TLM proponents "anti-ecumenical obstructionists of an evolving church"?

[SnorterLuster]

buffalonews.com/editorial/20060114/1062695.asp

Although the article seems pretty balanced to me, it bothers me that so-called “mainstream Catholics” view their fellow Catholics with such disdain. A few sentences from the article:

Some worry about a “parallel church” developing if a building is set aside for the traditional Latin Mass - a concern voiced by some clergy and liturgists since Pope John Paul II allowed the reintroduction of the Latin Mass in the late 1980s.

             ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Many mainstream Catholics view Tridentine Mass proponents as anti-ecumenical obstructionists of an evolving church. And some worry that a nod to the traditionalists could be construed as a subtle brushing off of the controversial Second Vatican Council that ushered in many church changes.

         •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Proponents of the traditional Mass tend to lean conservative on social issues such as promoting pro-life causes and condemning birth control and same-sex marriage.

If the “mainstream” doesn’t support the so-called conservative postion of “…promoting pro-life causes and condemning birth control and same-sex marriage.”, then there may well be a parallel church evolving.

 

[ncjohn]

While I prefer the NO Mass, I have no problem with the Tridentine for those who prefer that. We already have ethnic language Masses, Charismatic Masses, etc that don’t create a “parallel Church” so I’m not sure why having the TLM available would do so.

As to “mainstream Catholics” looking at those who prefer the TLM as obstructionist, I’m sure there are some who do, just as there are TLM proponents who look at anyone who appreciates the changes brought on by V2 as “liberals” or “progressives”.

I would hope we could get to a point where we can recognize that these are just preferences in worship style and stop the sniping. There has unquestionably been a great deal of distrust built up on both “sides” though and it is going to take some time, patience, and Christian charity to undo that. Where the leadership will come from to accomplish that I don’t know, although I try to do my part with all the wonderful people here.

Peace,

Peace,

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

buffalonews.com/editorial/20060114/1062695.asp

Although the article seems pretty balanced to me, it bothers me that so-called “mainstream Catholics” view their fellow Catholics with such disdain. A few sentences from the article:

             ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••



         •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

If the “mainstream” doesn’t support the so-called conservative postion of “…promoting pro-life causes and condemning birth control and same-sex marriage.”, then there may well be a parallel church evolving.

And it may very well be the true Church when it promotes these things. I hear the same thing being said of parishes like Assumption Grotto which celebrates all of its Novus Ordo Masses ad orientem, and has one Sunday Mass in Latin, all weekday morning Masses in Latin, and has a very traditional, very orthodox, and very big-family oriented culture (No ABC here).

What cracks me up is the term “mainstream” Catholics. I’ve gotten to a point where I don’t care what “mainstream” thinks because “mainstream” is often permissive of pre-marital sex, homosexual relations, abortion, and many other things that re totally anti-Catholic. All one needs to do is to look at the statistics for Catholics having sex outside of marriage, those admitting to be Catholic and having affairs, those Catholics who support same-sex marriage/unions, and Catholics who support abortion to know what I’m talking about.

 

[tjmiller]

Isn’t “Mainstream Catholic” an oxymoron?

Wise Man say: Even dead fish float with mainstream of river; only live fish swim against current…

 

[ncjohn]

Lux_et_veritas:

What cracks me up is the term “mainstream” Catholics. I’ve gotten to a point where I don’t care what “mainstream” thinks because “mainstream” is often permissive of pre-marital sex, homosexual relations, abortion, and many other things that re totally anti-Catholic.

tjmiller:

Isn’t “Mainstream Catholic” an oxymoron?

And this is exactly why I hate seeing this labeling that goes on. Would someone show me a definition of “mainstream Catholic” that will be unamimously accepted?

I am a Catholic, with no modifiers or qualifiers.

And the OP wonders why some Catholics might think other Catrholics don’t appreciate them? This is exactly why we might in fact have “parallel Churches” but it has little or nothing to do with being a TLM proponent in my view.

We all sin and we all struggle. We slowly over our journeys hopefully do so less as we find ourselves more in the arms of our loving and merciful God. We only look there however when we see people who are humbly there rather than thinking they can humiliate or “guilt” someone into loving God. I’m much further in my journey now than I was a few years back, at which time many would probably have wanted to take me out beyond the walls and stone me. I still have a long, long ways to go though–and perhaps some would still have that desire to stone me–so I’m hoping for some help carrying my cross rather than someone to sit by and criticize me for having a cross.

As St Francis said, “Preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.” If we’re going to use the words, it is best to make sure we’re living the words too so our “glass houses” won’t get shattered.

Peace,

 

[genealogist]

I too have no problemn with the TLM group. If they can save a building and create a thriving parish and possibly school more power to them. My only potential concern is that I am not aware of any Eastern Catholic who denies the validity of the TLM or NO. If a traditionalist denies the NO then he is Catholic no more. Mel Gibson told Diane Sawyer that a “properly ordained” priest can say Mass. What exactly does that mean? I believe it means that he denies the NO and any priest ordained in the new rite. That’s heresy. Sorry why should Martin Luther et al get the shaft for the same sin, ARROGANCE, but not the SSPX folks.

In a nutshell; TLM indult people yes as long as they recognioze the NO as valid even if they shy away from them. If the bishop dies would they refuse to attend his NO funeral Mass or attend and not participate fully by saying the prayers and communing? That would be WRONG. If they can be like our Eastern Catholic brothers that’s great but SSPX and those like minded folks are no longer members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

And this is exactly why I hate seeing this labeling that goes on. Would someone show me a definition of “mainstream Catholic” that will be unamimously accepted?

I am a Catholic, with no modifiers or qualifiers.

Is the labeling the problem, or is incorrect lableing the problem?

Anyone who is baptized into the CC may call themselves Catholic, but that in no way means they are Catholic as many understand the word Catholic.

As this OP shows it is a problem because many will become confused or think that claiming a Catholic identity simply means one says it regardless if one publicly rejects the authority of the Church.

 

[Joysong]

ncjohn:

While I prefer the NO Mass, I have no problem with the Tridentine for those who prefer that. We already have ethnic language Masses, Charismatic Masses, etc that don’t create a “parallel Church” so I’m not sure why having the TLM available would do so.

Although as John said, we have charismatic masses, we do not see charismatics pushing for their own separate church as these people in Buffalo are attempting to do.

I thought these words from the article were worth noting again:

The traditional Mass began making a comeback in 1988 when Pope John Paul II tried to gather dissidents back into the fold by calling for the “wide and generous” use of the Mass for those who want it, as long as they do not criticize the new liturgical order.

With a permanent parish, they [the Buffalo people] believe they could attract even more parishioners.
“There are ways to evangelize, and this is just another way.”

That is my main objection: the proselytizing being done by many traditionalists … the incessant evangelization to attract “mainstream” catholics into their fold. Some do not miss a beat or a chance to promote their liturgy as better than, holier than, more orthodox than, more abuse-free than, the Pauline Mass which is the “new liturgical order.”

Two more cents,
Carole

 

[AltarMan]

SnorterLuster:

…If the “mainstream” doesn’t support the so-called conservative postion of “…promoting pro-life causes and condemning birth control and same-sex marriage.”, then there may well be a parallel church evolving.

It’s disingenuous to suggest that Catholics who attend (and/or prefer) the normative Pauline Mass cannot be as pro-life, anti-artificial contraception, anti-homosexual marriage as those who attend the Tridentine Mass. A great many are.

It’s also extremely Protestant to suggest that “there may well be a parallel church evolving.” The SSPX tried that and look where that train-wreck has ended-up.

I don’t really care too much for the way my bishop runs my diocese, and I was upset for quite some time because he did not allow the indult – he said it would lead to division. After being around quite a few “Tridentiners” (who attend a local Byzantine/Ruthenian parish) I see the logic to his decision. Many if not most are extremely devisive people when it comes to the Church.

It could be argued that they would not act in such a manner had the indult been allowed from the very beginning, but I have grave doubts that they would act any different today if the indult were allowed…

 

[AltarMan]

ncjohn:

While I prefer the NO Mass, I have no problem with the Tridentine for those who prefer that. We already have ethnic language Masses, Charismatic Masses, etc that don’t create a “parallel Church” so I’m not sure why having the TLM available would do so.

As to “mainstream Catholics” looking at those who prefer the TLM as obstructionist, I’m sure there are some who do, just as there are TLM proponents who look at anyone who appreciates the changes brought on by V2 as “liberals” or “progressives”.

**I would hope we could get to a point where we can recognize that these are just preferences in worship style and stop the sniping. **There has unquestionably been a great deal of distrust built up on both “sides” though and it is going to take some time, patience, and Christian charity to undo that. Where the leadership will come from to accomplish that I don’t know, although I try to do my part with all the wonderful people here.

Peace,

Peace,

Amen.

 

[bear06]

While I prefer the NO Mass, I have no problem with the Tridentine for those who prefer that. We already have ethnic language Masses, Charismatic Masses, etc that don’t create a “parallel Church” so I’m not sure why having the TLM available would do so.

I think there is an element of people who attend *all * Masses who want to get rid of anyone who’s not like-minded. I see this more with some groups than others. This mentality is usually a detriment to the Mass they prefer, unfortunately. I don’t think the different Masses are the problem. I think it’s some of the people that attend these Masses.

In my parish, we had a lot of new people come in and decide that they wanted the Church to be exclusive to the Mass they preferred. They made a huge fuss and apparently could have cared less about the people who attended the other Masses. Thankfully, our new bishop saw things differently then they did.

I understand what the parellel Church concept is all about and it really doesn’t have to do with one Mass or the other, just the people who attend.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ncjohn:

I am a Catholic, with no modifiers or qualifiers.

That’s precisely how I feel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

AltarMan:

but I have grave doubts that they would act any different today if the indult were allowed…

Possibly with a “OUR mass is holier than YOURS” attitude? Just the same way there seems to be an attitude of “OUR priest celebrates ad orientum,” and “**I **always receive Holy Communion on the tongue?” You can almost hear them preening.

 

[AltarMan]

JKirkLVNV:

Possibly with a “OUR mass is holier than YOURS” attitude? Just the same way there seems to be an attitude of “OUR priest celebrates ad orientum,” and “**I **always receive Holy Communion on the tongue?” You can almost hear them preening.

To be honest, I think that if it wasn’t forbidden locally, it wouldn’t be such a big deal.

Yeah, it’s funny to hear people suggest that the ad orientum orientation or communion on the tongue are somehow “superior” to the approved alternatives.

Somewhere along the road they must have forgotten that IF INDEED such practices WERE superior, you could bet your last dollar that the Church wouldn’t allow anything else!

(They know “better” though…)

 

[Joysong]

:tiphat: A number of you have been able to see through the preening and recognize it as unhealthy and divisive. Isn’t it probable that the Bishops have likewise been able to observe and discern it? … and that may very well be the reason for dismissing their request for more widespread use of TLM’s.

 

[JNB]

It is no different when a parish that only celebrates the Novus Ordo but in a reverent manner, such as the one I attend or Diannes in Detroit parishoners evengelize people they know to go to parishes that are reverent and orthodox. In my diocese, there is only one indult, but there are 4 parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo with various degrees of reverence and have very orthdox reputations that have grown by largely attracting parishoners from outside their boundries because of their orthodoxy.

Joysong:

Although as John said, we have charismatic masses, we do not see charismatics pushing for their own separate church as these people in Buffalo are attempting to do.

I thought these words from the article were worth noting again:

That is my main objection: the proselytizing being done by many traditionalists … the incessant evangelization to attract “mainstream” catholics into their fold. Some do not miss a beat or a chance to promote their liturgy as better than, holier than, more orthodox than, more abuse-free than, the Pauline Mass which is the “new liturgical order.”

Two more cents,
Carole

 

[JNB]

To me it is not really having to do with the different missal or the liturgical languge. Yes I prefer the TLM, but is a Novus Ordo is celebrated in the manner your parish celebrates it in, it is still connected fully to Catholic tradition.

The big divsion as you said is often the people. To me, “mainstream” Catholics are little different than mainline Protestants, in how they view faith, and how to apply it to their lives. Parishes like the Assumption Grotto, St. Agnes and SS Cyrill & Methodius are not Tridentine parishes, and in fact in my opinion, come closest to what Vatican II actually called for in terms of “reform”, yet, these parishes and their parishoners are far far far closer to than of the Catholic than attends the Tridentine mass, then what one would see in the typical suburban parish.

Lux_et_veritas:

And it may very well be the true Church when it promotes these things. I hear the same thing being said of parishes like Assumption Grotto which celebrates all of its Novus Ordo Masses ad orientem, and has one Sunday Mass in Latin, all weekday morning Masses in Latin, and has a very traditional, very orthodox, and very big-family oriented culture (No ABC here).

What cracks me up is the term “mainstream” Catholics. I’ve gotten to a point where I don’t care what “mainstream” thinks because “mainstream” is often permissive of pre-marital sex, homosexual relations, abortion, and many other things that re totally anti-Catholic. All one needs to do is to look at the statistics for Catholics having sex outside of marriage, those admitting to be Catholic and having affairs, those Catholics who support same-sex marriage/unions, and Catholics who support abortion to know what I’m talking about.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

:tiphat: A number of you have been able to see through the preening and recognize it as unhealthy and divisive. Isn’t it probable that the Bishops have likewise been able to observe and discern it? … and that may very well be the reason for dismissing their request for more widespread use of TLM’s.

That would almost fly, Joysong, if it weren’t for some of the people I’ve gotten to know on these forums (good and holy folk)…AND the fact that it was John Paul the Great that called for a more generous application of the indult. That would be enough to give me pause. I’m afraid I won’t ever feel about the Mass in Latin the way I do about it in the vernacular. That is, however, just me.

 

[Joysong]

JNB:

It is no different when a parish that only celebrates the Novus Ordo but in a reverent manner, such as the one I attend or Diane’s in Detroit. Parishoners evangelize people they know to go to parishes that are reverent and orthodox.

I suppose it would be good to understand JNB’s meaning of “orthodox.” As if all the other churches in the area or nation are UN-orthodox for not observing the practices of the churches mentioned?

I cannot seem to get through the idea that MANY, *MANY *catholics are quite happy with their mass, their pastor, their parish, their worship. They just do not post their satisfaction on Catholic Answers for all the world to see. I think if a poll were taken of the nation at large, those who love the N.O. mass would far exceed the dissidents who come here solely to vent their displeasure. The Bishops hear more good reports than we can suppose is true, because we only see negative bias from the dozen or so here on the board.

Incidentally, JNB, I have no problem whatsoever with word of mouth evangelization and a kind invitation to “come and see.” I uphold that! I take exception, however, to using the internet to post advertising and what not, while at the same time verbally or in writing putting down the worship preferences of the N.O. people. That’s called proselytizing and disrupting the unity in the Body of Christ.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

That would almost fly, Joysong, if it weren’t for some of the people I’ve gotten to know on these forums (good and holy folk)…AND the fact that it was John Paul the Great that called for a more generous application of the indult. That would be enough to give me pause.

Me too … J, but we were talking about the preeners, your word, if I recall. These are the ones who prevent their own ranks from obtaining the wider use, to the detriment of the holy folk you mentioned above. Bear06 just witnessed to this regarding his bishop a few posts ago.