Cafeteria Traditionalists

  • Thread starter Thread starter blackrobe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

blackrobe

Guest
I have the privilege of attending an oratory which not only celebrates the EF but provides about as complete a traditional experience as possible. I spend a good deal of devotional and social time with individuals who are devout and conscientious about practicing the Faith but sometimes their attitudes are alarming to me. Their sources of authority seem to be limited to the rector and what they remember learning as children, not necessarily in that order.

For example, when citing Canon Law I am sometimes told “Oh, that *new stuff *doesn’t apply to us.” Or recently when trying to answer a question about whether a certain Saturday Mass fulfilled a Sunday obligation, one person said “Well it doesn’t matter because that anticipatory Mass thing doesn’t work in our rite anyway.”

I believe it is incumbent on pastors and informed members to make it clear to the faithful that the universal Church is a unity and there is only one Latin Rite.

AMDG
jsa
 
Your observation is well taken. But I think, too, that it shows just how far afield the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, practically speaking, are from one another.

By no means am I questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo, rather its efficacy (given the way it is commonly celebrated), in relation to the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
blackrobe said:
I have the privilege of attending an oratory which not only celebrates the EF but provides about as complete a traditional experience as possible. I spend a good deal of devotional and social time with individuals who are devout and conscientious about practicing the Faith but sometimes their attitudes are alarming to me. Their sources of authority seem to be limited to the rector and what they remember learning as children, not necessarily in that order.

For example, when citing Canon Law I am sometimes told “Oh, that *new stuff *doesn’t apply to us.” Or recently when trying to answer a question about whether a certain Saturday Mass fulfilled a Sunday obligation, one person said “Well it doesn’t matter because that anticipatory Mass thing doesn’t work in our rite anyway.”

I believe it is incumbent on pastors and informed members to make it clear to the faithful that the universal Church is a unity and there is only one Latin Rite.

AMDG
jsa
Click to expand...
Well, Pope Paul VI did call the Novus Ordo Missae a “new rite of Mass.” But now Pope Benedict XVI calls the OF and the EF two expressions of the same Roman rite. What was once TWO is now ONE.

:confused:
 
How refreshing to see a thread that will surely bring a fruitful discussion leading to unity and understanding !

🙂
 
I love the traditional latin mass (I attend it everyday), but I am increasingly developing a low opinion of self-professed traditional Catholics. Something that annoys me to no end is how many traditionalists will complain about “Cafeteria Catholics”…and then they do the same thing by picking and choosing which doctrines they want to follow! ARGH!!!

Sometimes I feel like I am the only Catholic that believes in both the Council of Trent…and the Second Vatican Council…

P.S. FIRST POST!!!
 
I’m sorry but I don’t see what is divisive about suggesting that pastors correct the clear errors of fact in their parishioners’ perceptions. If the prevailing opinion in this forum is that Canon Law does not apply to all the faithful and that there is more than one Latin Rite, so be it. Further discussion will indeed be fruitless.

AMDG
jsa
 
blackrobe said:
I’m sorry but I don’t see what is divisive about suggesting that pastors correct the clear errors of fact in their parishioners’ perceptions. If the prevailing opinion in this forum is that Canon Law does not apply to all the faithful and that there is more than one Latin Rite, so be it. Further discussion will indeed be fruitless.

AMDG
jsa
Click to expand...
It’s more of the fact that judging from other threads, this one will probably be derailed, and mud slinging will occur:shrug: What do I know?
 
blackrobe said:
I’m sorry but I don’t see what is divisive about suggesting that pastors correct the clear errors of fact in their parishioners’ perceptions. If the prevailing opinion in this forum is that Canon Law does not apply to all the faithful and that there is more than one Latin Rite, so be it. Further discussion will indeed be fruitless.

AMDG
jsa
Click to expand...
the title of the thread in a TC forum … just introduces friction
 
Fallen human nature will show anyplace there are human beings. We all need to be reminded sometimes of the need for obedience to the magisterium. God bless those pastors who are willing to bring this into the homilies!

Gertie
 
pataburd said:
Your observation is well taken. But I think, too, that it shows just how far afield the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, practically speaking, are from one another.

By no means am I questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo, rather its efficacy (given the way it is commonly celebrated), in relation to the Traditional Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
A reasonable opinion, but what has it to do with the clear teaching of the Church? Does it follow that one’s dissatisfaction with an expression of the Liturgy exempts one from the Universal Law of the Church? Entitles one to posit an alternative rite where none exists? And I am speaking of persons who claim to be in full communion with the Church.

AMDG
jsa
 
I think an interesting question to ask is do you think the idea that there is one Latin rite, but two forms of the liturgy is an idea that will be able to sustain itself over time, or will something have to give at some point?

Something else to consider is the rise of the Anglican Use parishes which use the Book of Divine Worship. I could be wrong, but there isn’t an Anglican rite, right? Isn’t this another liturgy of the Latin Rite?

I wonder if we are heading toward something like the pre-Reformation church in which the Latin Rite really lacked a unified liturgy?
 
Danquayle76 said:
I think an interesting question to ask is do you think the idea that there is one Latin rite, but two forms of the liturgy is an idea that will be able to sustain itself over time, or will something have to give at some point?

Something else to consider is the rise of the Anglican Use parishes which use the Book of Divine Worship. I could be wrong, but there isn’t an Anglican rite, right? Isn’t this another liturgy of the Latin Rite?

I wonder if we are heading toward something like the pre-Reformation church in which the Latin Rite really lacked a unified liturgy?
Click to expand...
Very good point. Looks like it is moving in that direction.
 
blackrobe said:
Or recently when trying to answer a question about whether a certain Saturday Mass fulfilled a Sunday obligation, one person said “Well it doesn’t matter because that anticipatory Mass thing doesn’t work in our rite anyway.”

AMDG
jsa
Click to expand...
But the Church does not promote Saturday evening Mass for the EF in the first place.

Actually,
28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.
Universae Ecclesiae
 
At_Trent said:
But the Church does not promote Saturday evening Mass for the EF in the first place.

Actually,
28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.
Universae Ecclesiae
Click to expand...
I could be completely wrong here, but doesn’t the Easter Vigil in the extraordinary form count as an Easter Sunday mass? If it doesn’t…then why is there a mass? Why does the church spring back into life with organ music and the return of lights? Why does the Gospel reading say Christ is risen…if its still Saturday?
 
blackrobe said:
A reasonable opinion, but what has it to do with the clear teaching of the Church? Does it follow that one’s dissatisfaction with an expression of the Liturgy exempts one from the Universal Law of the Church? Entitles one to posit an alternative rite where none exists? And I am speaking of persons who claim to be in full communion with the Church.

AMDG
jsa
Click to expand...
The leeway given, and (sadly) the leeway taken, with the Novus Ordo can make Church teaching less clear. For example, the primarily sacrificial character of the Mass, I would argue, is more clearly taught, is more clearly manifest, in a TLM reverently observed than in a NOM as commonly observed. Yet I will go further out on the limb and argue the same case for both Masses reverently observed.

I don’t regard it as my opinion, nor merely subjective dissatisfaction with one particular expression of the Liturgy versus another.

Again, I am not defying established Canon Law or encouraging others to do so or excusing others for having already done so, but merely observing that, practically speaking, the two Rites can have significantly different foci, with correspondingly significantly different efficacious impact.
 
Danquayle76 said:
I could be completely wrong here, but doesn’t the Easter Vigil in the extraordinary form count as an Easter Sunday mass? If it doesn’t…then why is there a mass? Why does the church spring back into life with organ music and the return of lights? Why does the Gospel reading say Christ is risen…if its still Saturday?
Click to expand...
I believe the answer is that traditionally it did not count for the Sunday obligation. However, until the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s the Easter Vigil was held on Saturday morning, so I doubt anyone could have reasonably expected it to “count” for the next day.

As to “why does the Gospel reading say Christ is risen if it’s Saturday,” well, why did they celebrate it in the morning when the Exsultet says Haec nox est (“This is the night”)? No very good reason, that’s for sure. You can understand why there was an impetus to restore it to the nighttime. Ideally, now, the Vigil would start late enough that the actual celebration of the Mass would take place after midnight and thus fall on Sunday proper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top