Leaning towards traditonal Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter glamourdollxoxo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as your spouse, God is taking care of it. Pray for him every day that he continue his walk with God faithfully and make good choices. No need to worry, have confidence! Thank the Lord for what he’s doing today and tell Him you look forward to seeing what He has done in your tomorrows! 😃
 
Atta’ boy! If all three of us 16 year olds intend to enter the Seminary, the Church will have quite a treat! 👍

I serve both the OF and the EF, it is good to see both. Viva il Papa!

~ Pius :knight1:
I would like to one day inquire into the FSSP but I’m scared to be rejected.
 
I don’t think Thomas Redd is correct (far from it) but neither are you in what I quote. It’s ironic that you mention the Church not being able to err, but then go on to claim that Ordinary Form is pseudo-Catholicism and modernist. I also think it’s unfair to say that the changes were all down to selfishness and arrogance. If anything, Church leaders at the time were confused! This type of response won’t win you any friends or supporters. I don’t appreciate being called a pseudo-Catholic just because at this point in time I attend the Ordinary Form.
The Church doesn’t error, but unfortunately She consists of men who do, She always corrects them though, see Arianism. I’m not attempting to win friends or supporters, and I don’t appreciate people referring to the banal, modernist, man made new order service as “ordinary” since it is quite far from the ordinary Mass, or ordinary Catholicism for that matter, either. I also don’t appreciate people on an internet forum attempting to scandalize a young Catholic lady. I’m sure I’ll be banned for being too-Catholic on this supposed Catholic forum (try posting papal encyclicals, and see how long before they’re deleted) soon anyway, so you probably wont have to put up for me long.
 
The Church doesn’t error, but unfortunately She consists of men who do, She always corrects Herself though, see Arianism. I’m not attempting to win friends or supporters, and I don’t appreciate people referring to the banal, modernist, man made new order service as “ordinary” since it is quite far from the ordinary Mass, or ordinary Catholicism for that matter, either. I also don’t appreciate people on an internet forum attempting to scandalize a young Catholic lady.
I don’t see where we are scandalizing this young lady at all. But okay, you’ve made your opinion known. It’s not the opinion of the Church, nor is it the opinion of our Holy Father. I wouldn’t want to place myself outside of those bounds unless for very good reason, though I am sure you have many reasons you believe are acceptable when calling the Ordinary Form pseudo-Catholic.

I’ve been on the forums a while now and sometimes Mods don’t take too kindly to the kind of language you’ve used towards the OF. Just a friendly warning for the future; I hope you stick around so that we can all learn more and come closer to Christ.
 
Just so you know, Traditional Catholics [though I don’t really enjoy the term personally] do believe in all the teachings of the Church, and the SSPX also believe the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and believe in all the teachings of the Church, so don’t think they [or any “trad” Catholic] are schismatics or heretics.

This is the problem with the labels. I am a Catholic who personally finds the EF more fulfilling spiritually, and who finds that the use of latin is good and proper within the Latin Rite. I also love gregorian chant, and am drawn to a strict, more austere expression of the faith. I say my rosary in Latin, and I get down when I hear heresy from anybody within the Church. Does that make me a “trad”? I shouldn’t think so. It just makes me Catholic. If I said the Rosary in English would I be less-trad? Well, the Rosary is over 500 years old, how would I be less-trad? See what I mean? Most of us are Latin Rite Catholics, and we should thus be familiar with Latin, and I believe that to be true of everybody within the Latin Rite. Does that make me a trad? Not really, it means I want the “Latin” part of the “Latin Rite” to mean something. I want the VII documents to be properly understood. I think the OF and EF should be offered in every parish, since it is still one Rite. People label these kinds of thing “trad” so as to divide. Expressing the Catholic faith fully shouldn’t be labelled anything other than “Catholic”.
What I meant was that the SSPX believes all of the Vatican II Popes to be heretics and Vatican II to be heresy whereas I don’t so I wouldn’t attend an SSPX mass. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just didn’t know how to word it right. lol. 😃
 
What I meant was that the SSPX believes all of the Vatican II Popes to be heretics and Vatican II to be heresy whereas I don’t so I wouldn’t attend an SSPX mass. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just didn’t know how to word it right. lol. 😃
Hey Ryan, thanks for clearing that up. However, the SSPX do not see B16, JPII, JPI, et al, as heretics. They see them as valid popes! They also wouldn’t call VatII “heretical” as such. Keep that in mind. The SSPX are not sede’s or SSPV. They are fully Catholic but suspended.
 
Hey Ryan, thanks for clearing that up. However, the SSPX do not see B16, JPII, JPI, et al, as heretics. They see them as valid popes! They also wouldn’t call VatII “heretical” as such. Keep that in mind. The SSPX are not sede’s or SSPV. They are fully Catholic but suspended.
Well, I got some booklets from a church in Ohio called St. Gertrude the Great and that’s what they said and they’re tied in with the SSPX. Here’s a link:

sgg.org/general-info/clergy/
 
Well, I got some booklets from a church in Ohio called St. Gertrude the Great and that’s what they said and they’re tied in with the SSPX. Here’s a link:

sgg.org/general-info/clergy/
If you notice on the site, the pastor is a sedevacantist. The problem with these kinds of things is that often they will promote a lot of different ideas or groups, as you experienced. They perhaps do have ties with the SSPX, but the SSPX would reject their sedevacantist position. So the ties they have would be of a historical nature, or perhaps ongoing talks, but not agreement as such.
 
If you notice on the site, the pastor is a sedevacantist. The problem with these kinds of things is that often they will promote a lot of different ideas or groups, as you experienced. They perhaps do have ties with the SSPX, but the SSPX would reject their sedevacantist position. So the ties they have would be of a historical nature, or perhaps ongoing talks, but not agreement as such.
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. So what’s the deal with the SSPX? Why are they suspended?
 
It was the Roman rite that broke with the tradition of the church and later demanded that mass be said in an elitist language very few people understood. This even led to the Roman rite later taking away communion under both species from the people. Among all the other Catholic rites, the Roman rite was virtually alone in these two “innovations.” The fathers at the Second Vatican Council were keenly aware that the Roman Rite had departed in many ways from the “real traditions” of the church.
Elitist? Who told you this? Would you call learning advanced math or even English grammar elitist? The way English and its vocabulary is being corrupted, we could use more of such “elitism” to save it if you ask me.

Latin is not only an ancient tradition but it is one of the three languages of the cross. The grammar and vocabulary had been codified by the Romans, from which we derive our Rite, our laws, our government, and other standards. Furthermore the Latin we use in the liturgy has been Christianized (“oratio” now means “prayer”) and has been so since the second or third century. If it was/is an “elitist” language, even better, as illiterates had already tried to morph many of the words into a vulgar language, Vulgar Latin, from which we derive our modern Romance languages. The Latin texts have been prepared carefully so that every word, every phrase, every sentence means only one thing. When you change it to vernacular, this isn’t necessarily true and I could show you losses of meanings with almost every line of the vernacular. I don’t buy this Latin = vernacular and language- doesn’t-matter argument.
 
I have started to embrace traditional Catholicism and have been leaning more towards that than NO. When I move out of state I plan on attending a SSPX Parish since I love the Latin Mass and I plan on using a chapel veil to cover at mass and prayer times. I have never felt so on fire and alive for God and the Latin Mass somehow makes mass seem more sacred and pure to me. My only hope is that I will be able to find a future husband who is a traditional Catholic since I probably seem pretty extreme for being only 22. I think I am the only 22 year old I know who is all for covering and loves SSPX parishes I can’t help but wonder if my way of living is off putting to most Catholic guys my age.
I’m 27 and go to a FSSP parish and I still feel that the women there would find me too extreme. 😃
 
The Church doesn’t error, but unfortunately She consists of men who do, She always corrects them though, see Arianism. I’m not attempting to win friends or supporters, and I don’t appreciate people referring to the banal, modernist, man made new order service as “ordinary” since it is quite far from the ordinary Mass, or ordinary Catholicism for that matter, either. I also don’t appreciate people on an internet forum attempting to scandalize a young Catholic lady. I’m sure I’ll be banned for being too-Catholic on this supposed Catholic forum (try posting papal encyclicals, and see how long before they’re deleted) soon anyway, so you probably wont have to put up for me long.
You won’t be banned for being “too Catholic”, because the comments you’ve made in the above post means you’re less Catholic than you think.
 
The Church doesn’t error, but unfortunately She consists of men who do, She always corrects them though, see Arianism. I’m not attempting to win friends or supporters, and I don’t appreciate people referring to the banal, modernist, man made new order service as “ordinary” since it is quite far from the ordinary Mass, or ordinary Catholicism for that matter, either. I also don’t appreciate people on an internet forum attempting to scandalize a young Catholic lady. I’m sure I’ll be banned for being too-Catholic on this supposed Catholic forum (try posting papal encyclicals, and see how long before they’re deleted) soon anyway, so you probably wont have to put up for me long.
I have never seen a papal encyclical deleted. However, I have seen many threads and posts deleted due to inflammatory statements, such as you have posted.

If you are banned, it won’t be because you posted an encyclical or because you are “too-Catholic”.
 
I just want to back track thank you to all of you who replied I had no idea that SSPX were not in good standing with Rome. As a fairly new Catholic I still have much to learn and I always welcome others opinions. Instead of a SSPX Parish I have found one that is linked to the Fraternity of St. Peter. I thank all of you again for your opinions and it has give me some major food for thought!
 
Instead of a SSPX Parish I have found one that is linked to the Fraternity of St. Peter. I thank all of you again for your opinions and it has give me some major food for thought!
That’s great. I think you will be very happy there. 👍
 
Obviously I am biased in favor of the original church tradition of having mass in the language of the people. Nothing wrong with that. After serving hundreds of Latin masses as a young person, having mass in my own sacred language of English was like an opening of the heavens. The Latin masses I served were always hurried, mumbled and truly lacked the reverance that is so apparent in the Novus ordo masses. It was incredible to have the vertical sacrificial dimension restored to the mass along with communal nature of the meal that Jesus instituted at the Last supper and I could actually understand it!

First, it is important to understand that the original language of the Roman Rite was not latin but was koine (common) Greek. This was the “lingua franca” of the common people around the mediterrian basin and in Rome. Latin was the language of the governing class. Since Christianity was originally a religion of the lower classes it was natural to say mass in kione Greek. This is the beginning of the our Christian tradition of saying mass in the language of the people (well actually the Last Supper is the real start of this tradition). It is wonderful that the sign of this tradition is still in the mass. After all, the “Kyrie” is not Latin but Greek and dates back to when the people of the Roman rite worshiped in Greek.

Later, Latin became more widely spoken by the common people. It was at this time that the Roman rite adopted Latin and the Vulgate Bible was translated by St. Jerome. Again, as the name “Vulgate” implies this was to address the needs of the people to read the Bible and participate in the Divine Liturgy in their own language. I might add that all around the Christian world the various rites, all used the language of the people.

When the capital of the empire was moved by Constantine to Constantinople, Rome became somewhat of a backwater. The Germanic migrations surged into the western empire. These were later followed by the migrations of the Slavs, the Maygars and other tribes. There was a real cachophany of new languages. Clearly the Church had a difficult time adjusting to this incredible linguistic diversity. To make matters even more complicated the Latin of the provinces started to diverge and gave rise to the modern languages of French, Spanish, Portugese and Romanian. The Church in Rome tried to adjust, but it simply no longer had the resources.

It was during this time that latin played a key role in maintaining what was left of western civilization. It became the language that held the various western people together. It was the language of the educated elite (the small number who could actually read). It also served as a common liturgical language, though it did not totally supplant all other language such as Celtic. But the Church was aware that the needs of the people were not being served by only the latin liturgy, which was understood by very few people at this point. I would now like to talk about a real watershed event in the history of the Church, the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methoius to the Slavs. These are two of the greatest missionaries who ever lived. Their mission started when a prince in present day Slovakia sent a letter to the Pope and a copy to the Emperor in Constantiople asking to send someone to teach his people so that they could understand the Gospels in their own language. The emperor literally decided to send his two best men, Cyril and Methodius, truly holy men, who had an outstanding knowledge of languages. First they developed a new alphabet, the precurser to modern day Cyrillic. Next they translated a good part of the Bible into the Slavic language. Then surprisingly they translated not the Byzantine mass into Slavic but the Roman Rite. Wanting to do it right, Cyril and Methodius traveled to Rome and presented their work to the Pope who appoved it and blessed it. Let me repeat that, in circa 860 AD, the vernacular language was approved for the Roman Rite. Cyril and Methodius were naturally, very succesful because people were learning the Gospels and attending the mass in their own language. Cyril and Methodius made many converts. They were so successful that they started to run afoul of other missionaries who were using latin in the mass. These missionaries complained that Cyril and Methodius’ Slavic Roman Rite mass was not really accurate and was heretical. Sounds familar here, doesn’t it? Back to Rome, our heroes went. There was another Pope now. He reviewed their work and gave the same stamp of approval. Unfortunately Cyril died in Rome. The Pope made Methodius the archbishop of the region known as Great Moravia. Quess what happened? When he went back, the latinist missionaries put their new archbishop in jail. It literally took two years of effort by the Pope to finally get Methodius released. When Methodius died, his priests were driven from the area. They went out and converted the Bulgars, the Ukrainians and the Russians, et al. But get this. They no longer used the Roman Rite. They switched to the Byzantine rite. These great countries became part of the eastern church and left the Catholic Church in 1054 AD in the Great Schism. The vernacular languages in the liturgy were suppressed more and more and latin began to predominate . This became a real issue and was one of the main complaints of people during the Protestant reformation. Many, individuals with great justification, believed that mass should be returned to the people. When the Roman rite denied this, the people went where they could go to mass in a language they understood. Unfortunately, this helped break the Church apart and introduced heresies which in many instances completely denied the real Presence at mass. God guides the Church, but people still make great mistakes. Not addressing the need of people to go to mass in a language they understood was one of those mistakes. God Bless!
 
Welcome to CAF.

I hate to be abrupt, but you’ve posted a lot of false information mixed in with some poor understanding and your own bias. Understandable I guess. Could you cite sources for some of your claims? Specifically, the false claim that Latin was an elitist language that few understood? And it was the Latin that somehow forced us to receive under only one kind? And that the Latin Rite departed from the traditions of the Church? [you are aware that the OF is a Latin Rite Mass?].
I ran out of space in my previous post and didn’t get to answer about how having mass in a language not understood by the people helped to take away the great tradition of receiving communion under both species (or kinds). Receiving Jesus under both his Body and Blood was clearly from all early church writings the only way communion was received in the west for over a thousand years. It is the still the only way it is received in all the other ancient rites of the church with the exception of the Roman Rite. How, did the Roman Rite lose something that for over a thousand years was the expected manner of receiving communion and in the east is looked upon as well somewhat mandatory? First let me say that, I am not saying that receiving Communion under only one species is wrong or that we receive only part of Jesus. Clearly from earliest times, Jesus under the form of bread was sent to the sick and other persons who could not be present. The way the Church now talks about receiving under both species as being the “fullest sign.” is I feel the perfect way to express this Great Mystery.

I believe that the practice of denying the cup to the people came as a result of keeping the mass in latin in spite of the fact that the people’s language had changed and/or new people had migrated into Europe. Since people could no longer understand or speak the language in which mass was offered, their role was greatly diminished. No longer, as in the other rites, was there a dialogue back and forth between the priest and people. The people were expected to be passive. Because of the diminished role of the people, there was less of a stress on the mass being a communal sacrificial meal which re-enacted Jesus’s death on the cross and joined all of us together in Christ’s Blood into the mystical Body of Christ. Instead, the mass was viewed as a sacrifice only that had to be done to continue Christ’s redemptive act. I am not saying that this is wrong. I am merely saying that this view was incomplete. When the cup was denied the people in about the 12th century, it continued the process in the Roman Rite of putting the people into a seconadary role. This got to the point, that some preachers were teaching that most people, most times were not worthy to receive communion even under only the bread. Of course, this was not church teaching but was common enough to seriously discourage people from going to communion.

Once mass was returned to the language of the people after Vatican II, it was clear that the mass should return to the dialogue responses back and forth. If the people are participating again in the mass, then they should participate completely. How, by ancient tradition, does one participate fully in the mass? That’s easy, by receiving both Jesus’ Body and Blood. It is a natural progression back to our original tradition. Again, I am not saying that you must receive under both kinds, merely that it is the most ancient of traditions and is the fullest of signs.

I would like to comment on the efforts of some people to suppress receiving communion in the hands and standing up. Of course receiving communion in the hands rather than the tongue is the more ancient tradition. I forget what early Church father talked about how when we receive Jesus in our hands, we cradle him. It was really beautiful. Receiving in the hand is done more conveniently standing. Also, taking the cup is more easily done standing than kneeling at a communion rail. So the movement to bring back the communion railing which used to seperate us from the altar table is also movement as far as I can see, to deny us the ancient and beautiful traditions of receiving communion in our hand and under both kinds. God Bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top