Does Being A Traditionalist Sometimes Make You Feel Isolated?

[ChurchTorch]

Dempsey, you are so right. I have always disliked the labels that we as Catholics put on ourselves. I grew up pre-Vatican II when we were all “Roman” Catholics. Most of the signs in front of Catholic Churches to this day say "Roman Catholic."

Now, people call themselves: Traditionalists, Latin Catholics (that one I don’t understand), Cradle Catholics (that one I really dislike), etc.:grouphug:

We are still all the same - Roman Catholics (which is what our Holy Father calls us, and I will always follow the lead of the Holy Father).:knight2::knight1:

This Forum always leads to arguments - perhaps when the new Missal is released in 2011 we will start all over with a group of new complaints from those among us who want it their own way, regardless of what comes from Rome.

Not all Catholics in PERFECT communion with the Holy See are “Roman Catholics.” No way.

Most are though, that’s because 99%+ of all Catholic parishes are within the Latin Rite and hence their faithful are Latin Rite or “Roman Catholics.” The Eastern Rite churches have a relatively small presence worldwide. Nevertheless only “the Catholic Church” describes the entire Church. “Roman Catholic Church” only describes the western half of the Church.

 

[mullenpm]

Church Torch, you are perfectly correct and I in no way wanted to exclude the Eastern Catholics from the Catholic Church.

My post was aimed at the people on this thread who are arguing over who is really more Catholic and labelling anyone who does not see it their way.

Mea Culpa.:grouphug:

 

[ChurchTorch]

Church Torch, you are perfectly correct and I in no way wanted to exclude the Eastern Catholics from the Catholic Church.

My post was aimed at the people on this thread who are arguing over who is really more Catholic and labelling anyone who does not see it their way.

Mea Culpa.:grouphug:

No problem at all!

Often times we see parishes and dioceses with “Roman Catholic Church” or “Roman Catholic Diocese” so it’s natural.

What I don’t care for are non-Catholics who try to call the entire Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church” and then claim to be “Anglican Catholics, etc.” as if saying “Roman Catholic Church” keeps a seat open for their sect at the Catholic table.,

 

[Dempsey1919]

What I don’t care for are non-Catholics who try to call the entire Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church” and then claim to be “Anglican Catholics, etc.” as if saying “Roman Catholic Church” keeps a seat open for their sect at the Catholic table.,

I once read that the origin of the term “Roman” Catholics was invented by Anglicans in Britain. They did this so that they could also refer to themselves as “Catholic.” The term Roman Catholic was also used by these individuals as an insult to Catholics.
…
All of this debate about the use of terms really accomplishes nothing. As Latin rite Catholics, we all need to be aware that for the first time in history, there are two forms of the Roman rite. These forms both deserve equal respect. Unfortunately, the EF is often maligned by certain Catholics, and the OF is criticised by certain Catholics. We need to stop squabbling over the two forms of Mass and work on fostering the spirit of friendship and fellowship in our parishes.

There seems to be two distinct camps within the Roman rite and I think this is a shame. The Bishops need to work to find ways they can promote both Forms of the Mass equally within their dioceses.

 

[barb_finnegan]

I think it is difficult to be a traditionalist in a parish that mainly celebrates the Ordinary Form. I attend a parish which celebrates the EF Mass once every Sunday. The other Masses are all OF Masses.

I am extremely grateful to my priest for celebrating the EF Mass every week. The people who attend this Mass come from miles around and most of them do not belong to the parish. The EF community isn’t really part of the parish but comes together once per week for the celebration of the EF. It often feels like we (traditionalists) do not belong to the parish.

I attend the EF almost exclusively but I occasionally go to the OF. When I see the sense of community amongst the people who attend the OF, I often wish that we in the traditionalist movement had the same opportunities to get to know one another.

Unfortunately, the traditionalists are treated as visitors to the parish, and not as members. The priest celebrates Mass for us, but none of the traditionalists get involved in parish activities. The traditionalists don’t seem to have any kind of friendships. I know the people who regularly attend the EF Mass at my parish but I am not friends with them in the same way that the people who attend the OF are. The OF group seems to be brought together by activities such as the parish fare and the various committees they have.

The traditionalists don’t have any roles on the parish committees and they aren’t invited to join any of the parish activities.

As a traditionalist, I often feel isolated when I attend Church. I don’t feel like the traditionalist group is made to feel part of the parish and I often wish that we were invited to join activities. Have you had similar experiences?

I often wish that the Bishop would erect a traditionalist parish within the diocese. I think this would bring the traditionalists together into one community and we could all get to know one another. Do you think it would be better if traditionalists had their own parishes?

I was reading your post yesterday, and I agree with you totally.

Recently I read a letter to the editor of our local paper. I knew the writer, because he was [and still is] the sacristan and server at a small former convent chapel that has the EF Mass. I used to go to this Mass, but I now go to another chapel that has it.

He said that a priest who offers the EF Mass twice a month [he used to be in our diocese, but now he’s in Pennsylvania at the FSSP’s St. Gregory’s Academy] presented our Bishop a petition signed by 150 people, asking for permission to have a TLM chapel in the diocese. Know what the Bishop’s answer was? It was NO! According the spokeswoman for the diocese, the reason was, ‘There wasn’t enough interest.’

My reaction to that answer? It’s BALONEY! I’ve gone to the SSPX chapel in the diocesan city a few times for Sunday Mass, and it’s packed to the doors! If the Bishop obeyed the Holy Father’s directives in Summorum Pontificium [sp?] , we could have a TLM church in the diocese!

 

[jeanannemarie]

What a great posting! I have never heard anyone in my parish make a negative comment or give a negative look pertaining to a woman’s head covering. Not ever. Yet I continually hear some that cover their heads talking about the invisible people that they offend with their head coverings. They need to get over it already! No one cares (or probably notices for the most part) if they cover their heads or not. They need to stop making up imaginary critics so that they can play the martyr!

Church Torch, you are very blessed indeed! I have not found things to be so simple.

 

[Timothysis]

Wow that is quite an assumption. I guaranntee my parents and grandparents have no clue what the “ordinary form” means (but they all know what the N.O. is), along with almost anyone who was born before the mid fifties.

In the end you can call it whatever makes you feel good–doesn’t change the fact that it is what it is.

What do you mean by “it is what it is?”

Pope Benedict himself is the one who defined the two forms of the Roman Rite of the Church as being the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

The term “Novus Ordo” is not an official title of anything. Every new edition of the missal is a “novus ordo,” meaning literally the “new order” of how the missal is celebrated. Every time the Tridentine missal was revised (and yes, it was revised several times) the new missal became, technically, the “novus ordo,” the "new order of the Mass. Those who use the phrase “Novus Ordo” are using it as a derisive term for those who prefer the Ordinary Form. As the poster above stated, the Church has NEVER referred to the Mass as celebrated by the Missal of Pope Paul VI as the “Novus Ordo.”

Honestly, this insistence to label Catholics as “Novus Ordos” and referring to the Pauline Mass as the “Novus Ordo,” along with the indifference to accepting reality by stating "it is what it is" is a perfect example that many here have referenced by the dismissal that some so called “traditionalists” have for those who do not reflect their personal bias.

I would like to ask, by the way, why you chose the username “pro multis.”

 

[LoyalViews]

I must tell you that, be careful when using the word “Traditionalist”, because sometimes a traditionalist means a member of the SSPX, of CMRI, or SSPV, or that you are sede-vacantist. But, I see where you are coming from, that you are a Traditional Catholic. (Traditionalist Catholic loyal to the Magisterium, and to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, and you are in communion with Rome,)

 

[LoyalViews]

I must tell you that, be careful when using the word “Traditionalist”, because sometimes a traditionalist means a member of the SSPX, of CMRI, or SSPV, or that you are sede-vacantist. But, I see where you are coming from, that you are a Traditional Catholic. (Traditionalist Catholic loyal to the Magisterium, and to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, and you are in communion with Rome,)

 

[Dempsey1919]

I think we all agree that the Roman rite must remain united. The two forms of the Mass must not divide us. The Church needs to do more to ensure that the two Masses do not end up creating two distinct groups of Catholics in opposition to each other.

I think the solution to the problem is this: The Bishops must do more to ensure that the needs of traditionalist Catholics are being met within the diocese. Most parishes are solely dedicated to the celebration of the OF Mass. This must change. I believe the EF Mass should be celebrated in every parish throughout the world, even if there is little demand for it because demand for the EF Mass will increase if more people are exposed to it. Both the EF Mass and the OF Mass must be given equal footing in all parishes.

I also think that the Bishops should make the effort to alter the churches so that the EF can be celebrated. It would require little effort to set up altar rails and build fixed altars against the rear wall of the church. Many churches have a standing table altar with a high altar against the rear wall. This set up would make it easier for both forms of Mass to be celebrated.

Everyone would benefit by these changes.

 

[malphono]

I think we all agree that the Roman rite must remain united. The two forms of the Mass must not divide us. The Church needs to do more to ensure that the two Masses do not end up creating two distinct groups of Catholics in opposition to each other.

I think the solution to the problem is this: The Bishops must do more to ensure that the needs of traditionalist Catholics are being met within the diocese. Most parishes are solely dedicated to the celebration of the OF Mass. This must change. I believe the EF Mass should be celebrated in every parish throughout the world, even if there is little demand for it because demand for the EF Mass will increase if more people are exposed to it. Both the EF Mass and the OF Mass must be given equal footing in all parishes.

I also think that the Bishops should make the effort to alter the churches so that the EF can be celebrated. It would require little effort to set up altar rails and build fixed altars against the rear wall of the church. Many churches have a standing table altar with a high altar against the rear wall. This set up would make it easier for both forms of Mass to be celebrated.

Everyone would benefit by these changes.

There was a thread in this forum some time ago entitled [thread=301562]Are Some People Afraid Of The Latin Mass ?[/thread]. Amidst the usual chaff, one will find some excellent posts in that thread, may of which are on topic here and might be worth a look.

While I am not in the habit of quoting myself, I made an observation at the time; it wasn’t particularly earth-shaking in the first place, but I think it applies here has as well.

There are those who are what I’ll call “EF people” and others who are “OF people.” Both are fine. Through the grace of PP Benedcit XVI and Summorum Pontificum there is an option to assist (yes, I use that word) at the EF. (Well, at least the option itself exists – fighting with obstructionist bishops and pastors to have access to the EF is another matter, but I digress.)

(A) People are frequently afraid of the unknown, and for a lot of folks these days, the EF is a total unknown since it was effectively suppressed in 1970, indults notwithstanding. (It’s easier to get a job today on Wall Street than it was to get a bishop to grant the indult, but I digress again.) These folks are often “won over” once they experience the EF. (I would point to Notre Dame Univ as an example.)

(B) There are other folks who were taught to fear the EF by those who embraced the OF so readily. (Yea, they even anticipated the OF: I vividly recall the goings-on after the 1965 Missal made its brief appearance, but yet again I digress.) Sometimes these folks are likewise “won over” with experience, when they realize that the EF is not the horrid zombie they were taught it was.

(C) And then there are those who fear the EF simply because it IS. For the most part, these are the so-called “teachers” in the above paragraph, and they (including some bishops) are just incorrigible. They are the diehards that will never accept the EF: “oh, it’s not (oy but how I hate the next two words …) relevent or meaningful”, etc etc. Well, maybe it’s not to them, and they are entitled to their opinion as long as they don’t continue to foist that opinion on the rest of the faithful.

To conclude, all I can say to someone in either category A or B is to try the EF a few times. Get a missal and do some online reading. Once the reality of what it is sets in, that reality may well dispel the fears.

 

[alih]

discussing this subject with another adhereant to the “mass of the ages” and with
the anti religious fervor going on in the world, he opined that we may be heading back
with mass in the catacombs again. have a good year. (alih)

 

[ChurchTorch]

What do you mean by “it is what it is?”

Pope Benedict himself is the one who defined the two forms of the Roman Rite of the Church as being the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

The term “Novus Ordo” is not an official title of anything. Every new edition of the missal is a “novus ordo,” meaning literally the “new order” of how the missal is celebrated. Every time the Tridentine missal was revised (and yes, it was revised several times) the new missal became, technically, the “novus ordo,” the "new order of the Mass. Those who use the phrase “Novus Ordo” are using it as a derisive term for those who prefer the Ordinary Form. As the poster above stated, the Church has NEVER referred to the Mass as celebrated by the Missal of Pope Paul VI as the “Novus Ordo.”

Honestly, this insistence to label Catholics as “Novus Ordos” and referring to the Pauline Mass as the “Novus Ordo,” along with the indifference to accepting reality by stating "it is what it is" is a perfect example that many here have referenced by the dismissal that some so called “traditionalists” have for those who do not reflect their personal bias.

I would like to ask, by the way, why you chose the username “pro multis.”

You certainly said this a lot more factually and eloquently than I could have. Thank you.

While exceptions no doubt exist, I am convinced that most who even know to use the term “Novus Ordo” (and particularly “N.O.”) do so in a manner meant to quietly denigrate the OF. It’s very bad form.

I asked a uber-traditionalist priest friend of mine (who is just this side of being a sedevacantist) why some insist on the use of “Novus Ordo?” He speculated that some do it out of abject ignorance, other do it to take a shot at the OF while others do it because they draw erroneous linkages between the use of Ordinary/Extraordinary Form of the Mass and Ordinary/Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. I’m not sure if I fully agree with him but his comments appear to largely ring true.

I simply follow the great professor Pope Benedict XVI on this one. I have absolutely no question that “EF” and “OF” were chosen with extreme care.

 

[ChurchTorch]

discussing this subject with another adhereant to the “mass of the ages” and with
the anti religious fervor going on in the world, he opined that we may be heading back
with mass in the catacombs again. have a good year. (alih)

If we were able to go back to the Mass of the early church it would likely resemble the OF or one of the eastern Divine Liturgies more than the EF. :yup:

 

[ChurchTorch]

I think we all agree that the Roman rite must remain united. The two forms of the Mass must not divide us. The Church needs to do more to ensure that the two Masses do not end up creating two distinct groups of Catholics in opposition to each other.

I couldn’t agree more yet some on this very thread talk about the desire for a separate “EF parish.”

I think the solution to the problem is this: The Bishops must do more to ensure that the needs of traditionalist Catholics are being met within the diocese. Most parishes are solely dedicated to the celebration of the OF Mass. This must change. I believe the EF Mass should be celebrated in every parish throughout the world, even if there is little demand for it because demand for the EF Mass will increase if more people are exposed to it. Both the EF Mass and the OF Mass must be given equal footing in all parishes.

You don’t really know that the needs of those who prefer the EF are not being met. SUre we hear some anecdotal rants (from all angles) but after the release of the MP I think most who prefer the EF now have access to it.

I definitely DO NOT think every parish should have an EF. With priest and sometimes facility shortages it would be terribly wasteful to celebrate any Mass that wasn’t attended it another Mass could be attended in its place that would serve a greater number of people.

I also think that the Bishops should make the effort to alter the churches so that the EF can be celebrated. It would require little effort to set up altar rails and build fixed altars against the rear wall of the church. Many churches have a standing table altar with a high altar against the rear wall. This set up would make it easier for both forms of Mass to be celebrated.

Everyone would benefit by these changes.

It would take a GREAT deal of $$$ to make some of the changes you note. When we have an EF at my parish the priest simply moves to the front of the altar ad oritentum and heavy duty kneelers are used for communion. No fuss, no muss, no big $$$, looks good and works very well.

 

[pro_multis]

You certainly said this a lot more factually and eloquently than I could have. Thank you.

While exceptions no doubt exist, I am convinced that most who even know to use the term “Novus Ordo” (and particularly “N.O.”) do so in a manner meant to quietly denigrate the OF. It’s very bad form.

I asked a uber-traditionalist priest friend of mine (who is just this side of being a sedevacantist) why some insist on the use of “Novus Ordo?” He speculated that some do it out of abject ignorance, other do it to take a shot at the OF while others do it because they draw erroneous linkages between the use of Ordinary/Extraordinary Form of the Mass and Ordinary/Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. I’m not sure if I fully agree with him but his comments appear to largely ring true.

I simply follow the great professor Pope Benedict XVI on this one. I have absolutely no question that “EF” and “OF” were chosen with extreme care.

1. You people have very thin skin
2. You seem to think that you can read peoples’ minds (you cannot)
3. I find it curious that you get so worked up about semantics, and not about the strange things that happen at your churches every day (as evidenced by everything that is documented on this message board)

 

[m134e5]

Yes, I love being able to walk into a church where people are silent. No chattering or noticing who is walking in. To be totally immersed in God.

I suppose this depends on where you’re from. Being from a smaller town with smaller churches, I appreciate people noticing each other when they come in to church. It isn’t the place for people to carry on a conversation, but there’s nothing wrong with a polite wave or whispering a short greeting. Even people who go to the Traditional Latin Mass here often take a moment before Mass to greet others, if they aren’t people they see all the time.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I once read that the origin of the term “Roman” Catholics was invented by Anglicans in Britain. They did this so that they could also refer to themselves as “Catholic.” The term Roman Catholic was also used by these individuals as an insult to Catholics.
…
All of this debate about the use of terms really accomplishes nothing. As Latin rite Catholics, we all need to be aware that for the first time in history, there are two forms of the Roman rite. These forms both deserve equal respect. Unfortunately, the EF is often maligned by certain Catholics, and the OF is criticised by certain Catholics. We need to stop squabbling over the two forms of Mass and work on fostering the spirit of friendship and fellowship in our parishes.

There seems to be two distinct camps within the Roman rite and I think this is a shame. The Bishops need to work to find ways they can promote both Forms of the Mass equally within their dioceses.

WRONG!

There are two forms of the Mass within ONE Roman Rite.

There may be two “rites” of the Mass but that in no way equates to two church rites.

I think the Pope did a masterful job with the MP. It’s us who don’t seem to be always following it.

 

[ChurchTorch]

1. You people have very thin skin
2. You seem to think that you can read peoples’ minds (you cannot)
3. I find it curious that you get so worked up about semantics, and not about the strange things that happen at your churches every day (as evidenced by everything that is documented on this message board)

Rather than get personal or attempt to obfuscate things, why not response to posting #107 in a reasoned manner?

 

[pro_multis]

I couldn’t agree more yet some on this very thread talk about the desire for a separate “EF parish.”

You don’t really know that the needs of those who prefer the EF are not being met. SUre we hear some anecdotal rants (from all angles) but after the release of the MP I think most who prefer the EF now have access to it.

I definitely DO NOT think every parish should have an EF. With priest and sometimes facility shortages it would be terribly wasteful to celebrate any Mass that wasn’t attended it another Mass could be attended in its place that would serve a greater number of people.

It would take a GREAT deal of $$$ to make some of the changes you note. When we have an EF at my parish the priest simply moves to the front of the altar ad oritentum and heavy duty kneelers are used for communion. No fuss, no muss, no big $$$, looks good and works very well.

It does not have to cost a lot. There is an really cool video out there on youtube of the faithful transforming an altar from “ordinary” to extrodinary. It’s an amazing transformation!!
youtube.com/watch?v=oUNfbgRJOe8