CatholicCid
There must be divisions over some things–just not ones that divide us from the Mystical Body of Christ. If you care about things being done right, then that love for God in providing Him the best possible worship of Himself will will lead those with different viewpoints to argue. Charity is what keeps divisions from becoming enmity unnecessarily. The Church decided to do things differently for better or worse. If there was no hostility intended towards traditional Catholics or far-left Catholics then the latter (provided they are the ones of each who broke away) unnecessarily felt an enmity towards their brothers running Vatican 2.
Still, it may have prevented unnecessary divisions over “small” things if the Vatican 2 Fathers hadn’t touched the liturgy or if they had listened to Archbishop Lebebvre’s concerns, thus limiting the radicalism that would follow greatly, I think (though that is a retrospect the Vatican 2 popes didn’t have the luxury to see but one which they apparently didn’t have a gift of prophesy–or is it understanding–to realize). Then, I think we got unnecessary divisions over “small” things by allowing the vernacular in Masses (so that we couldn’t go to any country and know what’s being said), moving holy days that fell on weekdays to Sunday (thus creating less days for many to go to Mass if they don’t have to) and allowing folk culture of different regions and country to infiltrate the liturgies (see: use of vernacular). I don’t think we are dividing ourselves over little things though. We are all here and Catholic.
You might read “Ugly as Sin” to see if those “small” things are really so small and whether a Mass said any way is still the Mass. I think, on the other hand, unless the N.O. becomes like EWTN’s or at least the folksiness gets omitted from architecture, priest’s greetings, music, etc., the traditional Mass is the healthy Mass for the soul. It and its culture are directed to the praise of God, which our souls are giving less and less of with these renovations, I think. Still, according to Michael Davies, beloved by all pretty much all traditionalists, the 1970 Missal, at least in its Latin translation, could not have been drafted if it could have brought down the Church (though nothing was said about church architecture or music, if I remember correctly)–but who’s saying it, in its English translation, is even being followed correctly in most churches? The liberals will never be satisfied–which is, I believe, the concern of Lefebvre (as modernism was nothing new) despite his illegal actions, unconstructive to the unity of the Church, some time afterwards.
