Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[PilgrimToChrist]

First, as a traditional Catholic. I’ll say that “Tradition in Action” is NOT a traditional Roman Catholic site. I don’t think that it’s really a Catholic site, period. From what I have learned about TIA., it has a sedevacantist (seat of Peter is vacant) group that runs it.

However, sites like TIA. & Traditio would have you believe that they are part of Roman Catholicism. They are not.

TIA is not sede, I have always seen it as more favorable to the SSPX hardline (those opposed to the talks, e.g. Bp. Williamson). TIA itself broke with TFP but shares the same foundation in the work of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (for better or worse).

Traditio has occasionally said they are not sede but they are effectively sede since it is run by an Independent Catholic priest (M.E. Morrison) with dubious Old Catholic lineage and recommends independent parishes, which are anti-Catholic non-sense. Independent Catholicism is a contradiction in terms. In relation to sedevacantism, they seem to hold the ambiguous position of the SSPV.

I choose to attend an FSSP parish with a priest I admire greatly but I am sure many people to the right of me would criticize that from the two sites listed or on many traditionalist forums. I do not see being in full communion with Rome as “compromise” but that it is the only acceptable solution to the current crisis since it is only within the Church that we are fully participating in the Body of Christ and, on a practical level, it is the only way we will ever clean up this mess, not to hide like fundamentalist ostriches.

However, regardless of their orthodoxy, I don’t think it is entirely accurate to classify TIA and Traditio as sedevacantist, when both have rejected the sede position.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

No such thing as a “Novus Ordo” Catholic.

“Modernist Catholic”?

IMHO there are just Catholics. Labels such as these are divisive.

Ideally, we could simply say “Christian is my name, but Catholic my surname” but we must be more specific because “Catholic” is used to mean many different things today, without much opposition. “Traditionalist” is the nomenclature which has arisen in order to distinguish orthodox Catholics from the modernists.

How is it nontraditional to attend the Liturgy of the Church?

I don’t know what you mean by “the Liturgy of the Church”. You can say “a Liturgy of the Church” but not “the” Liturgy since there are a number of different Liturgies.

It is non-traditional to attend the New Mass because the New Mass is non-traditional. You have one tradition of the Liturgy which grows and evolves (and sometimes shrinks and devolves), forming a cohesive Latin Rite (with various local Uses) from the 4th century until 1970. Then you have a committee which decides to make a new liturgy because the old one wasn’t up to their modern ideas and had to be scrapped, they push it on everyone, causing chaos and scandal. That is why the NO is not traditional, it was designed to be anti-traditional.

J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a “liturgy which is the fruit of development”…

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.

As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable. Many priests today, unfortunately, act in accordance with this motto; and the theories of many liturgists are unfortunately moving in the same direction. They want to overcome the limits of the rite, as being something fixed and immovable, and construct the products of their fantasy, which are supposedly “pastoral”, around this remnant, this core which has been spared, and which is thus either relegated to the realm of magic, or loses any meaning whatever. The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.

The popes, until Paul VI, made no change in the Order of Mass properly so-called, whereas, especially after the Council of Trent, they introduced new Propers for new feasts. That no more suppressed the “Tridentine Mass” than, for example, additions to the civil law would cause it to lapse.

We should therefore speak of the “Roman Rite” in contrast with the “Modern Rite.” The Roman Rite, in important parts, goes back at least to the fourth century, more exactly to the time of Pope Damascus (366-384). By the time of Gelasius (492-496) the Canon of the Mass had attained the form it has kept until now, apart from some modifications made under Pope St. Gregory (590-604).
…
The first pope to actually alter the traditional Missal was Pius XII when he introduced the new Holy Week liturgy. It would have been possible to move the Holy Saturday Mass to nighttime without modifying the rite. John XXIII was next with his new arrangement of the rubrics. Even then, however, the Order of the Mass remained intact; but the door was now open for a radical rearrangement of the Roman liturgy. We have all lived through it, and now we contemplate at our feet the ruins, not of the Tridentine Mass, but of the ancient Roman Rite which had developed and grown to maturity during that long period.

So who are these men who so strongly criticize the New Mass as something which is anti-tradition?

The first quote is from Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French edition of Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman Liturgy”. The second quote is also from Cardinal Ratzinger, in his review of Dom Alcuin Reid’s “Organic Development of the Liturgy”. The third quote is from Msgr. Gamber’s book.

The terms “Ordinary Form” (OF) and “Extraordinary Form” (EF) have been introduced but I choose not to use them because I do not see the New Mass as a “different form” of the Roman Rite but something different altogether, an innovation out of whole cloth.

What defines a “traditional” Catholic besides a preference for the EF Mass?

Opposition to modernism in all its insidious and diabolical forms and an effort to uphold the whole of Catholic tradition, which is currently being undermined.

This is not to say that some Catholics who attend the New Mass, for whatever reason, are not pious and may become saints. Nor is to say that those Catholics who attend the Traditional Mass, for whatever reason, are all pious and saintly. However, we do believe that the Traditional Mass is objectively superior and that it and adherence to tradition as a cohesive whole encourages spiritual growth and discipline which is the purpose of the Catholic faith ~ growth towards Christ and the salvation of our souls.

 

[pnewton]

“Modernist Catholic”?

Opposition to modernism in all its insidious and diabolical forms and an effort to uphold the whole of Catholic tradition, which is currently being undermined.

The accusation of modernism is used a little too loosely. Modernism is a heresy, a vague philosophy, which few hold who are labeled modernist. As a defined heresy, no one should call another modernist lightly and without reasonable proof. Just because we do not like something does not make it modernism. Just because something is modern does not make it modernism. This thread is supposed to be about myths about traditional Catholics, yet here we have a prime example of a myth from traditional Catholics.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Pope disagrees with you, he states that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are two forms of the same rite.

So following your logic the EF (what you call the TLM) is not the true Liturgy of the Church either.

Dissent from the Teaching of the Catholic Church and the Holy Father such as this is not traditional nor is it Catholic, it is a form of protestantism.

Since when are Catholics required to be in lockstep with everything the pope says? Because he has termed the Traditional Mass the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” and the New Mass the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” doesn’t mean we have to use those terms or consider the New Mass a development of the Roman Rite even though it is not.

As the pope himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger, stated in my quote above, it is one thing to have the form and the matter and to say that the Mass is valid. To quote a little prior to the selection above:
Cardinal Ratzinger:

The author expressly warns us against the wrong path up which we might be led by a neo-scholastic sacramental theology which is disconnected from the living form of the Liturgy. On that basis, people might reduce the “substance” to the material and form of the sacrament, and say: Bread and wine are the material of the sacrament, the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are really necessary, everything else is changeable.

At this point Modernists and Traditionalists are in agreement: As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable. Many priests today, unfortunately, act in accordance with this motto; and the theories of many liturgists are unfortunately moving in the same direction.

It is one thing to say that the priests ordained in the New Rite of Ordination are true priests and that the New Mass is valid. It is another to say that the New Mass and the other associated New Rites are in accordance with the tradition of the Roman Rite.

What is the role of the Pope in the development of the Liturgy?
ibid:

It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis – the handing-on of tradition.

It’s almost 1am so I won’t go flipping through “The Spirit of the Liturgy” to find the quote but he says very nearly the same thing in that book.

(cont.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(cont.)

However, I have Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book in my hand so I will quote from there:
Msgr. Klaus Gamber:

The publication of the ‘Ordo Missae’ of 1969… created a new liturgical rite. In other words, the traditional liturgical rite had not simply been revised as the Council had intended. Rather, it had been completely abolished, and a couple of years later, the traditional liturgical rite was, in fact, forbidden.

All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church? Given the evidence we have presented, one cannot invoke the Council’s decisions to support such an argument. As we have already shown, the assertion, which continues to be made, that the inclusion of some parts of the traditional Missal into the new one means a continuation of the Roman rite, is unsupportable.

The argument could be made that the pope’s authority to introduce a new liturgical rite, that is, to do so without a decision by a council, can be derived from the “full and highest power” (plena et suprema potestas) he has in the Church, as cited by the First Vatican Council, i.e., power over matters ‘quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent’ (“that pertain to the world and rule of the Church spread out over all the world”) (Denzinger, 1831).

However, the term ‘disciplina’ in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, partiularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition. For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of “discipline and rule of the Church.” To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the ‘Codex Iuris Canonici’, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.

There are clearly defined limits to the ‘plena et suprema potestas’ (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church – that is, as Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus’). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope’s scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite.

Thus, the eminent theologian Suarez (who died in 1617), citing even earlier authors such as Cajetan (who died in 1534), took the position that the pope would be schismatic “if he, as is his duty, would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition.”

As we examine the issue of unlimited papal authority and how it relates to the authority to change the established liturgical rite, if the statement made by Suarez still is not entirely convincing, this argument just may be: the already established fact that, until Pope Paul VI, there has not been a single pope who introduced the type of fundamental changes in liturgical forms which we are now witnessing. In fact, we must note that even small changes in the liturgy introduced by a pope have never been readily accepted.
…
Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least.

Apologies for the lengthy quote, I felt it was necessary to make my point about the authority of the pope to replace the traditional rite. Of course, as Pope Paul II’s commission determined, the Traditional Rite was never really abrogated and a bishop could not forbid his priests from saying the Traditional Rite. Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this in the ‘Summorum Pontificum’.

If the the New Mass was really an evolution of the Roman Rite, why would the Traditional Mass and the New Mass exist side by side? Whatever this new ‘fabricated’ liturgy is, it is not the Roman Rite. It is not “Protestant” minded to not follow the pope’s every move and hang on his every word, that is papalotry and is anti-Catholic. I quote him when I agree with him, I will criticize him when I disagree with him, as the pope is a also a private individual, this is perfectly fine.

The New Mass may be a valid liturgy of the Church, that doesn’t make it a true and proper liturgy of the Church, since it dispenses with apostolic tradition of the Liturgy in favor of the Nouvelle Theologie and innovation.

 

[puzzleannie]

1.-
2.- No, the Holy See didn’t release the Third Secret of Fatima. .

the biggest most persisten myth about traditional Catholics is that they not only believe this, but the define themselves on the basis of this belief.

 

[Lazarette]

John G, hat tip and glad to hear about Confession and back to Mass :tiphat: God uses that obedience, difficult as it is, for good that none of us can imagine.

 

[chris_molter]

Here’s the ones I see constantly:

-We hate the Jews
-We do not recognize Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council
-We do not think there’s ANYTHING good about Vatican II, even if it WAS legitimate
-We believe the Ordinary Form of the Mass is invalid
-We hate all music besides chant
-We believe all non-Catholics will certainly burn in hell
-We don’t care, as long as it’s in Latin
-We’re against any form of ecumenism or interfaith dialogue
-We’ve hated all Popes since Pius XII
-We’re sedevacantists
-We want to “roll back the clock”
-We are all oppressive misogynists and homophobes (although all Catholics get that one)
-We want to create a theocracy.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Here’s the ones I see constantly:

-We hate the Jews
-We do not recognize Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council
-We do not think there’s ANYTHING good about Vatican II, even if it WAS legitimate
-We believe the Ordinary Form of the Mass is invalid
-We hate all music besides chant
-We believe all non-Catholics will certainly burn in hell
-We don’t care, as long as it’s in Latin
-We’re against any form of ecumenism or interfaith dialogue
-We’ve hated all Popes since Pius XII
-We’re sedevacantists
-We want to “roll back the clock”
-We are all oppressive misogynists and homophobes (although all Catholics get that one)
-We want to create a theocracy.

As a lame attempt at humor, I wonder how people here would like to disprove the underlined stereotypes cuz I’m guilty of sympathizing with those who view trads that way.

 

[CradleCath]

All Catholics believe this, if they do not they are not Catholic, just as a person who claims that the OF is not the true Liturgy of the Church is not a Catholic.

Perhaps you should read my post more carefully. It says to see the things above…“Novus Ordo Catholics approve of the use of EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers at EVERY Mass, & are often one themselves. They belong to parishes that actually schedule EEM’s. They feel that Altar girls are just fine, they participate in the handshaking & the Communal Meal atmosphere. They like standing to receive the Eucharist in their hand. They like the more Modern hymns & wouldn’t accept a great deal of Latin in their Mass or their music. This is the TRUTH & if you cannot say PROUDLY that “yes, that is me”…& I love being a “Novus-Ordo” Catholic”, then something is terribly wrong."

Those are disciplines, the later things I mentioned are dogma. My point was/is why would somone who truly loves this Mass, take issue with being callled a “Novus Ordo Catholic”? You are welcome to call me a Tridentine Mass Catholic, a Mass of 62er, a fan of the TLM., etc. I am proud to be called that.

Matters of discipline are not part of Tradition as they can and do change, most of what you list for a Novus Ordo Catholic are just that, discipline.

 

[CradleCath]

I meant people who go to the Novus Ordo. They’re just given the name “Novus Ordo Catholics”.

The Novus Ordo is not the true Liturgy of the Church. I’m not going to go into deep discussion on that, but it is not the true Liturgy. You aren’t a Traditional Catholic just because you go to the TLM. A Traditional Catholic is someone who goes by Tradition.

Spiritus Sanctus, I don’t want to hurt your feelings but you are giving out misinformation that is hurting your fellow traditional Catholics of the Latin Rite.

The Novus Ordo Mass, though I don’t attend it anymore…40 yrs. was more than enough**…IS **a true Liturgy of the Chuch. Most traditional Catholics are not that concerned with the Third Secret of Fatima. We’re just happy that we can now attend the Mass of 1962 & we haven’t heard anyone say that there is “no Salvation outside the Church” since Father Leonard Feeney bit the dust.

First, he was excommunicated for
disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then
the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of
Boston, condemning Feeney’s error. (It is known that Pius XII
personally checked the English text of that letter). In the very
first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private
interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant. But
then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the
official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private
interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure
Protestant attitude.
ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

Please, for the sake of traditional Catholics, **Latin Rite **check out the facts before you make any statements re the validity of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo & the TLM. are different forms of the same rite.

I know that you mean well & your heart is in the right place. :hug1:

 

[RPRPsych]

Fascinating discussion here, especially for me, who’s grown up only with the Novus Ordo Mass (though my father was a veteran altar-boy in the TLM, and my mother attended it during her childhood.) Perhaps I’ll attend one someday, but now, with even English Masses on the wane here, that seems a bit unlikely…

One thing I’ll say in defence of the Traditional Mass is that it’s extremely hard to monkey around with it. Sadly, most people have interpreted the freedom in Christ (Galatians 5) that Vatican II reaffirmed, and that - if read properly - does not break with Tradition in the least - as a license to tinker with the Ordinary Mass. “God our Father and Mother”, solo vocal performances by over-enthusiastic priests during the Consecration, communion distributed freely to non-Catholics, etc… all these do not help the credibility of the new rite in the least, and I’m sad to say that such things are commonplace in many parishes here.

Back to the thread though… how come no one came up with this one:

“Traditional Catholics think The Passion Of The Christ is the best movie ever!”



Pax vobiscum.

 

[Seamus_L]

Another big myth is that Traditional Catholics think they’re better. Judging by numbers going to confession, I’d say it appears to be the reverse.

 

[CradleCath]

What is this tradition vs. Novus Ordo Catholic business again?

Some of us want to go to a liturgy that is reverent and not heretical. Period. We are not interested in pitting “traditional” Catholic against “Novus Ordo” ones—if the Church has put several options out there for us as far as choice of liturgy, then let each person worship as he or she pleases within the legitimate options. The best liturgy is the one that is reverent so that it doesn’t offend God, dignified so that it doesn’t offend man and woman, and not only be not heretical, but able to convey the Holy Catholic Faith to the worshippers and possibly some non-Catholic onlookers (I stole part of this from Monsignor Schuler (?)). If the EF does it, fine, if the OF does it, fine as well. The Church has already declared the OF a legitimate part of the Church’s liturgical rites, so deal with it.

I reject the term Novus Ordo Catholic (eventhough I do not regularly attend said Mass) and consider it insulting.**** I think it is the ones who style themselves traditionalists who invent these terms so as to elevate themselves and fool themselves into thinking that they are more Catholic than the rest of us.**** At my own parish, it has already been shown week after week that it is perfectly possible to have a reverent and dignified Novus Ordo Missae.

My advice to those who consider yourselves traditional Catholics:** don’t make a show of it like a Pharisee and go around boasting about how Catholic you are and these myths **will start to disappear. Instead, continue doing what you do, praising God reverently and handing down the orthodox Catholic Faith, while doing the charitable works which are signs of the followers of Christ. When I hear the term traditionalist, I think of the SSPX and the like. Surely you don’t want to be associated with them, do you?

I do not know where to even START to respond to your post. Do I address your comments about the SSPX. Since I don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough on where we are with the SSPX. right now, I won’t comment. Pharisee’s? Boasting?
Elevate & fool themselves?
All I can say is…traditional Catholic or not…you have made some CRUEL remarks here. You put us all in a little box & tie it up with a bow that reads “Holier than Thou”. That would be tantamount to me saying that all Novus Ordo Catholics favor abortion, gay unions & women priests, etc., etc. Shame on you.

 

[chris_molter]

As a lame attempt at humor, I wonder how people here would like to disprove the underlined stereotypes cuz I’m guilty of sympathizing with those who view trads that way.

Well, some hate all music other than chant AT MASS, but are perfectly fine with contemporary music or hymnody otherwise Personally, I think we ought to go with Sacrosanctum Consilium, after all, it’s the real Spirit of Vatican II!

As for rolling back the clock, I know there are Trads who feel that way, however, the fullest expression of Catholic Tradition is found in living out the hermeneutic of continuity… not so much rolling back the clock as faithfully implementing the liturgical norms called for at Vatican II (which hasn’t yet occurred).

 

[Onegin]

It’s a good thing that I don’t smoke cigars or I might be offended at this. Even so, two out of three, maybe I should be offended anyhow.

Seriously though, you almost make it sound like there is something wrong with liking Chesterton or Latin. I’m not being pretentious. I really like them.

Hey, I have no problem whatsoever with liking Chesterton - I like Chesterton and I’ve even smoked a cigar or two in my day.

What I don’t like is turning these things into a sort of Catholic intellectual elitism which seems to be pandemic amongst certain traditional groups. Not only is it a trap for prideful behaviour, it also turns away people who are genuinely interested in Tradition.

When I hear the term traditionalist, I think of the SSPX and the like. Surely you don’t want to be associated with them, do you?

As one other poster already noted, yes, I do! I think there are many good and holy priests in the SSPX that are doing very good things for the Faith. If I am associated by that by virtue of being a Traditionalist then so much the better. Deo gratias.

 

[floresco]

Hey, I have no problem whatsoever with liking Chesterton - I like Chesterton and I’ve even smoked a cigar or two in my day.

What I don’t like is turning these things into a sort of Catholic intellectual elitism which seems to be pandemic amongst certain traditional groups. Not only is it a trap for prideful behaviour, it also turns away people who are genuinely interested in Tradition.

I’m afraid that I qualify as an intellectual, but I don’t think I am an elitist. I can’t really help liking reading and thinking. I suppose I could ameliorate my propensity for polysyllabic discourse, I mean, avoid big words.

Seriously, could you expand on this. I do not want to turn people away from traditional Catholicism. Perhaps intellectual elitism is a risk for me. What should I be looking out for?

 

[floresco]

As a lame attempt at humor, I wonder how people here would like to disprove the underlined stereotypes cuz I’m guilty of sympathizing with those who view trads that way.

You had underlined: We hate all music besides chant

I must admit that I dislike a lot of modern liturgical music, but not because it isn’t chant. Much of it is difficult to sing which discourages congregational participation. And the words are often theologically ambiguous or problematic. (I actually prefer polyphony to chant but that requires a trained choir.)

You also underlined We want to “roll back the clock”

There are some aspects of the past that I see as superior to the present, but other ways in which I prefer the present.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Again, the form of the Mass is discipline and I highly doubt that any Popes disagree with the current pope.

But then you have shown your “catholicism” is it is not that of the Church nor is it traditional. As there are two forms of the one rite of the Latin Church and you make the claim that one is invalid that makes the other invalid also.

Again by your logic there is no valid Mass in the Latin Church. That is in no way traditional, nor is making yourself the authority over the pope traditional, that is the same error that protestants make, plain and simple.

Being traditional is standing with the Church and all it Teaches even when we personally disagree with it.

The valid Mass is the Traditional Latin Mass.

And you are right, being Traditional is standing with the Church. The Traditional Church, that is.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The valid Mass is the Traditional Latin Mass.

Then as that is one form of the rite of the Latin Church the other form must be valid also.

or your not a Catholic and are part of some splinter group.

And you are right, being Traditional is standing with the Church. The Traditional Church, that is.

How does this Church differ from the Catholic Church? There is only one Church.

I see there is no discussing this with you but I should have known that from your other posts.