People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[anamchara]

Its happening all over again. Each new thread almost always seems to gravitate to this discussion. Suffice to say, we should each be happy that we all have a niche in our Holy Mother Church where we can each be comfortable, whether it be the Novus Ordo, The Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass, or whatever form is available. Each is the mass. None of us are any less or any more Catholic because of the Mass preference we do or do not like

.

Amen! This is worth pulling forward again. Thank you Deacon Ed.

 

[Freshman88]

“That is the shocking truth”?!?

So you are saying that the Pope and the Vatican is part of this so-called “group of people” standing in the way of the EF and the truth? Yet it is the Pope who brings the EF to the fore? I must be missing your meaning, because that doesn’t even make sense.

Those battles are happening from top to bottom, you are right about that. Very often, the ways they are being waged are not to our credit. Too often, the way they are waged is scandalous.

How can one “stand up for Holy Mother Church” and yet promote strife? It cannot be done. Are we witnessing that we are the Body of Christ in how we discuss these issues? Or are we witnessing that we’re a big institution full of petty people looking for certainty and security, in which human power struggles and personal agendas are allowed to obscure our whole reason for being?

How “I belong to Vatican II” and “I belong to Vatican I” or “I belong to the TLM” and “I belong to the NO” differs from “I belong to Paul” and “I belong to Apollos”, I do not know. Surely the Pope teaches that there is and need be no division between the two, not any whatsoever! We know what Paul had to say about that:

“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” (1 Cor. 1:10)

We have Rome to teach us how to agree in what we say. The Holy Spirit is given to us that we may be united in Christ Jesus. What excuse do we have to do otherwise?

sigh…

The hierarchy is made up of men, holy men for the most part, albeit men. Just look to the various bishops and cardinals, there is a wide vareity of opinion and stances. All within our Church.

There is a reason that the Bishop of Rome cannot be as forcible as he may wish to be. Bishops can choose to enter into schism, excommunications can lead to rebellious movements. Rome moves in decades, not months. The EF has not even been out for a year, and we’re expecting change? Rome moves as best she can, but there is always opposition from within.

As St. John Chrysostom said “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”. Bishops are in a very difficult position (perhaps the most difficult in the world) pray for both dissenters and faithful hierarchy members alike, they undertake an unimaginable burden, and Satan knows this all too well.

This is what I meant. I believe H.H Benedict XVI has a greater plan at play. The MP was just one small step. Give it time, watch his successors and pray.

But you’re all kidding yourselves if you think he can just start cleaning house.

St. John Golden tongued,
pray for us and our Shepherds.

 

[EasterJoy]

On the flip side you also have the group that says
"Why yes the EF(Traditional Mass) is valid and fine BUT attitude.

Whats the difference?

Feeling more Catholic than the Pope or the last five popes put together and being brilliant theologians in their own minds reserved only to traditionalists?:tsktsk: I’ll bet my next retirement check there are more than a few on the progressive side of the aisle that feel exactly the same way.

Some who post here quite often as a matter of fact.

Except for pastoral considerations that are the perogative of bishops to discern–hence why one Mass is EF and one OF–I don’t think there is a difference. “I belong to the TLM” and “I belong to the NO” go all the way back to what Paul was talking about. He didn’t say that it was better to say “I belong to Paul” than to say “I belong to Apollos” In fact, he said he was glad that he had not literally baptized any more of them than he had! This is in spite of the fact that Paul was not one who was lukewarm or “politically correct” in his explanations of the faith. He wanted them all to just cut that nonsense out.

Even impassioned disagreements over how to clarify points of faith do not need to degenerate into “you people” arguments, and that is true no matter which end of the spectrum you are on.

 

[historyb]

Same with those bashers who equate all the evils of the world to “liberals” and “progressives.”

I think it can be, but that’s for another topic.

 

[SeekerJen]

You hit the nail on the head. The motu proprio of last year has set them in a panic. The fact that there is a “traditional catholic” sub-forum here put them in a tizzy. They were here from the beginning, but starting about January I guess, this sub-forum really became overrun with trolls and baiters.

There’s more to the question than simple liturgical “preference”…there are underlying theolgical issues involved. The Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, traditional folks feel, more clearly communicates many Catholic Truths. Obviously, given the reaction of the “anti-traditional” folks, they agree with this thesis. They are afraid of certain Catholic Truths being communicated more clearly…Truths these folks thought were dead and buried - or at least brushed off into an insignificant corner. The motu proprio changed this.

Therefore, the recent lifting of “restrictions” of the EF becomes a lightening rod for contention. They are here to do their best to make sure EF doesn’t catch on, and to make sure that the Catholic Truths they thought were dead and buried don’t resurface in any large number.

Hence, you’ll see hot debates incited here by non-traditionalists that center not only on the liturgy, but around things such as the nature of Salvation, the nature of the Church itself, and the mutability of dogma, etc.

It’s all related.

Thank you for this post. You have outlined so clearly the mindset that keeps my curiosity about the TLM from moving toward actual practice. Every time I gear up to attend my first ever TLM, I come across a post like yours and realize that I would probably not be welcome. I believe that the TLM is valid, but the Holy Father and the Vatican, using the authority that is proper to them and to none other on earth, have deemed the NO to be equally valid and I cannot sympathize with those who disagree nor can I agree with those who feel that those who worship in the NO are somehow less Catholic and “afraid of certain Catholic truths”.

I wish those who post such things would realize how off-putting their words are. The minority of people who read this will post a response. The vast majority will be lurkers led here by their curiosity, and many of them will react as I have: “No, after reading this, it isn’t for me. I’m not welcome here and I will likely be ridiculed.” By posting such paranoid and mean-spirited things, you are losing many who could potentially be allies.

Of course it is only a good thing that the TLM is once again celebrated. It is a treasure of the Church that should be preserved and protected. However, you win more flies with honey than with vinegar, and if you want the rest of us to come over to your side, you would do well to realize that the paranoid insults won’t help your cause.

 

[consumedconvert]

Except for pastoral considerations that are the perogative of bishops to discern–hence why one Mass is EF and one OF–I don’t think there is a difference. “I belong to the TLM” and “I belong to the NO” go all the way back to what Paul was talking about. He didn’t say that it was better to say “I belong to Paul” than to say “I belong to Apollos” In fact, he said he was glad that he had not literally baptized any more of them than he had! This is in spite of the fact that Paul was not one who was lukewarm or “politically correct” in his explanations of the faith. He wanted them all to just cut that nonsense out.

Even impassioned disagreements over how to clarify points of faith do not need to degenerate into “you people” arguments, and that is true no matter which end of the spectrum you are on.

 

[Dauphin]

Thank you for this post. You have outlined so clearly the mindset that keeps my curiosity about the TLM from moving toward actual practice. Every time I gear up to attend my first ever TLM, I come across a post like yours and realize that I would probably not be welcome.

You’re kidding, right? That’s pretty silly. It’s your loss.

 

[consumedconvert]

Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum? Are they trying to convert traditional Catholics to less traditional Catholicism? I can understand trying to convert someone who thinks that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is illicit or invalid, but why would one want to convert someone who just prefers the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Most of the people who I know who prefer the Extraordinary Form would be happy liturgically if every Mass was just celebrated sans liturgical abuses. Why is this a bad thing?

I love the EF. I also love the OF, in fact, I prefer it. But if many love the EF, then I rejoice that our loving Papa has liberated its use! They are entitled to their preference, and indeed they have good reasons for loving and even preferring the EF!

I do hold the OF valid and licit and in every way profitable.

The problems come when some more contentious Traditionalists attack the OF, or Vatican II, or try to divide Catholics into camps of “Traditionalists” and “Paulists”. Hey, labels are useful, and if you want to call yourself a Traditionalist to denote certain preferences you have, that’s perfectly fine! But we must keep in mind that it’s ONLY a label. You and I are Catholic–Latin Catholics to boot! We are brothers. We must NEVER allow preferencs to separate us!

 

[EasterJoy]

Well… it is. It’s the most Catholic thing on earth. That’s why people don’t like it.

a) THE MASS is the most Catholic thing on earth.

b) You should not just assume that Catholics who don’t like the inflammatory rhetoric thrown about “on behalf” of the EF by those who have appointed themselves the only worthy defenders of Holy Mother Church have any problem whatsoever with the EF itself.

I heard a parish priest repeat the quip: “Parish life would be great, if it weren’t for the parishioners.” It is too often true that the same could be said of the beautiful treasure of our traditions.

 

[Dauphin]

a) THE MASS is the most Catholic thing on earth.

b) You should not just assume that Catholics who don’t like the inflammatory rhetoric thrown about “on behalf” of the EF by those who have appointed themselves the only worthy defenders of Holy Mother Church have any problem whatsoever with the EF itself.

I heard a parish priest repeat the quip: “Parish life would be great, if it weren’t for the parishioners.” It is too often true that the same could be said of the beautiful treasure of our traditions.

I really do think that the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass are more Catholic than those in the Novus Ordo, with much a much clearer Catholic identity steeped in tradition, and a very ancient, largely unaltered source.

I still attend the Novus Ordo from time to time, and I have no doubt that it’s completely valid, but I don’t just prefer the TLM - I believe it’s more Catholic.

Is that wrong of me? I’m sorry if it offends against your sensibilities, but I really think my position is quite well-grounded. I’m sure you can find a side-by-side comparison if you’d like.

 

[historyb]

I like Traditional things like the EF, never been to one. I was one who was adamant at times about the EF than I went away from the Church and through God’s grace returned. I went to my first mass last night in over a year and there were guitars, a hand drum and kids singing (Youth Group).

I enjoyed it and instead of going there with a critical eye, I went there to get feed from the Word and that is what happened, even though I can’t partake of the Eucharist (missed confession) yet I still felt feed by God.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Well, then. Am I to believe that I, a simple layperson who assists at the Ordinary Form in her parish, am less of a Catholic because I don’t seek out the more Catholic Extraordinary Form? Lord save a sinner like myself!

 

[Dauphin]

Well, then. Am I to believe that I, a simple layperson who assists at the Ordinary Form in her parish, am less of a Catholic because I don’t seek out the more Catholic Extraordinary Form? Lord save a sinner like myself!

No. Not at all. However, you can’t deny that the prayers of the Novus Ordo are a dramatic simplification and remove much of the Catholic content.

 

[FAB]

There needs to be made a difference between Tradtionalist and Traditional Catholicism. Just because I may not like one, doesn’t not mean I dislike my brothers and sisters in Christ.
There are very good reason to embrace the reforms of Vatican II. The church had become stagnet, and suffering from abuses. The reforms of Vatican II had started years before the actual councel.
The Pharisees were only interested in the law, “why do your apostles pick wheat on the sabbath? Why do your apostles not follow the rules of cleanliness?” Niether had much to do to care for the people. 40 years ago our beloved mother church was close to being on the same level. Priest in the confessional handing out punishments based on the level of the offense. Each movement of the mass was strictly regulated, women were not allowed on the alter, the people were to pay the bills with no voice, father or sister always knew best for you. You were discouraged from reading the bible, because you were never taught how to understand the scripture, with limited use of the scripture used in the mass. No wonder that protestants thought that the church was not biblically based. You were taugth to memorize the Baltimore cat. with few understanding the meaning. It was leagalistice and lacking in pastoral care.
The move of Benidict to loosen the restrictions on the use of the TDL was part of this movement of pastoral care, realizing that many were unneccessary harmed in thier own faith journey, with it’s restriction.
I have learned from the traditionalist on this site. Each time a quote from the pope is used to try to turn back the clock, it gives me a chance to perform some historical reasearch, to find out the reason for the statement, put it context and see most of the them it was in response to an abuse in the church at the time it was made, but they can be enlightening.
I don’t know if I can agree with the idea that we can have many ways of celebrating and still have on faith. We can have many on the same journey, each reaching thier own level of spiritualty, but if part are pulling forward and part are pulling backwards, splitting over issues such as what is the proper form of the mass, how then are we ever going to accompish the mission of Christ? Spread the Gospel, care for sheep, care for each other. The traditional Chatholicism of 40 plus years ago had lost the vision of this command.

Peace,
FAB

 

[consumedconvert]

I really do think that the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass are more Catholic than those in the Novus Ordo, with much a much clearer Catholic identity steeped in tradition, and a very ancient, largely unaltered source.

I still attend the Novus Ordo from time to time, and I have no doubt that it’s completely valid, but I don’t just prefer the TLM - I believe it’s more Catholic.

Is that wrong of me? I’m sorry if it offends against your sensibilities, but I really think my position is quite well-grounded. I’m sure you can find a side-by-side comparison if you’d like.

You are quite entilted to your view and your preference, I have no problem with that. Let’s simply agree that your preference is not mine, and my view is not yours. Thanks be to God, we can each attend masses which we prefer!

 

[Freshman88]

No. Not at all. However, you can’t deny that the prayers of the Novus Ordo are a dramatic simplification and remove much of the Catholic content.

Ah Dauphin, I love your position. Why’d you settle for Queen’s? We could use more minds like yours at McGill, a real university! (i kid, I kid, I almost went to Queen’s myself. )

 

[GemmaRose]

Thank you for this post. You have outlined so clearly the mindset that keeps my curiosity about the TLM from moving toward actual practice. Every time I gear up to attend my first ever TLM, I come across a post like yours and realize that I would probably not be welcome. I believe that the TLM is valid, but the Holy Father and the Vatican, using the authority that is proper to them and to none other on earth, have deemed the NO to be equally valid and I cannot sympathize with those who disagree nor can I agree with those who feel that those who worship in the NO are somehow less Catholic and “afraid of certain Catholic truths”.

I wish those who post such things would realize how off-putting their words are. The minority of people who read this will post a response. The vast majority will be lurkers led here by their curiosity, and many of them will react as I have: “No, after reading this, it isn’t for me. I’m not welcome here and I will likely be ridiculed.” By posting such paranoid and mean-spirited things, you are losing many who could potentially be allies.

Of course it is only a good thing that the TLM is once again celebrated. It is a treasure of the Church that should be preserved and protected. However, you win more flies with honey than with vinegar, and if you want the rest of us to come over to your side, you would do well to realize that the paranoid insults won’t help your cause.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Dauphin]

There are very good reason to embrace the reforms of Vatican II. The church had become stagnet, and suffering from abuses. The reforms of Vatican II had started years before the actual councel.

Actually, all of the indications were that the Church was growing at a remarkable rate, and then, immediately after the Council, all of the indicators took a dramatic plummet, including a 41% reduction in seminarians only 5 years after the Second Vatican Council.

The Pharisees were only interested in the law, “why do your apostles pick wheat on the sabbath? Why do your apostles not follow the rules of cleanliness?” Niether had much to do to care for the people. 40 years ago our beloved mother church was close to being on the same level.

Complete rubbish.

Priest in the confessional handing out punishments based on the level of the offense.

You mean penance? Penance at a level appropriate for each sin? Shocking!

Each movement of the mass was strictly regulated,

Yes, everyone knows the priest is the star of the show! Give him some creative leeway!

women were not allowed on the alter,

Good stuff!

the people were to pay the bills with no voice, father or sister always knew best for you.

The Church isn’t a democracy.

You were discouraged from reading the bible, because you were never taught how to understand the scripture, with limited use of the scripture used in the mass.

What absolute trash. Barely worthy of a response. Discouraged from reading the Bible? It was read at Mass. The words were right there in the Missal. The limited use of scripture allowed you to know certain parts of scripture extremely well, and there’s no reason you couldn’t read beyond that.

No wonder that protestants thought that the church was not biblically based.

Then why were so many of them converting at such a remarkable rate before the council?

You were taugth to memorize the Baltimore cat.

If only!

with few understanding the meaning.

If you speak english, it should be pretty clear.

The move of Benidict to loosen the restrictions on the use of the TDL was part of this movement of pastoral care, realizing that many were unneccessary harmed in thier own faith journey, with it’s restriction.

Please don’t say “faith journey” again. I may vomit.

I have learned from the traditionalist on this site. Each time a quote from the pope is used to try to turn back the clock, it gives me a chance to perform some historical reasearch, to find out the reason for the statement, put it context and see most of the them it was in response to an abuse in the church at the time it was made, but they can be enlightening.

The Church has a perfect continuity in its teaching and its tradition from its birth at pentecost. It’s utterly meaningless to talk about “turning back the clock” when it comes to Catholic doctrine. The truth is unchanging and eternal.

I don’t know if I can agree with the idea that we can have many ways of celebrating and still have on faith. We can have many on the same journey, each reaching thier own level of spiritualty, but if part are pulling forward and part are pulling backwards, splitting over issues such as what is the proper form of the mass, how then are we ever going to accompish the mission of Christ? Spread the Gospel, care for sheep, care for each other. The traditional Chatholicism of 40 plus years ago had lost the vision of this command.

No… the traditions of the Church are integral to fulfilling this command. We need solid teaching, not the modernist trash that has been foisted on the Church for forty years.

We need the hermeneutic of continuity, which says that there is one unchanging faith and one unbroken tradition which exists even today.

 

[Dauphin]

Ah Dauphin, I love your position. Why’d you settle for Queen’s? We could use more minds like yours at McGill, a real university! (i kid, I kid, I almost went to Queen’s myself. )

We’re needed to fend off heresy at our respective universities, friend God distributes us traditionalists according to need.

 

[Freshman88]

We’re needed to fend off heresy at our respective universities, friend God distributes us traditionalists according to need.

Amen frater