B
Bbigam
Guest
Well, yes, that’s true. My RCIA worked quite well for me but I can see that it could be difficult in big groups with people from significantly different backgrounds.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Please note though that RCIA is not for you “interests or needs” but for what the Church has determined is necessary for acceptance into the Church.
C
CradleCath
Guest
B
Bbigam
Guest
That’s awful (and illicit). I have to say that it sounds like some Traditionalists somehow have never even seen an Ordinary Form Mass celebrated properly… yet I see them all the time. Maybe things vary widely from area to area?
Yep!! I watched out the window of my house…I was 29 yrs. old, with a couple of babies…as flatbed trucks hauled the pieces of the old Communion rail away. Next went the statues, etc., etc. ad inifitum.
That’s really sad. I’m sorry to hear that. Some parishes around here had that happen, but thankfully not all.
I have to wonder if maybe you haven’t been to very many parishes that use the Ordinary Form. A myth about traditionalists? Sure, there are places that look like what you describe, but many beautiful ones as well. My parish and another one nearby still have the beautiful high altar with tabernacle, but even some (not all!) of the “renovated” or newer parishes still have a nice big crucifix near the altar.
F
floresco
Guest
On what do you base this statement?
R
richardwy
Guest
edit . . . so tired of holding my tongue. but it is an erring member.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
On the fact that RCIA is to teach what is necessary to be a Catholic to the candidates and catechumen. Due to its short nature it can not go into depth that many may want. It is the basics. You should speak to your priest and/or search out a spiritual director if you wish to go deeper.
F
floresco
Guest
In other words, this is just your opinion and you have no Church document to back you up. But even by your standard, my RCIA was a failure.
I was not taught how to say the Rosary or go to Confession at my RCIA. Almost everything I was taught was beliefs that are common to all Christians and already well-known to me. Also, I was taught things that I later discovered to be wrong such as birth control being acceptable. I would have been better off missing it altogether.
I have not attended the parish where this happened for some time. I have gone on to become educated in my faith. I know enough now to know that I had reasonable expectations of that RCIA program and it failed. In my case, it was primarily due to its lack of orthodoxy rather than the format.
But I still see the format as problematic. People who are becoming Catholics should be treated as unique individuals and not given cookie-cutter instruction. This is far more consistent with the Catholic understanding of the human being. At my current parish, there is an RCIA program, but when there are individuals whose needs will not be met by it, the priest gives them private instruction.
A
Aramis
Guest
Either the Ordinary Form is a true liturgy of the church, or the EF/TLM isn’t either.
There can be no “one true liturgy” in the Church, for there are 6 accepted Rites and 23 Ritual Churches, and 50 some different Divine Worship Services that the Pope permits to be used by Catholic Priests and bishops. 14 variations of the DL of St John Chrysostom alone, 16 or so of St. Basil. 5 Qurbono/Qurbana variations. 4 or more variations of the Roman mass (OF, EF, Dalmatian, OF with Dominican Propers) not counting approved vernacular editions, the Dominican Latin Mass, etc…
Or do you deny the Catholicity of the Eastern Catholics, the Dominican Friars, and so on…
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
I agree…the SSPX’s Bishops, priest, etc…led by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (who will be a Canonized Saint one day) are Pillars…I repeat pillars of The Church and history will judge them kinder than the modernists of today. I am not a member of the SSPX, nor have I ever been to one of their Masses or Chapels, but I have a very deep and profound respect for them, their mission, and the entire Society. God Bless them.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
But where’s the obedience? You can’t very well be a pillar of the Church if you’re not in full communion with it, which was the result of Lefebvre’s disobedience.
If you think Lefebvre and the SSPX are so awesome, then I’m curious to know why you don’t attend their Masses or chapels. I mean, the official party line of the SSPX, which you’ll see if you browse their Website, is that FSSP and diocesan Latin Mass priests and attendees are sellouts. It makes about as much sense as “Catholics” who support contraception, homosexual activity, etc. remaining Catholic and not becoming Episcopalian.
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
Because I don’t live close enough to a Chapel, or I would…and I am sorry, but in matters that are directly contrary to the true deposit of the faith, one is not obligated to follow error. There are very clear contradictions in what has come out of Rome in the wake of VII…The problem with Catholics today is that they look at VII as “The Only Council” and conveniently ignore what all the other councils and popes taught infallibly. It is almost like Catholicism didn’t exist until VII for these guys…and I am sorry. There can not be 2 truths…there is only one. I am not a schismatic by any means and neither are any of the SSPX, but we are intelligent enough and have enough intellect to see there are current problems and out of conscience we can not follow into error. There is a serious crisis in the Church today…they need to be dealt with
C
Cristiano
Guest
So Catholics are stupid because they look at Vatican II as the only council!
Then outside the Catholics there is a group that is intelligent and knows better! Gnostics?
And then we are surprised that people go by negative stereotypes for the traditional Catholics.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have never heard of a single Catholic that believe this. Perhaps this is a myth traditional Catholics believe?
Vatican II was the most recent Church Council. That is an historical fact.
M
MIKE46
Guest
•A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
•A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
•A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.
A short, concise definition of modernism from New Advent
I hate to tell you but these ideas were very prevalent during and after the Council and believe it or not
still are in theological circles, both clerical and the laity. In fact one of the reasons that I suspect John Paul II of being a modernist or at least of having modernist leanings was his mania at ecumenism and interreligious acquiesence and acceptance.How many times have you heard “Our similarities are greater than our differences”
Yes modernism is out there stronger than ever. I suspect that Pope Pius X knew exactly what he was talking about back in the day.
P
pnewton
Guest
You are right. I do not believe it in the least, just like I do not believe he was manic in any way. For example, at no point did the Venerable John Paul II state that ecumenism was superior to doctrinal differences, or that reconcilliation was just a matter of the heart. He himself frequented confession. If you have any evidence, please feel free to correct me.**•A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement; **
**•A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary; **
•A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.
A short, concise definition of modernism from New Advent
I hate to tell you but these ideas were very prevalent during and after the Council and believe it or not
A
Aramis
Guest
Sadly a great many people claim to be “Traditional Catholics” but reject the pope by their actions and denial of Papal decrees and mandates.What can you be, then? A non-traditional Catholic? A plain Catholic? A “small ‘t’” traditional Catholic? A small “c” catholic?
Please explain as I’m not sure I can successfully hold my breath for very long … and Sunday is just around the corner! Where I might erroneously proceed in my errant ways of believing myself to be a Traditional Catholic. Help!
/sarcasm.
Not all of them are fans of the EF/TLM, but a good number are.
The biggest myth of the Traditionalists: That they as a visible group actually hold to genuine Tradition.
They are really a bunch of different groups with differing adherence to Catholic Tradition. And each group comprised of individuals.
Unfortunately, stereotypes evolve because they are useful in dealing with the visible portions of a group.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
That is true but obedience must be obedience first and foremost to the Tradition. If the priest, bishop or even the pope says or does something contrary to Tradition, then he is wrong. The bishop has authority, but his authority is limited. We don’t have to defend or agree with certain things that the bishops or the pope does because some of those things are wrong and it’s not wrong to say so, as long as you do so respectfully and not getting into detraction or causing scandal (which, yes, does happen fairly often among trads).
We can’t say that everything in Vatican II is false, of course, because some things are simply repeating what is already known to be true. The rest is authoritative in so far that it is compatible with Tradition. If Vatican II truly teaches novelty or against established teachings of the Church, those things are to be rejected. This is why Ecclesia Dei is now part of the CDF, in recognition that the primary issue between the Vatican and the SSPX is doctrinal, not liturgical.
My ideal would be to make the Traditional Rite the norm and the New Rite an indult. Pope Benedict wants to try to reform the New Rite because he wants to avoid the chaos which would ensue with another massive change. The externals are the first things to change, he advocates for the Altar facing God, Communion on the tongue and a proper reverence given to Mass. Now we are getting a new English translation, which is much closer to what the NO actually says instead of the ICEL’s “spin” or “take” on it. I do believe the actual prayers will be addressed before the end of his pontificate, within the next decade or two. But he wants to reform things slowly, to bring it in line with the Roman Rite.
The SSPX did what they felt was necessary, what is still necessary. They are not totally separated from the Catholic Church like, say, the Orthodox but neither are they in full communion. I would certainly not go so far as to call the Society “not traditional”. Yes, the jurisdiction of the SSPX is questionable at best (their argument for “ecclesia supplet” is dubious), but Msgr. Lefebrve’s purpose was fully traditional – to form the basis of the counter-revolution against the modernist revolution in the Church, to hold to what the Church has always taught rather than go along with the Nouvelle Théologie which characterized Vatican II. Lefebrve’s disobedience went too far but neither did JPII handle the situation well.
Aesthetic beauty lifts the soul, however. It’s is spiritually enlightening to go the old cathedrals of Europe (so I hear, I’ve never been) and the beauty seeing monks at the Mass and chanting the Divine Office (at Clear Creek) was amazing. But I would rather go to a Traditional Low Mass than a Novus Ordo Mass with all the trappings (“High” and “Low” no longer apply in the NO). Probably the most profound Mass I have ever attended were the Low Masses at Clear Creek, where a dozen Masses are said simultaneously silently on the high altar and all the side altars ~ simple but beautiful.
Aesthetic beauty with regards to the Mass and Church architecture has a spiritual purpose. Felt and burlap, guitars and drums, should be right out.
(cont.)
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
(cont.)
Msgr. Klaus Gamber:
Organic development is the most important thing. The development of the NO was not organic but “manufactured” (as Ratzinger said) as a new thing.
Msgr. Klaus Gamber:
ibid:
From the 3rd-4th century up until the 1962 Missal, we had a single unified Roman Rite. Even the transitory 1965 Missal did not constitute a new rite. But the 1970 Missal did because it broke with tradition and re-wrote the Mass. So yes, too many changes in too many different areas, it was an assault on the patrimony of the Church and, in essence, on the faith. Bugnini & Co. committed numerous sins against the faith and charity by developing the New Mass. So yes, they should not have made those changes.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
I think the one-size-fits-all approach is bad, especially when you have unbaptized people and those who were educated Protestants in the same class. The Catecumenate is strictly unbaptized people. I know they differentiate between catechumens and candidates but the distinction is often lost and they go through the same classes.
There have also been dubious reports of unorthodox teaching being spread to new Catholics, after all get them while their fresh, right? If people have an agenda, they go after the converts because they don’t have the knowledge to defend the faith against attacks and accept what the teacher says even if it is wrong. While this could still happen with a priest, and there certainly are those unorthodox priests out there and I’m sure all of us have heard at least one questionable homily in our lives (probably many), it is even more likely to happen with a lay person. It also might not even be intentional but lay people are usually much less educated than priests about the depth of the faith (although some seminaries are notoriously bad).
My knowledge about RCIA is limited but it certainly strikes as unnecessary, awkward and poorly implemented antiquarianism (see “Mediator Dei”). Sometimes there is a reason things have changed and making a modern construction of what is supposed to be like the catechumenate in the early Church without understanding why that was replaced with individual instruction is bad. Don’t tear down fences without knowing why they were put up.
I am glad your RCIA classes were helpful and I am glad you have entered the Church. Certainly, I do not want to dismiss your experience with it or discourage anyone who may be in the process or thinking of entering it in the fall (the once yearly thing is also problematic).
The intrinsic value of the Mass remains the same as long as it is valid. However, the extrinsic value of the Mass differs depending on the rite and the way in which it is celebrated. The New Mass has a much lower extrinisic value. It is still a Holy Sacrifice, but it is not treated as such and it fails to properly teach the faithful regarding it and the whole faith.
Read it, it is good. Also read Msgr. Gamber’s “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” (which I have quoted extensively in this thread) and Dom Alcuin Rein’s “Organic Development of the Liturgy” (which treats pre-Vatican II development of the Liturgy) and the classic “The Holy Mass” by Dom Prosper Gueranger (which, of course, treats of the traditional Mass because it was written in the 19th c.). The liturgy is fundamental to the faith. The reason why the Mass was replaced was not simply because the reformers had a problem with the traditional Mass, but because they had a problem with the orthodox faith. If you have the opportunity to go to a traditional parish, I would highly recommend it.
- Status