The Generational Divide

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And beauty is inherently subjective. There is nothing objective about it. You’re take on the EF vs OF are solely your subjective opinion. Others can and do have very different opinions.
 
Ooh I’ve dealt with them. It was a personally emotional thing. I believe I witnessed evil that day.
 
Sarcelle said:
That is how we end up with something like the Westboro Baptist Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Westboro Baptist Church is either Baptist or a Church… Those folks have a different agenda altogether
 
Really good point.

I don’t know what to say about this thread.
As someone who prefers the EF, I was expecting there would be a bit more harshness from EF-goers, knowing how the “rad trads” are so vocal on the internet.

I think I need to go read some Catholic memes.
 
YoungApologist3 said:
40.png
babochka:
No, there are many small differences.
Click to expand...
OK, that’s what I thought. I was referring to those many small differences. I think that the difference between a “Rite” and a “church” is pretty fluid, and that “Rite” when referring to the old Western Rites and “church” when referring to the churches of the Byzantine Rite are pretty much synonymous.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that the term “rite” has many different meanings and definitions and has had them throughout the history of the Church. I was just having this conversation with an FSSP priest. He was saying that he disagrees with the idea that there are two forms of the Roman Rite, that they are actually two different rites because, in his view, a rite was defined by its canon. This obviously isn’t true in the Byzantine Rite, as we have two anaphoras in common use and more that have nearly fallen into total disuse.

I believe that the definition given in the CCEO is excellent, as it covers the liturgical, theological and disciplinary patrimony. It isn’t just about the Mass/Divine Liturgy, it includes the entire liturgy. The cultural/regional differences in the Divine Liturgy within the same Rite are more analagous to a “use”, such as the Anglican use. This website has a chart highlighting some of the differences between the Ruthenian and Russian celebrations of the Divine Liturgy.
http://www.unmercenary.com/chant/gldivlit.html

The various Western Rites are also interesting. Even when the celebration of the Mass varies only slightly, the Divine Office is often significantly different and it is liturgy, too. This is often the case with the rites of the various orders. Most of the differences are to be found in the Divine Office. Of course, in some cases, such as the Mozarabic Rite, the Mass is very different. It is clearly not the Roman Mass with a few tweaks.

I don’t think that you are correct in saying that “Church” in the East and the old Western Rites are synonymous, but I see what you’re getting at. The difference here is the designation of “Church” refers to governance first and Rite is secondary, a consequence of the rite followed by the Patriarch. Each of the Eastern Churches, regardless of Rite, is under a Patriarch (or major Archbishop) or Metropolitan and is essentially self-governing. This, and not the Rite that is followed, is why they are designated as Churches. They are Churches in their own right in the same sense as their Orthodox counterparts. This cannot be said of the dioceses and orders that used the old Western Rites.
 
By the way, as an answer to your original question: I’m early-ish Generation X. My older two kids are a bit young to be Millenials, but maybe fit into your demographic anyway. One of them loves the Divine Liturgy, tolerates the EF, and is fine with the OF as long as it is traditional. The other would give anything to go to a “regular Mass”, mostly because it is shorter and they sit a lot. I can remember feeling that way when I was a kid. She also kind of likes a low Mass because she has sensory issues and enjoys the quiet. I know a number of millennials who have grown up with the Extraordinary Form. For the most part, as they grow up and move away, they are just as happy to go to their local parish, while their parents keep urging them to find a Latin Mass.
 
Serious question: Why don’t people who prefer the EF just attend SSPX masses?
 
SSPX isn’t in full communion with the Church.
The FSSP is the main order that does the TLM in the U.S., I believe.
In other countries I think ICKSP is more common?
 
NJada said:
SSPX isn’t in full communion with the Church.

The FSSP is the main order that does the TLM in the U.S.,
Click to expand...
The first statement is correction, the 2nd not so much. The vast majority of diocese have Latin Masses in the United States- but only a relative handful of them have an FSSP presence at all.
 
There are more that 100 SSPX chapels in the US, distributed so that most US Catholics live within reasonable commuting distance of one. If anything, I would think that it is overall easier to find a nearby SSPX chapel than an official diocesan parish with a Latin mass. But I’m having a hard time finding stats on the number of official diocesan Latin mass sites.
 
Not exactly. Veiling does not exist as a concept for Catholic laity. Head covering is a gesture of piety—the “veil” or mantilla is a fashion choice for that gesture.
 
Last edited:
I see the Church under this modernist influence headed more to liberal Protestant territory - innovation and secular influences play an increasingly bigger role. Liberal theology holds sway. Social justice, politics become more central - moral issues downplayed or even tossed out - this alienates more orthodox, traditional Catholics. In time, this trend is bound to reverse itself though. If you look at trends in Protestantism, more conservative Calvinist evangelicals have held their numbers surprisingly well compared to the liberal mainstream Churches, all of which are now ‘dying’ - more members leave than join. Traditionalists tend to be the glue that holds the Church together. They go to Church for the Church - they know its history and teaching much better and are much more committed to living out the faith. A lot of younger priests lean more toward orthodoxy too. They are under pressure now to lay low, but this will not always be the case. The Church will recover ground, its identity in time. Today’s ‘purists’ are tomorrow’s (and yesterday’s) Catholics. 😉
 
Last edited:
AndrewAxland said:
There are more that 100 SSPX chapels in the US, distributed so that most US Catholics live within reasonable commuting distance of one. If anything, I would think that it is overall easier to find a nearby SSPX chapel than an official diocesan parish with a Latin mass.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that more than 95% of America’s 175 dioceses have at least one Latin mass.

Most of them aren’t FSSP or other particular Latin Mass apostolates, but they are being said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top