.

Do people have a problem with those who are attached to the EF identifying ourselves and finding others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns? Is it not a rightful aspiration? Is there some term that ought to be used instead of “traditional Catholics”? Sometimes this arguing over terminology seems to be used as a way to silence us and that is not appropriate. We are a legitimate movement within the Church and should be allowed to speak.
 
floresco said:
When Pope Benedict wrote of the rightful aspirations of those attached to the EF, he was obviously talking about giving us access to this form of the Mass. But I think it is also a rightful aspiration to want a way to identify ourselves and find others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns.

There is already some history of using the term “traditional Catholics” for those who are attached to the EF. Very often when people do that here on CAF, someone turns up to say that we are all just Catholics and all faithful orthodox Catholics are traditional. Most recently this happened to me in a thread for collecting information about traditional Catholics who are obedient to the Pope. It should have been clear that I was not using the term in a divisive or ill-intentioned way.

Do people have a problem with those who are attached to the EF identifying ourselves and finding others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns? Is it not a rightful aspiration? Is there some term that ought to be used instead of “traditional Catholics”? Sometimes this arguing over terminology seems to be used as a way to silence us and that is not appropriate. We are a legitimate movement within the Church and should be allowed to speak.
Click to expand...
I’m fine with the bolded, provided that it is applicable for all legitimate movements in the Church.
 
Melchior said:
I’m fine with the bolded, provided that it is applicable for all legitimate movements in the Church.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking that the situation is parallel with the charismatic movement. What if there were a sub-forum called Charismatic Catholicism and people kept posting there that all Catholics receive gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation so we are all charismatic? What if they did this to a point that it interfered with charismatic Catholics discussing issues of concern to them? This would be wrong because they are a legitimate movement within the Church.
 
I think the movement is legitimate as long as it’s willing to share the space with other legitimate movements in the Church, including those preferring more modern liturgy.

The term itself is problematic because it is misappropriated by other groups in the Church that aren’t legitimate. It’s like the word “gay” which once could be used to define “lighthearted” or “joyful” and has now become a politically-loaded term.

It would therefore help if the Vatican defined this legitimate movement in a way that sets it apart from the movements that use the term and that range from illicit to heretic, and even to groups within the Church that use the term to “protect” themselves from the rest of us or to disparage the modern liturgy.

So it would be helpful if the Vatican helped set parameters for a licit and legitimate “traditionalist” movement within the Church.
 
floresco said:
I was actually thinking that the situation is parallel with the charismatic movement. What if there were a sub-forum called Charismatic Catholicism and people kept posting there that all Catholics receive gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation so we are all charismatic? What if they did this to a point that it interfered with charismatic Catholics discussing issues of concern to them? This would be wrong because they are a legitimate movement within the Church.
Click to expand...
Which is why you could have probably guessed my answer,

We already have what you describe in nearly every thread involved in the movement, which is one of the reasons it’s banned in L&S.

The catch in this is that this forum is more than just the EF, it’s for all traditions within Catholicism, so hosers like me and OraLabora who follow ancient (and authentic) traditions could also post here, without attending the EF (provided we do so respectfully).
OraLabora said:
So it would be helpful if the Vatican helped set parameters for a licit and legitimate “traditionalist” movement within the Church.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this what Ecclesia Dei helps do?
 
OraLabora said:
It would therefore help if the Vatican defined this legitimate movement in a way that sets it apart from the movements that use the term and that range from illicit to heretic, and even to groups within the Church that use the term to “protect” themselves from the rest of us or to disparage the modern liturgy.

So it would be helpful if the Vatican helped set parameters for a licit and legitimate “traditionalist” movement within the Church.
Click to expand...
Right now the Vatican is grouping together all the people who are attached to the EF under the jurisdication of the PCED. The commission works toward reconciliation with those not in full communion with Rome and supports the rightful aspirations of those who are in communion with Rome. Whether or not people accept the authority of the Magisterium creates a natural subdivision within the group. I`m not sure what would need to be said beyond that.
 
Melchior said:
We already have what you describe in nearly every thread involved in the movement, which is one of the reasons it’s banned in L&S.

The catch in this is that this forum is more than just the EF, it’s for all traditions within Catholicism, so hosers like me and OraLabora who follow ancient (and authentic) traditions could also post here, without attending the EF (provided we do so respectfully).
Click to expand...
I have little to do with sub-forums other than this one, so I have little experience of people here refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Charismatic movement. I have seen it on other forums. As far as I`m concerned, a movement that is acknowledged by the Pope is legitimate. That goes for traditional Catholics. That goes for charismatic Catholics.

It should not be a problem for those attached to the EF to share a sub-forum with those attached to other traditions of the Church. It seems to me that those other traditions already have names, such as Franciscan or Benedictine. It should be clear enough that “traditional Catholic” without further qualifier refers to those attached to the EF.

If “traditional Catholic” is really that unclear, then it should be replaced by another term. Denying this group a name often becomes a way to deny its legitimacy. The advantage of “traditional Catholic” is that many people already self-identify with it. I cannot think of another term that is as good.
 
floresco said:
I have little to do with sub-forums other than this one, so I have little experience of people here refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Charismatic movement. I have seen it on other forums. As far as I`m concerned, a movement that is acknowledged by the Pope is legitimate. That goes for traditional Catholics. That goes for charismatic Catholics.

It should not be a problem for those attached to the EF to share a sub-forum with those attached to other traditions of the Church. It seems to me that those other traditions already have names, such as Franciscan or Benedictine. It should be clear enough that “traditional Catholic” without further qualifier refers to those attached to the EF.

If “traditional Catholic” is really that unclear, then it should be replaced by another term. Denying this group a name often becomes a way to deny its legitimacy. The advantage of “traditional Catholic” is that many people already self-identify with it. I cannot think of another term that is as good.
Click to expand...
**I agree. Traditional Catholicism, which when under the Holy Father is a legitimate movement. I understand that those outside aren’t. The same applies for those Charismatics outside of the Holy Father. ANY movement (I don’t care if its Traditional, Charismatic, Folk, or what have you) outside of what the Holy Father or what Church teachings allow is NOT a legitimate movement. For those who prefer the Modern Liturgy, thats great, I love the NO too. However, I am disgusted to see the NO abused. Abusing the Sacred Liturgy is NOT a legitimate movement. I think the problem here is that a lot of Traditionalists see the abuses inside the Modern Liturgy (Which when conducted as said Rubrics instruct are EXTREMELY Beautiful) and then swing to the hard right end of the spectrum. If only we could stop abuses period then that would probably balance out this scale of “Left” and “Right”. I hate to see how divided we can get when we discuss the SAME RITE (Roman) of the Liturgy. They both have their beauty specific to them (When not abused) and they both create a wonderful and organic expierience of Worship. When we start ripping on this Form or that Form, it is something truly disgusting. However, I am all for Traditionalists identifying themselves as Traditionalists. I identify myself as one. I love the EF, Gregorian Chant, Praying in Latin and using more traditional devotionals. In a way, I am reminded by how good we have it as a Church in North America. In these countries we bicker and argue over which Form is best, when Catholics in Communist Europe were happy to get ANY kind of MASS. I am hardcore EF and Hardcore Reverent NO

Its all one Church people. We aren’t protestants!!**
 
floresco said:
When Pope Benedict wrote of the rightful aspirations of those attached to the EF, he was obviously talking about giving us access to this form of the Mass. But I think it is also a rightful aspiration to want a way to identify ourselves and find others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns.

There is already some history of using the term “traditional Catholics” for those who are attached to the EF. Very often when people do that here on CAF, someone turns up to say that we are all just Catholics and all faithful orthodox Catholics are traditional. Most recently this happened to me in a thread for collecting information about traditional Catholics who are obedient to the Pope. It should have been clear that I was not using the term in a divisive or ill-intentioned way.

Do people have a problem with those who are attached to the EF identifying ourselves and finding others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns? Is it not a rightful aspiration? Is there some term that ought to be used instead of “traditional Catholics”? Sometimes this arguing over terminology seems to be used as a way to silence us and that is not appropriate. We are a legitimate movement within the Church and should be allowed to speak.
Click to expand...
We, here at CAF are not the only ones who have a problem with making up terms to describe ourselves.

Way back in the early 1900’s, Benedict XV, said (I will have to paraphrase here, as I lost the link when my computer crashed) “Catholic is my first name, Christian is my second. There is no need for other modifiers”.

I do not remember to whom he was speaking, but it seems like people have been tacking on divisive terms for a long, long time.

I do not have time to look for the exact quote today, but I will try to find it in the next day or so.
 
A Lovely reflection, Indyann. What is very concerning to me about the wrangling over liturgy is that our spiritual life and holiness SHOULD flow from the sacred liturgy, but the charity that should be evident in those who carry the Lord within themselves is glaringly missing in many who argue about liturgical forms.

One TV evanglist put it this way: Staying for hours in my garage will not make me a car, nor will occupying a pew every Sunday make me a Christian … unless I live what I receive. 😉
 
Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV View Post
Here’s a “traditional” view (offered ad infinitum):

From Beatissimi Apostoloum, the first encyclical of HH Pope Benedict XV issued in 1914.

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

Not as hard as I thought it would be!
 
Excellent! That’s a keeper and I bookmarked it. Will others take it to heart, I wonder?
 
Indyann said:
Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV View Post
Here’s a “traditional” view (offered ad infinitum):

From Beatissimi Apostoloum, the first encyclical of HH Pope Benedict XV issued in 1914.

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

Not as hard as I thought it would be!
Click to expand...
As Brother JR always reminds us, a prior Pope cannot bind a current Pope 😉
  • PAX
 
Hasire said:
Source?
Click to expand...
That’s not a problem. What I was referring to is the constant erroneous statement made by many that Pope Pius meant to bind the future Church to the Tridentine Form as he promulgated it. This was not the case. He uses terms such as “perpetuity” and “anathemas” applied to those who don’t have the authority to change the liturgy and attempt to do so. It would never occur to him to try to include future popes in this decree.

Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10331714&postcount=49
 
floresco said:
When Pope Benedict wrote of the rightful aspirations of those attached to the EF, he was obviously talking about giving us access to this form of the Mass. But I think it is also a rightful aspiration to want a way to identify ourselves and find others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns.

There is already some history of using the term “traditional Catholics” for those who are attached to the EF. Very often when people do that here on CAF, someone turns up to say that we are all just Catholics and all faithful orthodox Catholics are traditional. Most recently this happened to me in a thread for collecting information about traditional Catholics who are obedient to the Pope. It should have been clear that I was not using the term in a divisive or ill-intentioned way.

Do people have a problem with those who are attached to the EF identifying ourselves and finding others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns? Is it not a rightful aspiration? Is there some term that ought to be used instead of “traditional Catholics”? Sometimes this arguing over terminology seems to be used as a way to silence us and that is not appropriate. We are a legitimate movement within the Church and should be allowed to speak.
Click to expand...
Of course we are allowed to speak but our sources for what we say should be clear about why we say the Extraordinary Form matters. Yes, I think people have a non-Catholic idea about the Church - namely that it should “change” or “be modern.” Yet, I would say most of those who say this lack a full understand of the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Form. There is no need to feel as if the those who prefer the EF are divided from those who prefer OF - we’re both Catholics (!) - but we need to be clear, and I hope the following helps:

"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Now, Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

God bless,
Ed
 
mymamamary said:
They both have their beauty specific to them (When not abused) and they both create a wonderful and organic expierience of Worship. When we start ripping on this Form or that Form, it is something truly disgusting. However, I am all for Traditionalists identifying themselves as Traditionalists. I identify myself as one. I love the EF, Gregorian Chant, Praying in Latin and using more traditional devotionals. In a way, I am reminded by how good we have it as a Church in North America. In these countries we bicker and argue over which Form is best, when Catholics in Communist Europe were happy to get ANY kind of MASS. I am hardcore EF and Hardcore Reverent NO
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are equally happy with the OF(without abuses) and EF. I certainly do not have a problem with that. However, if we base our definition of traditional Catholic on those who are served by Ecclesia Dei, then you would not fit the definition. The PCED helps people who prefer the EF, people who feel like something is missing if they cannot have access to it. That does not sound like the way you describe yourself.
 
Indyann said:
We, here at CAF are not the only ones who have a problem with making up terms to describe ourselves.

Way back in the early 1900’s, Benedict XV, said (I will have to paraphrase here, as I lost the link when my computer crashed) “Catholic is my first name, Christian is my second. There is no need for other modifiers”.

I do not remember to whom he was speaking, but it seems like people have been tacking on divisive terms for a long, long time.

I do not have time to look for the exact quote today, but I will try to find it in the next day or so.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understand you correctly. It is your position that it is not a rightful aspiration to want a way to identify ourselves and find others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns. You believe that any form of identification of groups within Catholicism is necessarily divisive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top