Pope, in interview, laments 'rigidity' of youth who prefer Latin Mass [CWN]

[Tantum_ergo]

No, they believe (as I do) that driving 45-60 minutes one-way to Mass specifically to hear it in Latin, rather than English, despite the fact that they are both equally valid and holy Masses, is excessive work put into something that at the end of the day doesn’t matter anymore.

Wait. Why 'doesn’t it matter at the end of the day anymore?"
Because you say so?

Because it doesn’t matter to you?

But you aren’t one of this family, are you? It seems that it matters to them. Aren’t we supposed to have free choice?

There are people I know who are bluegrass fanatics. Go hundreds of miles to festivals. I don’t particularly care for that music. Do I castigate them for their travel and making their kids drive ‘all that distance’ etc because I don’t care for driving, and because I don’t care for that music? Or do I say, “Hey, that’s what they enjoy.” (Personally, I’d ride the train to NYC a couple hundred miles away to attend the Metropolitan Opera regularly if I could – my ‘bluegrass friend’ wouldn’t go to the Opera if I paid her $500.) I don’t expect my friend to love opera as I do, she doesn’t expect me to love bluegrass, we can both appreciate that we like different things. . .

 

[Megan7]

Why do you see that as rigidity? If they have such a love for the mass (in any form) to go daily and with their teenage children I have a hard time understanding why that’s a bad thing.

Utah Rose mentioned that the Latin Mass she a tends has few young people. The parish staffed by the FSSP that my wife frequents is litterally full of young people. At both high mass and sung masses they have a dozen altar servers from 8 to 18 who are attentive and seam to love serving. People gather after mass and there are probably 40 or more kids playing in the parish yard. There are teens, young adults, and familes from their early 20s to mid seventies. Many drive 40 minutes or more each way to attend. Why do they have the time? Because they make mass a priority.

So are you saying that people who put attending Mass so high on their priorities that they would spend that much time are rigid in a bad way? A number of families live in the area surrounding me and do not eschew attending the OF mass at the local parish when they have a need, but personal parishes were setup specifically for those with a preference so why should it be treated as something bad when they avail themselves of the opportunity?

I guess I am trying to understand why someone would have a problem with people where their faith is fed in the OF or EF. When we see kids in confirmation that say they haven’t been to confession in 6 years or mass for 2 years should we not applaud people that attend Mass every day with their children even if it’s not at the parish a few blocks away?

Why can’t we simply be happy that people have a love of any mass instead of seeing something potentially dark and ominous? It makes me sad that we can’t rejoice that Shepard are feeding their flocks without sidelong glances if it seems odd to us. God wires each of use differntly and if it is easier for one to hear His voice in one form or the other then that is a blessing and not a curse.

I understand what the Holy Father is saying, but can we (not the Pope) please not paint everyone with a passion for the EF as somehow an aberration? Let us rejoice in those who love the mass in its myriad forms.

Well, I guess I am also “Rigid” :extrahappy::clapping:I LOVE the Mass in the EF & or the TLM. :dancing:

The first time I attended one, I stayed for hours. It was a very active FSSP parish. I stayed for all of the Masses that day. I could not stop crying, I was so touched, moved, etc.

God bless that particular parish, those amazing Priests, etc.
The confessional had a constant line of people! Never saw anything like it…

People drove long distances to attend this amazing Church!!

Large families, a ton of children, teenagers, middle aged people, college age students, older people, men. women, etc. And amazing sight to behold!! People dressed modestly And the Sermon was food for my soul! I felt nourished! My first experience was just heavenly!!

And I was hooked for LIFE!!

Thanks for all of your wonderful posts, Usige!

I am not sure if you are still studying to become a Deacon, but if you are, you are in my prayers!

God bless you & your family!!

Megan, a “Rigid Roman Catholic” …No apologies…,

 

[Usige]

You will, hopefully, have occasion to regard these things very differently after you are ordained. Because it is very important to understand that an increase of religious practice is not always a good thing or a thing to be praised, as any priest would be able to tell you from his personal experiences. There are times when it is distinctly not only “not positive,” it is positively spiritually unhealthy. That is a discernment to be cautiously arrived at – but also not one to be avoided.

Father, I do not disagree that it could be unhealthy. What I reject is that it is unhealthy without further information. There is no evidence one way or another that it is causing spiritual harm so charity would seem to dictate that we accept it is not without more information.

I do not have near you experience, but I am familiar with people in one of the 2 Latin mass communities near me (near being a relative term). Many that go to daily mass at the personal parish near where I work do so because the parish offers rooms for a montessori type education for people who homeschool. The classes are perhaps 30-45 minutes long. Even when they are not doing montessori many families that homeschool make the drive to meet with other families in the community. The pastor of that parish is very accommodating of people who chose to homeschool and spends time to come talk with the students and parents. Many appreciate his and the parochial vicar’s personal attention.

I use these examples to say that simply because someone makes a 2 hour drive every day does not per se indicate a spiritual malady. Because of that I think it is not fair for anyone to automatically diagnose a spiritual malady. In the example the poster I responded to said it is an hour each way and they were gone for 3 hours. Since the TLM daily mass near me is perhaps 30 minutes it is possible that they are doing more than just attending mass. Since we don’t know we need to be careful of assuming we have all the facts.

I do not know what things are like in Europe, but I think there is a strong reaction by some in the US because many people attack those with a preference for the EF as wanting to reject the Second Vatican Council. My point is that there are those that cut people slack for dozens of other things, but when anything smacks of older disciplines it is automatically an issue. One poster up thread has a problem that older priests go by Fr Firstname and are disturbed that younger priests wish to be addressed as Fr Lastname. I call my doctor by her given name only because that is what she asked me to do, but all other doctors I refer to as Dr Lastname. It seems no one has a problem with this convention for people in various professions. That is until it is someone in the Church where it is then seen as a rigid anachronism. I saw something similar when we had a Mexican priest from the Legionnaires of Christ who always wore a cassock because the prior priest would wear a sweatshirts and slacks in the office. Simply because someone prefers formality does not mean there are rigid.

 

[collegeathlete]

Yes, it is miserable to drive so long in traffic with kids (speaking from experience). But to judge other people choosing to make that sacrifice seems…judgmental.
The WHY that doesn’t seem to be understood, is that some parents judge it more likely their children will continue in the Faith IF sacrifices such as this are made. Our bodies were made to worship God, not serve our own preferences. I’ve attended Mass in EF - very similar to Divine Liturgy in it’s reverence, patterning of prayers, and orientation on worship of God. I’ve attended Mass in OF -very different.

I’m not judging anyone. I am judging actions. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for driving 2 hours everyday to attend a Mass which can be attended 5 minutes away. It’s hard for me to imagine good reasons for doing so but maybe they exist. But I think mere preference is not a good reason.

 

[kyrie03]

Continuation of interview with Fr Spadaro after Pope Francis says,* “The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”……*
*Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SI: “What about tradition? Some understand it in a rigid way.”

Pope: “But no: tradition blooms!” he responds. “There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good. Faithfulness instead implies a growth. Tradition, in the transmission from one age to the next of the deposit of the faith, grows and consolidates with the passage of time, as Saint Vincent of Lérins said in his Commonitorium Primum. I read it always in my breviary: ‘Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate’ (Also the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating with the years, developing with time, deepening with the age.)”
*
St Vincent Lerins (400’s) wrote about distinguishing between novelty/heresy and orthodoxy: His explanation of dogmas developing with time and deepening with age appear to be more in line with popes, such as Pope St Pius X (PASCENDI DOMINICI), than with what Pope Francis is reported to have said. And what does he say Catholics should do when they are confused?..cleave to the ancient traditions!
Quotes from St Vincent:

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality , antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html

 

[kyrie03]

I’m not judging anyone. I am judging actions. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for driving 2 hours everyday to attend a Mass which can be attended 5 minutes away. It’s hard for me to imagine good reasons for doing so but maybe they exist. But I think mere preference is not a good reason.

I am Byzantine Catholic - attend Liturgy of St John Chrysostom -that is perhaps even more difficult to find than the EF. The action to drive so far so often may not be appealing to you (or to me) but I encourage you to try it, breathe with BOTH lungs. It’s refreshing!
Having attended both EF and NO, I can understand why many would choose to raise their families strictly in the EF and embrace the sacrifice of extra time. Our eternity will be a continual Liturgy/Mass/Worship of God…may as well start getting used to it now

 

[Don_Ruggero]

PatrickC (post #27) wonders if the Pope can tolerate the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom -originated in Jerusalem in the late 4th century and takes 1.5-2 hours. I wonder if the Pope believes that those who follow this tradition are even more rigid than those who follow the traditional Roman rite?

Do ShrodingersCat (posts #29, #45, 48) and DonRuggero (posts #35, 44, 50) judge those who drive teens, preteens, and younger children 45-60 minutes (depending on traffic) one-way to attend Divine Liturgy on Sundays plus 1-2 times weekly - to be extreme, suffer from spiritual maladies, or be guilty of imposing unreasonable and burdensome sacrifices on the children?
If we were to follow the advice of these well-meaning Catholics, our children might end up like the majority of those who were reared in the NO…not that interested in living the Faith of their ancestors

No, I do not think it at all inappropriate that you and your children – as Eastern Catholics – attend your own divine liturgy as opposed to a Latin rite Church because you are not Catholics of the Occidental Church.

But let us be crystal clear. The two scenarios are not comparable.

You have your own hierarchy.

You have your own code of canon law, as opposed to the western code, which governs your daily life.

You should keep – and your children should grow up in – that spiritual tradition which is yours and theirs and maintain the practices of your Church, under your Patriarch.

The family here – whether they attend the vetus ordo or the novus ordo – remain subjects of their Particular Church.

And Pope Benedict was explicit in Summorum Pontificum on the unicity of the Latin Rite even as he allowed a more generous access to the vetus ordo.

As for your opening statement, I find it repugnant for any Catholic to even pose such a question.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Continuation of interview with Fr Spadaro after Pope Francis says,* “The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”……*
*Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SI: “What about tradition? Some understand it in a rigid way.”

Pope: “But no: tradition blooms!” he responds. “There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good. Faithfulness instead implies a growth. Tradition, in the transmission from one age to the next of the deposit of the faith, grows and consolidates with the passage of time, as Saint Vincent of Lérins said in his Commonitorium Primum. I read it always in my breviary: ‘Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate’ (Also the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating with the years, developing with time, deepening with the age.)”
*
St Vincent Lerins (400’s) wrote about distinguishing between novelty/heresy and orthodoxy: His explanation of dogmas developing with time and deepening with age appear to be more in line with popes, such as Pope St Pius X (PASCENDI DOMINICI), than with what Pope Francis is reported to have said. And what does he say Catholics should do when they are confused?..cleave to the ancient traditions!
Quotes from St Vincent:

This post is reported to the forum moderator.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not judging anyone. I am judging actions. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for driving 2 hours everyday to attend a Mass which can be attended 5 minutes away. It’s hard for me to imagine good reasons for doing so but maybe they exist. But I think mere preference is not a good reason.

Why isn’t it?

Suppose there’s a supermarket 5 minutes away and another 40 minutes. They both have pretty much the same stuff, but the first has maybe more in the prepared foods line and the other has more produce and fresh meat.

One can be perfectly nourished at either. And if one has a greater need for prepared food, or seldom eats meat, the first place is better. If one has a greater need for produce variety, the second is better.

Would you insist that a person only shop at the first supermarket? That they could have no reason to go to the second regularly?

What makes one preference ‘mere’ and another "legitimate?’

 

[Usige]

If the kids want to go, I guess I would ask the same thing as Pope Francis: why do they want to?

For the friend’s Mass: No, I don’t think there is that same risk because that has nothing to do with the form of the Mass. The only concern I would have is if the family only attends Mass where that friend presides. I think it would be easier for kids to get the impression that they only attend Mass because their parent’s friend is pastor of a certain church.

That is a perfectly valid question, but I think it is presumption to assume that it is purely a matter of the form of mass. Many Latin mass communities are truly that; communities. Because many of these personal parishes are smaller than our regional parishes the parishioners seem to have greater access to the priests.

Let me try to provide an example. My wife attends an FSSP parish once or twice a month and spends the remainder in our local parish. They first time we attended a mass there was for first communion of a friend’s daughter. Upon leaving, the pastor walked up and said he had not seen us before and welcomed us. In the 3 or 4 years since the parochial vicar knows my wife and younger children by name. Now we actually spent more time over 7 years at our territorial parish. We were catechist, did marriage prep, taught NFP and various other things there. At one point my wife was regularly there two and sometimes three days a week. Two of the deacons knew us by name and many of the office staff did too. Despite having the same pastor for 8 years it was not until about 8 months after I entered formation as a deacon (16 months ago) that the pastor remembered my name and he still has to search for my wife’s name. The difference is between a parish of 100 families versus something like 500 so it is not suprising that parishioners can literally become lost in the crowd.

My point is that there might be reasons of community that go beyond simply the form. I know that there is a huge difference in age of daily mass goers between the two parishes also (local about 85% retired vs 40-50% mothers in their 30s and 40s [w/ and w/o kids]).

 

[LightBound]

---

If we were to follow the advice of these well-meaning Catholics, our children might end up like the majority of those who were reared in the NO…not that interested in living the Faith of their ancestors

This kind of comment is not only very insulting to all the Catholics that attend the Mass in Ordinary Form, it is also very much against forum rules. Reported to moderator.

 

[collegeathlete]

Why isn’t it?

Suppose there’s a supermarket 5 minutes away and another 40 minutes. They both have pretty much the same stuff, but the first has maybe more in the prepared foods line and the other has more produce and fresh meat.

One can be perfectly nourished at either. And if one has a greater need for prepared food, or seldom eats meat, the first place is better. If one has a greater need for produce variety, the second is better.

Would you insist that a person only shop at the first supermarket? That they could have no reason to go to the second regularly?

What makes one preference ‘mere’ and another "legitimate?’

I would find it strange if the person only goes to the supermarket 40 minutes(!) away, since as you say they have pretty much the same stuff. One doesn’t get groceries everyday though. If a person did get groceries everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to only go to the one forty minutes away.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would find it strange if the person only goes to the supermarket 40 minutes(!) away, since as you say they have pretty much the same stuff. One doesn’t get groceries everyday though. If a person did get groceries everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to only go to the one forty minutes away.

That’s the trouble with analogies. . .

How about the earlier stuff though?

Do you think it’s ridiculous for a family to let their kids be on a hockey team when every day the kids have to get up at 4 in order to be on the ice at 4:30, they’re on the ice until 7:30 (a.m.) and then off to school and all the other ‘regular’ activities?

If all the members in a family are perfectly happy doing a family activity that lasts about 3 hours all together each day, that happens to take them 45 minutes away from home, what does it matter that, theoretically, they could do the same activity 5 minutes away? Aren’t they allowed to have a preference? As some of the other posters have mentioned, what if this parish community is one that they prefer?

 

[collegeathlete]

That is a perfectly valid question, but I think it is presumption to assume that it is purely a matter of the form of mass. Many Latin mass communities are truly that; communities. Because many of these personal parishes are smaller than our regional parishes the parishioners seem to have greater access to the priests.

Let me try to provide an example. My wife attends an FSSP parish once or twice a month and spends the remainder in our local parish. They first time we attended a mass there was for first communion of a friend’s daughter. Upon leaving, the pastor walked up and said he had not seen us before and welcomed us. In the 3 or 4 years since the parochial vicar knows my wife and younger children by name. Now we actually spent more time over 7 years at our territorial parish. We were catechist, did marriage prep, taught NFP and various other things there. At one point my wife was regularly there two and sometimes three days a week. Two of the deacons knew us by name and many of the office staff did too. Despite having the same pastor for 8 years it was not until about 8 months after I entered formation as a deacon (16 months ago) that the pastor remembered my name and he still has to search for my wife’s name. The difference is between a parish of 100 families versus something like 500 so it is not suprising that parishioners can literally become lost in the crowd.

My point is that there might be reasons of community that go beyond simply the form. I know that there is a huge difference in age of daily mass goers between the two parishes also (local about 85% retired vs 40-50% mothers in their 30s and 40s [w/ and w/o kids]).

I’ll quote myself from earlier:

Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for driving 2 hours everyday to attend a Mass which can be attended 5 minutes away. It’s hard for me to imagine good reasons for doing so but maybe they exist.

That said, even if there are some legitimate reasons, the situation apparently is everyday and with kids. Not to mention that this situation just seems to be wasteful, not only with time spent in the car but also with gas and money.

I’ll try and use an analogous scenario: I love Ignatian spirituality. I pray the examen at least once a day, usually twice. I’m a member in the Apostleship of Prayer, which was founded by Jesuits. But I would think it excessive if I went even more than 45 minutes roundtrip everyday just to go to a church with Jesuit priests, when there is a good alternative that’s a five minute drive. I could see that being fine every now and then or perhaps even most Sundays, but not everyday.

 

[RosyAnne]

I think the Latin Mass is a treasure of the Church that should definitely be protected, and I say this as one who has never been to a Latin Mass (yet). However, I think we could all agree that there is a certain element within the Latin Mass congregation that is indeed rigid. Just like there is a certain element within the NO Mass that is far, far too clown show.

First, let’s look at the definition:

Rigid: a) deficient in or devoid of flexibility b) appearing stiff and unyielding (source: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition)

I know a few devout, good Catholic women who go to Latin Mass each Sunday morning and could easily go to NO daily Mass during the week, or to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at a NO Parish…but refuse to.

I can’t imagine anyone caring who wears a veil and who doesn’t (in a NO parish), but is it possible that some Latin Mass devotees are upset that women aren’t wearing veils in a NO parish and so they avoid going there?

To me, these are the type of things the Pope is trying to shake us awake to, to shine a light on this sneaky trick of the devil himself…to have good, devout, faithful Catholics refusing to receive and adore our Blessed Lord as often as they can because…the Mass or the Parish is NO instead of EF.

I say this in all humility and concern for our Church and my fellow brothers & sisters in Christ, honestly. There is definitely an unhealthy rigidity in the Church that is hurting the Body of Christ (or at least weakening it) and this is what I believe the Pope wants us to be wary of.

 

[collegeathlete]

That’s the trouble with analogies. . .

How about the earlier stuff though?

Do you think it’s ridiculous for a family to let their kids be on a hockey team when every day the kids have to get up at 4 in order to be on the ice at 4:30, they’re on the ice until 7:30 (a.m.) and then off to school and all the other ‘regular’ activities?

If all the members in a family are perfectly happy doing a family activity that lasts about 3 hours all together each day, that happens to take them 45 minutes away from home, what does it matter that, theoretically, they could do the same activity 5 minutes away? Aren’t they allowed to have a preference? As some of the other posters have mentioned, what if this parish community is one that they prefer?

Hockey is terrible, so yes, it is ridiculous.

In all seriousness though, I think that could be fine if the kids enjoy it. But I still don’t think that situation matches the EF Mass scenario. If they really wanted to spend 3 hours doing a family activity they would probably be better served by attending the nearby Mass and then spending time doing something more enjoyable than sitting in a car together. Maybe the community at that church is great. But is the community so great relative to all the closer churches to warrant a 2 hour roundtrip everyday?

 

[Maol_Mhuire]

No, they believe (as I do) that driving 45-60 minutes one-way to Mass specifically to hear it in Latin, rather than English, despite the fact that they are both equally valid and holy Masses, is excessive work put into something that at the end of the day doesn’t matter anymore.

The differences between the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form is more than simply language, and it is offensive to liturgical piety to reduce the prayer of the Church to the Holy Sacrifice. Liturgy is important and liturgy encapsulates an entire body of ritual and prayer.

The Holy Sacrifice is the jewel, the liturgy—Extraordinary or Ordinary Form, Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom—is the diadem that the jewel is set in. Sure, you can carry it around in your pocket, but if you had a pearl of great price you wouldn’t just let it roll around in your pocket, would you?

So no. There is a difference. The Mass celebrated is the same, but one liturgy may serve to dispose one better to active participation than the other, especially in light of the fact that the Ordinary Form as celebrated in so many parishes is rife with abuse.

 

[kyrie03]

No, I do not think it at all inappropriate that you and your children – as Eastern Catholics – attend your own divine liturgy as opposed to a Latin rite Church because you are not Catholics of the Occidental Church.

But let us be crystal clear. The two scenarios are not comparable.

You have your own hierarchy.

You have your own code of canon law, as opposed to the western code, which governs your daily life.

You should keep – and your children should grow up in – that spiritual tradition which is yours and theirs and maintain the practices of your Church, under your Patriarch.

The family here – whether they attend the vetus ordo or the novus ordo – remain subjects of their Particular Church.

And Pope Benedict was explicit in Summorum Pontificum on the unicity of the Latin Rite even as he allowed a more generous access to the vetus ordo.

As for your opening statement, I find it repugnant for any Catholic to even pose such a question.

As a Byzantine Catholic in the US, I am under a Metropolitan Bishop under Pope Francis. I mean no disrespect to you, Pope Francis, or any other poster…I am merely attempting to explain how those who attempt to preserve the traditions of ancestors while worshiping in the EF are very similar in worship to those who are Byzantine Catholic –in the length of Liturgy, the distances traveled to attend Liturgy, and the adherence to ancient traditions. Are we even “more rigid” than those who worship at EF? I’m attempting to tease out what is meant by "rigidity”?
And regarding a more generous access to the EF, I was under impression (perhaps false?) that the EF was never abrogated.

 

[Usige]

That said, even if there are some legitimate reasons, the situation apparently is everyday and with kids. Not to mention that this situation just seems to be wasteful, not only with time spent in the car but also with gas and money.

I think people who spend $8 for coffee at Starbucks everyday are wasting their money and time standing in line, but that is their choice. If someone spends 45 minutes a day and $10 bucks on coffee while talking with their kid I wouldn’t consider it a waste even if it is not what I personally would do. I know someone that drives 15-20 minutes away from work every morning to meet friends for coffee and in 6 years I’ve known him I would have never considered it odd even if I wouldn’t do so.

I don’t know if you have teenagers, but my two oldest kids are 21 and 18. Some of the best conversations we’ve had were driving to various events. Why? Because it was quiet and we really only the people in the car to talk to. I have always been close to my children and it is because most our time is spent talking rather than doing. This goes from our oldest to our second youngest and I suspect it will be the same for our 7th once she starts speaking. For us talking in the car strengthens those bonds more than simple family activities. For some people the journey certainly is the benefit and not just the destination.

My point is that we need to be careful reading our own preferences and family dynamic into that of another group who is not even given a chance to speak for themselves. I cannot say if it is healthy or unhealthy for any particular family, but I don’t think we should start from an assumption that it is a problem simply because it is different from what we might do.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

It astonishes me that the Latin Mass, the only Mass that some of our greatest Saints ever knew, could be cause for scandal. And worse still, that those who love it would be looked upon with suspicion. I’m pretty sure that St Therese, whom Pope St. Pius X called “the greatest Saint of modern times” might have something to say about this so-called ‘rigidity.’
rk

What astonishes me is that most Catholics haven’t figured this out yet.