Oh, I agree that “Some people fear Traditional Roman Catholicism,” but I have some other theories:
- The continuing, unending disparagement of the Ordinary Form of the Mass by by some Traditionalists’ persistent usage of “NO Mass,” “NO priests,” “NO parishes, etc.” Last I knew, such usage was against forum rules, but it continues.
+Pope Paul VI “Missale Romanum” 1969
“After what we have presented concerning the
new Roman Missal, we wish in conclusion to insist on one point in particular and to make it have its effect. When he promulgated the
editio princeps of the Roman Missal, our predecessor St. Pius V offered it to the people of Christ as the instrument of liturgical unity and the expression of a pure and reverent worship in the Church. Even though, in virtue of the decree of the Second Vatican Council, we have accepted into the
new Roman Missal lawful variations and adaptations,[15] our own expectation in no way differs from that of our predecessor. It is that the faithful will receive the
new Missal as a help toward witnessing and strengthening their unity with one another; that through the
new Missal one and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father, through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.” Novus Ordo= new order or new Missal
How about this:
formam ordinariam
- The frustration that some Traditionalists appear to exhibit that they were born too late for the Inquisition, but still hold out hope for the large-scale deaths of their fellow Catholics. An example would be an earlier post in this thread.
Nice mudslinging. by the way, do you know the true history of the inquisition?
- The apparent preoccupation with rubrical perfection to the seeming detriment of what the focus of the liturgy actually is. Some of us think it’s about worshipping God, not worshiping the liturgy. What’s more important: restoring the maniple, or actually feeding the hungry?
+Pope Pius XII “Mediator Dei”
“8. Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.”
read the rest here:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
- The need that some Traditionalists appear to have for associating any, any mention of social justice issues with communism and Marxism, and the adopting of McCarthyite tactics whereby people who raise social justice issues are accused of being proponents of Liberation Theology at best, or other movements at worst.
i draw my social justice precepts from here;
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11QUADR.HTM
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SUMMI.HTM
- The knee-jerk accusations of the modernist heresy by some traditionalists who appear to confuse reasonable disagreement on matters of approved discipline (EMHC’s, girl servers, CITH) with doctrinal deviation.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm wonder why this stopped?
- The need that some Traditionalists appear to have to invoke “clown Masses” as if there is one in every parish, every weekend.
this is a fair point.
- The unending attempts to weasel around Vatican II by calling into question its orthodoxy, framing it as “merely a pastoral Council,” and considerting every post-Council deviation, mistake, and inappropriate practice as if it were directly dictated by the Council Fathers.
+Pope Paul VI "
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
I for one do not weasel around anything, i merely point out that the Church did not start at the end of Vatican II. Nor do i blame the council for every liberty that has taken place since it closed. I do however point out that the ambiguities within the Council documents opened the door for every nut-job idea to find the light of day and to be foisted upon an unsuspecting laity.
- The sense that, in their heart of hearts, the Church is really only the clergy.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
If you can make broad-brush generalizations, so can I. Just a few thoughts from the other side of the ledger.
