Should the Church return to the old rite?

[HomeschoolDad]

CilladeRoma:

The majority of the priest who celebrate the EF in my diocese are in their 30’s.

They are well advertised, and offer the Sacraments in the EF as well.
There is not now, nor do,I expect it to happen, a huge surge in popularity. In fact, I do beelive it will always be a “niche” group, and that will keep it small.

This is exactly the situation in our city, which has had a Latin Mass (Institute of Christ the King) since the 1990s. Just doesn’t seem to attract a lot of young families. Many of the people who attend the Latin Mass are the people who were at the Re-Open Our Country Now! rally down in Springfield (Illinois State capital) yesterday; in fact, I received an invite to join them at that rally (I didn’t go). So they are hospitable!

I’m curious as to whether the right-leaning activism that is prevalent in our Latin Mass parish is the norm for Latin Mass parishes all over the U.S. Maybe I should start a thread? I don’t want to get a reprimand from the CAF managers, though, and such a thread could be considered infllammatory, I think.

But I am curious, and if this is common in Latin Mass communities in the U.S. it makes me wonder whether the Latin Mass parishes could be drawing people not just becaues of the Mass form, but because of the political climate in the parish. A lot of Catholic parishes (the OF parishes) have a large population of very politically “liberal” people (more government social programs, more women’s rights/women should be priests, etc.)–I’ve run across this often and it is frustrating for me personally. I actually feel very comfortable with the parishioners in our city’s Latin Mass parish–they are the ones who told me about Hillsdale College, where many of their children go! But I’m not comfortable at all with the Latin Mass, and our OF Masses are reverent and correct.

I feel your pain. The last time I attended the diocesan TLM, I had bumper stickers on my car for a 2020 Democratic candidate (the least objectionable candidate at the time), and I parked my car at the far end of the parking lot, out of sight, to keep from getting flogged by the kind of people you describe. A few years back, I had a sticker on my car for another Democratic candidate, for similar reasons (lesser of two evils, qui legit intelligat), and I took it off entirely, and lightly affixed it to my suitcase in the trunk until I returned home (I’d stayed overnight in the big city for some needed R&R).

I’d like to see the TLM branch out to attract a more diverse attendance, and in some places, it has done just that. Just because its revival began as a “niche” movement doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. It is even attracting some “hipsters” who seek greater authenticity and holism in their whole lives, not just religion.

I, too, admire Hillsdale College — Paul Harvey, requiescat in pace, introduced me to them via their publication Imprimis. I am hoping that there will be some way to “forklift” their free online course offerings into our homeschooling program during my son’s junior and senior years of high school.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

That should be addressed to Homeschooldad.

No, all I am saying is you can’t bury it. As I said above the prepatory documents were scrapped and the liberals did take over the council.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

That should be addressed to Homeschooldad.

No, all I am saying is you can’t bury it. As I said above the prepatory documents were scrapped and the liberals did take over the council.

Liberals like Karol Wojtyla and Paul VI?

 

[PetraG]

Anybody else miss the good old days here when pitting one form against another was verboten?

I don’t think there were good old days when there weren’t strong opinions about what sort of Mass experiences people thought were better or worse. The thing that is changed is how broad the question is.

 

[MarkRome]

Whatever the Church decides to do is fine with me. I have only attended the OF of the Mass and see no reason to go to a TLM. One is not better than the other. I receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ at my local parish. That’s what’s important.

 

[Peeps]

Liberals like Karol Wojtyla and Paul VI?

I just finished reading George Wiegel’s bio of Pope Benedict XVI, and apparently Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was also very much involved in Vatican II. Surely “traditional-leaning” Catholics trust him?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Liberals like Karol Wojtyla and Paul VI?

According to today’s standards they seem pretty conservative, and Pope John Paul II is one of my favorite popes, so I am in no way! saying anything critical of him, but according to that time, yes, they followed some of the liberal thinkers of that time. Also, you could include Joseph Ratzinger, which is why many have been stunned by some of his comments today that speak opposite of the liberalism found in some of the VII documents.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

My only point was that “John XXIII called the Council on his own, spontaneously, after a personal inspiration of sorts” is not something that crawled out of some sedevacantist conspiracy-theory fever swamp somewhere. Quite the contrary.

See my evidence in the previous post.

You are quite the scholar. Thank you for the good information. But that still doesn’t negate the fact that John XXIII claimed that he was prompted to convene Vatican II due to a personal illumination.

Reconvening the Vatican Council (what we now call “Vatican One”) and convening a brand new council are two different things.

That is awfully strong language, @Emeraldlady.

I did no such thing. I simply cited what John XXIII’s very words were, and provided a scholarly, well-documented defense of the assertion that there was some sort of diplomatic agreement between Rome and Moscow.

Now I am going to go out on a limb here, and I have nothing to back it up with, except a hazy memory. I will welcome any assistance I can get. I seem to recall — and I could be totally wrong — that either the Blue Army or Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) verified, in one of their publications, the existence of the “Vatican-Moscow Agreement”, and IIRC, they defended it as precisely what had to be done at the time.

You could search high, and you could search low, and you would never find any two organizations more in total lockstep with Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo Missae, and each and every utterance and deed of the past six popes, than the Blue Army or CUF. Never. Bar none. Total obedience, total loyalty.

If anyone could verify this for me — and I know this thread has an expiry time of approximately 10:00 pm Eastern US time — I’d be much obliged.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

MagdalenaRita:

You can’t bury an Ecumenical council. You can distort it and make it say what it doesn’t but you can’t bury it.

That should be addressed to Homeschooldad.

I have not attempted to “bury” an ecumenical council. I accept Vatican II as understood and interpreted according to the analogia fidei, according to tradition, and I am mindful of what is referred to as the “hermeneutic of continuity”. I have never attacked or challenged Vatican II on this forum, and I have no intention of ever doing so. Full stop. End of story.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Also, you could include Joseph Ratzinger, which is why many have been stunned by some of his comments today that speak opposite of the liberalism found in some of the VII documents.

It’s the little digs like this meant to supplant doubt about the validity of Vatican II documents in the minds of the young and new to faith, that drives me so hard to defend the Church.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

It’s the little digs like this meant to supplant doubt about the validity of Vatican II documents in the minds of the young and new to faith, that drives me so hard to defend the Church.

It is good and right to defend the Church, absolutely. It is not a dig. Not everyone is trying to say that VII is not a valid council. As a matter of fact, it is rare that any Catholic is saying that VII is not a valid council. Just because there is some liberalism found in the VII documents does not mean they are not valid. Almost of all of the VII documents are excellent and beautifully written.

Just because there are liberal bishops in the Church does not mean they are not valid bishops or the Church is not a valid Church. We have a beautiful Catholic Church from day one and ongoing.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Come now. You know perfectly well that describing something as ‘liberal’ is a trigger.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Come now. You know perfectly well that describing something as ‘liberal’ is a trigger.

No, perhaps it is something that triggers you. I am pretty conservative and to hear there is some liberalism in the VII documents does not bother me because it is just a historical fact about a valid Catholic council, but I will be cautious of what I say in regards to liberal issues when responding to you. Whether there is liberalism in the documents or not, the Holy Spirit is still in charge.

 

[stpurl]

It is not pitting one form against another to clarify when someone has, inadvertently of course, made an statement in error.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Come now. You know perfectly well that describing something as ‘liberal’ is a trigger.

No, perhaps it is something that triggers you. I am pretty conservative and to hear there is some liberalism in the VII documents does not bother me because it is just a historical fact but I will be cautious of what I say in regards to liberal issues when responding to you. Whether there is liberalism in the documents or not, the Holy Spirit is still in charge.

And I will continue to orient readers who are triggered to doubt the force of the Vatican II documents towards Pope John Paul II’s spirit.

17 October 1978 "We consider our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfilment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favour the development of conciliar attitudes . First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was stated in its documents; and what was ‘implicit’ should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circumstances "

25 January 1985 “For me the Second Vatican Council has always been—in a particular fashion during these years of my pontificate—the constant reference point of every pastoral action , with conscious commitment to translate its directives into concrete, faithful action, at the level of every Church and of the whole Church”

11 Oct 1987 “The Council was able to complete the enormous task of re-affirming the Church’s doctrinal patrimony and building on it a contemporary, up-dated, programme for Christian life and behaviour at both the personal and community level. Hence, the teaching of the Council, in its entirety, rightly understood in the context of the previous Magisterium , can well be called a programme for action for the present-day Christian”

 

[Dovekin]

And about how often did that happen? When I was growing up, the altar faced the tabernacle (it wasn’t ‘freestanding’ back then) and so the priest didn’t turn his back on the Lord.

I am really not sure what your point is.

The priest faces the altar during the liturgy. Those who describe that as “turning his back on the people” are as wrong as those who describe it as “ad orientem” or “turning his back on the Lord”(=tabernacle). None of these things describe the intent of the priest; he is always facing the altar. All of them describe the physical orientation of the priest, a fact that is kind of irrelevant. The altar is central in either form.

 

[jeannetherese]

the force of the Vatican II documents towards Pope John Paul II’s spirit.

What do you see as the force of documents towards the Pope’s spirit? This is new theology to me.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

And I will continue to orient readers who are triggered to doubt the force of the Vatican II documents towards Pope John Paul II’s spirit.

I am not doubting the force of the Vatican II documents. ? Again, as I said above, they are valid documents and it is a valid council and St. Pope John Paul II is one of my favorite popes. As Catholics we are to obedient to the Church even when we do not understand, though that doesn’t change what historically happened at the council.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

the force of the Vatican II documents towards Pope John Paul II’s spirit.

What do you see as the force of documents towards the Pope’s spirit? This is new theology to me.

The teaching documents of Vatican II have force behind them. They require not just our assent but our embrace in living what they teach. The spirit in which Pope John Paul II embraced those teachings is what we too should be emulating.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The teaching documents of Vatican II have force behind them. They require not just our assent but our embrace in living what they teach. The spirit in which Pope John Paul II embraced those teachings is what we too should be emulating.

All of the teaching documents of the Church have force behind them. Vatican II is not a separation from the rest of the historical Church and what has been handed down by the Apostles, previous popes, Church Fathers, saints and ancestors.

We need to be obedient to the Church. We also can not interpret those VII documents in light of anything but the Church and what it has always taught, not on our own and not on our own interpretation of what the Popes have said.

We also need to read them in light of Scripture and the Catholic church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture, so that again takes us back to the Apostles, previous popes, Church Fathers, saints and ancestors.