T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Decided to post a poll on whether or not to use the term TINO. Check it out and vote! (especially if you have a better idea, that’s option 4.)
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
Not to move the thread backwards, but I did think of a few other things that might be a thing for Traditional Catholics:
-won’t receive the Eucharist from anyone except a priest
-will look for a parish that doesn’t have female altar servers
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Frankly, I find it a label with no real meaning. Qualifiers such as “Latin Rite Catholic, Anglican Use Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic” have actual meaning. Traditional Catholic, conservative Catholic, liberal Catholic do not.
I quite like the way the moderator of this sub-forum has qualified the traditional Catholicism sub-forum: Discussion of Catholic traditions and customs. The sub-forum, some years back, was given a “facelift” as they called it, to move it in this different direction, which the moderator explains in his “sticky note.”
As it is too often used by certain Catholics, both those who self-identify as such or are identified as such by others, “Traditional Catholic” is weaponised…as, in fact, are other labels with qualifiers attached.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I can’t imagine what you mean.
- The three Ordinariates in the Church, erected for those Anglicans who wanted to live in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, are mostly populated by those of the English Church tradition who have lived their lives as part of the Anglican Communion. That is for whom they are created.
- The Ordinariate clergy were clergy of the Anglican communion upon whom Catholic Bishops imposed hands so that they could function as Catholic deacons and priests.
- Their patrimony as clergy and laity is thoroughly Anglican down to their hymnody, the essence of their liturgies, and the fonts and sources of their spirituality.
In fact, it is only what was lived in and after the Council, by both Catholics and Anglicans, that made the reality embodied in the Ordinariates remotely possible since the concepts today are completely different from what they were prior to the Council.
An Ordinariate for Anglicans received into full communion with the Roman Church that was unrelated to Anglicans and Anglicanism would make no sense. The Ordinariates will always be related to Anglicanism.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
My son’s dad (my ex-husband) kept indicating in conversation that he thought someone was a “real” Catholic if they were involved in some sort of parish ministry. That’s what he witnessed growing up with his parents, and a large part of why he left the Church 30 years ago. He saw being Catholic as a service organization, not a relationship with Christ.
One day when he was telling me about a Catholic man he’d recently met, he commented that this man was a “real” Catholic – “He’s an usher at his parish.”
I laughed and said something like, “Great. But that doesn’t make him a real Catholic. Our son’s godparents aren’t involved in anything at the parish and never volunteer for anything. But they are daily-mass-attending-daily-rosary-praying-tradition-practicing-Friday-meat-abstaining-confession-participating-Catechism-reading-obedient-to-the-Magisterium-Catholics! Volunteering at church has NOTHING to do with being a real Catholic for most Catholics.”
I chuckle when I think of how evangelism takes some strange turns at times.
One day when he was telling me about a Catholic man he’d recently met, he commented that this man was a “real” Catholic – “He’s an usher at his parish.”
I laughed and said something like, “Great. But that doesn’t make him a real Catholic. Our son’s godparents aren’t involved in anything at the parish and never volunteer for anything. But they are daily-mass-attending-daily-rosary-praying-tradition-practicing-Friday-meat-abstaining-confession-participating-Catechism-reading-obedient-to-the-Magisterium-Catholics! Volunteering at church has NOTHING to do with being a real Catholic for most Catholics.”
I chuckle when I think of how evangelism takes some strange turns at times.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Precisely this. Moreover as was stated elsewhere, the term “Traditional Catholic” has no canonical status.
If anyone asks me, I simply reply “Catholic”, and if more info is needed “I belong to the Latin Rite”.
This sub-forum was as you noted meant to take into account all traditional aspects of the Church, not to label and confine people to a specific box. In my case for instance, I love and practice Gregorian chant, but I only do so in the new Mass and using the new Liturgy of the Hours (or one of its monastic variants from time to time). So a mix of old and new. I fully support the vernacular at Mass but also the preservation of the Latin and Greek patrimony of music. Again a mix of old and new. I am very attached to Benedictine tradition; as as you know it goes back some 1500 years. Tradition. But the Benedictines are dynamic, adaptable and have evolved, including their liturgy and their breviaries. When I pray the monastic Office, it’s using a very modern post-Vatican II Benedictine schema (developed by Dom Notker Fueglister in the '60s). So a gain a mix of modern and tradition.
I can’t understand why folks want to box themselves into a narrow set of narrowly defined “traditional” values, when there has been so much good that has come out of the reforms of the Church over the millennia. Apart from Vatican II, I can point at the restoration of Gregorian chant in the Church which was a relatively modern phenomenon dating back to the restorations by Solesmes in the late 19th Century, culminating with the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum. Before that, Church music was a mess. Vatican II furthered that process by restoring many Divine Office hymns to their traditional texts after the ill-advised attempt at putting them into classical Latin by Pope Urban VIII.
Moreover the whole liturgical movement, as you have taught us, pre-dates Vatican II by quite some margin; for example the Mass facing the people was first tested in the 1940s at the abbey of Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, and this under Pius XII.
Much of what I read among “traditionalists” here seems to me in reality nostalgia for a certain snapshot in time, but the reality is that reform has been a continuous movement for hundreds of years. Some here have even called the 1960 Breviary “traditional” when the reality is that in 1960, it was only 50 years old; the current Liturgy of the Hours is now nearly as old (47 years). I find that argument very comical; as a Benedictine I am quite familiar with the original Benedictine form of the Divine Office, in both its pre- and post-Vatican II forms, that is still in licit use in may places in both those forms, and has been for some 1500 years when Benedict wrote his famous rule. As you can imagine I have a hard time holding back laughter when I see the label “traditional Divine Office” on the 1960 Breviary!
F
felsguy
Guest
As a bit of an aside, the question of the difference between the labels “traditional” and “traditionalist” appear here rather frequently and never really get resolved. My very, very general observation of how people here on CAF use the terms to identify themselves is that “traditional” describes leanings or preferences while “traditionalist” refers to choices or decisions.
Footnote: I do not pretend there is anything scientific or indefensible about my observation above nor do I intend it to connote anything negative about anyone.
Footnote: I do not pretend there is anything scientific or indefensible about my observation above nor do I intend it to connote anything negative about anyone.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Indeed. I don’t have to imagine, actually. I have the same reaction.
The criticisms of the Council Fathers about the breviary were particularly bald in Sacrosanctum Concilium precisely because they felt less constraint in criticising it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Box myself in? Box myself in? “Narrow”?
It sounds as though you think all Catholics who for a variety of reasons, and usually when queried by somebody who sees them doing something that the other person associates with ‘nutcase narrow-minded old fogeys’ or ‘weird thing I never saw another Catholic do’, mention that they ‘happen to like a certain traditional practice’ all are doing the same narrow, limited, nostalgia-inducing things that the Church “wisely left behind after Vatican II” and that only the ‘modern’ Catholic is the one who is out there exploring a wonderful, open, varied and relevant practice of the evolving and ‘improved’ Catholic faith.
The reality for most is that there are a host of Catholic devotions and traditions that are just as relevant, just as challenging, just as wonderful, as any current meeting of the bible study group, the Theology on Tap group, the Charismatic group, the Prison ministry, etc. today.
We aren’t trying to get rid of today’s devotions. We aren’t saying that what there is ‘now’ is ‘inferior’.
We’re actually being inclusive. We’re making informed choices. We’re exploring ‘new things’ --things which perhaps were known to people a hundred years ago but which have been largely lost to today.
If this were a subject other than religion, we’d be if not admired, certainly accepted. The people who are working hard on "Palmer penmanship’ aren’t sneered at and told that computers make handwriting obsolete so why bother to write ‘letters by hand’ the old fashioned way. The people who are historical re-enactors aren’t told to stop ‘fantasizing’ and just live in the 21st century. The people who are discovering older crafts, from candle dipping to weaving and spinning, to building log cabins, to learning how to track ‘Indian style’ etc. aren’t derided for not just buying stuff ready made.
As PRMerger aptly remarked, a lot of the practices and devotions that are practiced by people who like tradition are practiced by people who don’t themselves identify as traditional.
If I said that I had found the most wonderful old devotion, the True Consecration of Jesus in Mary by Louis De Montfort, and that I had studied and decided to do it, but I carefully didn’t say that I ‘liked traditional things’, probably most people would say either “cool” or “never heard of it” and move on to discuss the weather or football. But if in the course of speaking I happened to mention that our family prayed a daily rosary, eyebrows would start to be raised. ONE ‘older’ devotion is OK. Two is pushing it. And certain devotions appear to be automatically frowned upon:
A. Going to a Latin Mass. (That marks you as somebody who thinks the OF isn’t good enough, or that you have ‘nostalgia for another era’ and find the current one ‘not good enough’, makes you look rigid and snobbish because gee whiz, it was only allowed for geezers who were too stubborn and stupid to understand ‘modern times’ and hopefully it will be phased out for good)
B. Wearing a hat to church if you’re a woman. That dreadful tradition is so anti-woman, you know? You ‘stand out’ and everybody knows that if you stand out, it’s because you are full of pride. You aren’t doing this for anybody but yourself.
C. Going to church more than on Sundays. Overkill, you know? You’re probably neglecting your spouse, or your kids, and you’ll make your kids resent the Faith and leave it.
D. Expressing any kind of approval or respect of something seen as ‘too much’. . .for example, vestments that look ‘too gaudy’, or that are ‘too old fashioned’, churches that have ‘too many statues’, ‘too many candles’, ‘too much incense’, ‘too much ‘gold’, ‘too much bowing’, “too much silence”. Because that means automatically that you think any other vestments are ‘not good enough’, that any churches with any fewer statues are not ‘Catholic-looking enough’, that simple, decent vestments, simple suits, simple glass or wooden chalices (yes I know but plenty of parishes, including mine, still have them and use them), and everything from shaking hands to people clapping for the choir and talking with each other as they leave church is like breaking the 11th commandment.’
Honestly, so many of the accusations and assumptions hurled at people purely on the basis of their happening to like a Catholic tradition or practice is based on the bias and misunderstanding of the accusing person. They’re on the offensive right away, as if by merely my stating, “I like the EF, I hope to be able to attend it regularly when I retire” is the equivalent of my saying, “All you jerks who like the OF are quasi-heretics and I can’t believe you’re so stupid as to go instead of wanting to go to the wonderful perfect EF which wonderful perfect people like me prefer”.
It’s very depressing. If nobody likes my idea of using TINOs for the few, the sad, the sedevacantist and the toxic people whom everybody assumes anybody who is ‘traditional-minded’ really IS, then I suppose we’ll just be fighting the same old, “No I really don’t hate everything from Vatican II on just because I would like to attend the EF” charges until the Second Coming. Oh well. At least the message boards will never go dry.
It sounds as though you think all Catholics who for a variety of reasons, and usually when queried by somebody who sees them doing something that the other person associates with ‘nutcase narrow-minded old fogeys’ or ‘weird thing I never saw another Catholic do’, mention that they ‘happen to like a certain traditional practice’ all are doing the same narrow, limited, nostalgia-inducing things that the Church “wisely left behind after Vatican II” and that only the ‘modern’ Catholic is the one who is out there exploring a wonderful, open, varied and relevant practice of the evolving and ‘improved’ Catholic faith.
The reality for most is that there are a host of Catholic devotions and traditions that are just as relevant, just as challenging, just as wonderful, as any current meeting of the bible study group, the Theology on Tap group, the Charismatic group, the Prison ministry, etc. today.
We aren’t trying to get rid of today’s devotions. We aren’t saying that what there is ‘now’ is ‘inferior’.
We’re actually being inclusive. We’re making informed choices. We’re exploring ‘new things’ --things which perhaps were known to people a hundred years ago but which have been largely lost to today.
If this were a subject other than religion, we’d be if not admired, certainly accepted. The people who are working hard on "Palmer penmanship’ aren’t sneered at and told that computers make handwriting obsolete so why bother to write ‘letters by hand’ the old fashioned way. The people who are historical re-enactors aren’t told to stop ‘fantasizing’ and just live in the 21st century. The people who are discovering older crafts, from candle dipping to weaving and spinning, to building log cabins, to learning how to track ‘Indian style’ etc. aren’t derided for not just buying stuff ready made.
As PRMerger aptly remarked, a lot of the practices and devotions that are practiced by people who like tradition are practiced by people who don’t themselves identify as traditional.
If I said that I had found the most wonderful old devotion, the True Consecration of Jesus in Mary by Louis De Montfort, and that I had studied and decided to do it, but I carefully didn’t say that I ‘liked traditional things’, probably most people would say either “cool” or “never heard of it” and move on to discuss the weather or football. But if in the course of speaking I happened to mention that our family prayed a daily rosary, eyebrows would start to be raised. ONE ‘older’ devotion is OK. Two is pushing it. And certain devotions appear to be automatically frowned upon:
A. Going to a Latin Mass. (That marks you as somebody who thinks the OF isn’t good enough, or that you have ‘nostalgia for another era’ and find the current one ‘not good enough’, makes you look rigid and snobbish because gee whiz, it was only allowed for geezers who were too stubborn and stupid to understand ‘modern times’ and hopefully it will be phased out for good)
B. Wearing a hat to church if you’re a woman. That dreadful tradition is so anti-woman, you know? You ‘stand out’ and everybody knows that if you stand out, it’s because you are full of pride. You aren’t doing this for anybody but yourself.
C. Going to church more than on Sundays. Overkill, you know? You’re probably neglecting your spouse, or your kids, and you’ll make your kids resent the Faith and leave it.
D. Expressing any kind of approval or respect of something seen as ‘too much’. . .for example, vestments that look ‘too gaudy’, or that are ‘too old fashioned’, churches that have ‘too many statues’, ‘too many candles’, ‘too much incense’, ‘too much ‘gold’, ‘too much bowing’, “too much silence”. Because that means automatically that you think any other vestments are ‘not good enough’, that any churches with any fewer statues are not ‘Catholic-looking enough’, that simple, decent vestments, simple suits, simple glass or wooden chalices (yes I know but plenty of parishes, including mine, still have them and use them), and everything from shaking hands to people clapping for the choir and talking with each other as they leave church is like breaking the 11th commandment.’
Honestly, so many of the accusations and assumptions hurled at people purely on the basis of their happening to like a Catholic tradition or practice is based on the bias and misunderstanding of the accusing person. They’re on the offensive right away, as if by merely my stating, “I like the EF, I hope to be able to attend it regularly when I retire” is the equivalent of my saying, “All you jerks who like the OF are quasi-heretics and I can’t believe you’re so stupid as to go instead of wanting to go to the wonderful perfect EF which wonderful perfect people like me prefer”.
It’s very depressing. If nobody likes my idea of using TINOs for the few, the sad, the sedevacantist and the toxic people whom everybody assumes anybody who is ‘traditional-minded’ really IS, then I suppose we’ll just be fighting the same old, “No I really don’t hate everything from Vatican II on just because I would like to attend the EF” charges until the Second Coming. Oh well. At least the message boards will never go dry.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I had left your post and this thread…but I have swung back to it because of something you wrote.
Nostalgia I can understand. I experience it when I think back to people of years long past to whom I was close and who are now gone. I can experience it when I am in particular places where notable things happened regarding me in times past. Sometimes, the nostalgia can be very strong indeed.
I have much more problem understanding the phenomenon, however, when it comes to people who did not live through an epoch who exhibit…I don’t even know what to call it in English. Romanticism, perhaps.
One of the most comical things I have encountered here in my time on this forum are the references to “veiled women” and “veiling.” It is incomprehensible to me. It makes my mother and my grandmother sound like they were exotic figures emerging from a souk. Nothing was further from the truth. They did not wear anything reminiscent of veils at all.
Nor was there some esoteric spirituality to covering their heads anymore than my father saw some profound spiritual or mystical meaning in putting on a coat and tie or wearing a hat. He was as happy as my mother when hats went out of fashion for men; he threw his into the garbage. I have memories of my father and his hats until he could be rid of them…and then they were discarded and he never wore a hat for the rest of his life.
The same is true with the whole matter of an eastward orientation. It was one of six of the churches around me in my young days, as I go back and think about it…all obviously built well before the Council…where the altar for the vetus ordo Mass faced East.
As for us praying, we did not stop to turn and face East. So young people today, who were not there, try to tell me that there was “liturgical East”. Of course, I remember when the phrase came into vogue…long after the Council. I served in a couple of Churches where, if the direction that the altar faced had been “liturgical East” then every direction was East since the principal altar, the side altars in the upper church and the crypt chapel with its altars would combine to face every direction of the compass.
So many who were part of the Council are now gone to God…so few are left…and fewer with each passing month. When everyone is gone, it would be interesting to hear conversations…when there is no one who can still say, “Oh, that’s silly. That is not how it was at all.”
One hears things about what some of us, who are still alive, lived that has more fantasy about it than nostalgia, to be perfectly honest.
T
twf
Guest
Father,
I think “romanticism” may be the right word. These individuals seem to hold an idealized conception of the Church and life in general circa 1950 (and thereabouts). For some it goes beyond the liturgy and spirituality of the day. I’ve seen people on this forum describe the era as a Christian utopia of sorts.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No, I don’t think that at all. I do think that what many label as “traditional” often most certainly is not (like the 1960 breviary example), but that is merely a lack of knowledge or a mistaken nostalgia if anything.
Tantum Ergo, I think you’re overthinking this. We are either Catholic, or we’re not. We don’t need labels.
Those who are are toxic or in schism don’t need any “Catholic” label, because they have placed themselves outside the Church. Our goal should be to “pray” them back into the Church and evangelize. Don’t give them a label that legitimizes their position. Instead be solicitous for them for the sake of their souls.
For those of us in the Church, we have a rich patrimony of traditions, practices, observances, prayers and liturgies; some are newer than others. Some, like the Benedictines go back before Trent some 1500 years. Some, like the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, are recent (1955). Even Gregorian chant, though it has ancient roots, in its modern use is somewhat still a novelty, as the restoration only dates back about 150 years or so. Then there are some very modern movements like Charismatics, or Taizé.
The age and source of these rich parts of the Church’s patrimony doesn’t matter. We are Catholic which means universal. It doesn’t mean uniform. We are all free to borrow from those parts of the patrimony that speak to us. Real Catholics don’t go into schism over different spiritualities… we found new religious orders and congregations instead!
It’s why I eschew the label “traditional” even though I’m devoted to some traditional elements of Catholic piety such as Western Monasticism, plainchant, and praying the Hours. In others I very much embrace modern trends such as the vernacular where appropriate, the OF Mass versus populum, the new breviary, etc.
So no boxes please. Instead the ability to build our own personal and authentically Catholic spirituality borrowing those elements that reach our hearts. For many, that may be something which includes most of the elements that those who label themselves “traditionalist” embrace. So be it. The problem with boxes and labels though, is that they end up creating “us vs them” mentalities and that’s not a healthy thing to have inside the Church. We are all in the barque of St. Peter trying to navigate dangerous waters together. Let’s not try to place divisions among us or we not only may rock the boat, we may make it capsize.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The problem with this otherwise extremely well expressed post is not so much that people who like traditional things are the ones placing themselves in the box, it’s that people who enjoy some of the things (and the mainly negatively-perceived ones especially that I listed) are placed in the box by others.No, I don’t think that at all. I do think that what many label as “traditional” often most certainly is not (like the 1960 breviary example), but that is merely a lack of knowledge or a mistaken nostalgia if anything.
Tantum Ergo, I think you’re overthinking this. We are either Catholic, or we’re not. We don’t need labels.
Those who are are toxic or in schism don’t need any “Catholic” label, because they have placed themselves outside the Church. Our goal should be to “pray” them back into the Church and evangelize. Don’t give them a label that legitimizes their position. Instead be solicitous for them for the sake of their souls.
For those of us in the Church, we have a rich patrimony of traditions, practices, observances, prayers and liturgies; some are newer than others. Some, like the Benedictines go back before Trent some 1500 years. Some, like the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, are recent (1955). Even Gregorian chant, though it has ancient roots, in its modern use is somewhat still a novelty, as the restoration only dates back about 150 years or so. Then there are some very modern movements like Charismatics, or Taizé.
The age and source of these rich parts of the Church’s patrimony doesn’t matter. We are Catholic which means universal. It doesn’t mean uniform. We are all free to borrow from those parts of the patrimony that speak to us. Real Catholics don’t go into schism over different spiritualities… we found new religious orders and congregations instead!
It’s why I eschew the label “traditional” even though I’m devoted to some traditional elements of Catholic piety such as Western Monasticism, plainchant, and praying the Hours. In others I very much embrace modern trends such as the vernacular where appropriate, the OF Mass versus populum, the new breviary, etc.
So no boxes please. Instead the ability to build our own personal and authentically Catholic spirituality borrowing those elements that reach our hearts. For many, that may be something which includes most of the elements that those who label themselves “traditionalist” embrace. So be it. The problem with boxes and labels though, is that they end up creating “us vs them” mentalities and that’s not a healthy thing to have inside the Church. We are all in the barque of St. Peter trying to navigate dangerous waters together. Let’s not try to place divisions among us or we not only may rock the boat, we may make it capsize.
So we have to immediately distance ourselves from any kind of ‘label’ by saying, “oh no, I may like this and this and this but I’m not ‘r-d trad’” and we hear, "but I saw or heard people who like exactly the same things you do and they proudly identify as traditionals and they want to bring back some ‘idealized time’ therefore so do you.
Why is this one word ‘traditional’ made to mean only one thing when it comes to the Catholic Faith?
Why is it that I can say I like traditional recipes, and I feel like I’m a traditional kind of cook, and nobody thinks I’m trying to warp the world back to the 19th century?
Why is it that I can say I like traditional crafts, and consider myself a traditional craftsperson, and nobody thinks I’m trying to get everybody to give up machine made goods and wear burlap and eschew electricity for home-dipped candles?
BUT if I say I like Catholic traditions and feel like I’m a traditional kind of Catholic, suddenly I’m a crazy, ‘nostalgia-driven’, rigid, backwards dragging Neanderthal who is trying to make ‘all Catholics’ go back to some fantasy world?
Why is that?
O
OraLabora
Guest
I think it’s just that the word “traditionalist” has become loaded in the Catholic context. There are those who use the label in a derisory way to denigrate those with attachment to some older forms of piety, and there are those who impose it on themselves to “circle the wagons” and keep out people who don’t think the way they do (trust me the latter exists). Part of the problem too is that “traditions” of the Church is a moving target. The Church continues to evolve, as does her liturgy. So yes, often “traditionalist” becomes a snapshot in time (in the Catholic usage). There are some, for instance, who can’t brook the 1955 Holy Week changes. So you have pre-55 and post-55 “traditionalists”! You have “traditionalist” laity attached to the 1960 Breviary that in the first place isn’t “traditional” and in the second, that was almost never prayed by the Laity except in the public celebration of Vespers from time to time or when visiting religious communities. Hardly a “tradition”!
It just all makes little sense to me.
Thus I say labeling is not Catholic.
Dialogue is Catholic.
Maybe people just feel like they want to “belong” to something. Funny me for thinking that belonging to the Church, or one of her recognized lay movements (oblates, third orders, whatever) was sufficient
P
PJM
Guest
Hi Richard, I have placed numbers before each of your 3 points for easy following
[1] NO, in fact a great many young Catholics have been attending the Extraordinary Form of the Sacred Liturgy.
I personally am not in favor of labels; BUT they DO help clarify.
I might even go a bit further here and share that many of those attending the EF Mass, do so because of the level of personal piety it reflects.
Certainly BOTH the OF & and EF forms are valid and licit. And as PIETY is a personal “thing”; one can find their level of personal-piety in which ever best suits THEM.
[2] We put ourselves at risk here and can rightly only speak from our own experiences.
I would suggest that a TC is one who knows well our Catholic Faith; practices it fully and willingly, and is able to share and defend it when called to do so. They know what we believe and WHY we believe it. Quite often, circumstances permitting; they are the Daily Mass goers.
[3] Once again here we can speak ONLY in generalities.
Recent PEW reports show that only 20% to 30% of self professed Catholics attend Sunday & Holy Day Mass as is required.
That same report shows even a FAR smaller percentage who avail themselves of Sacramental Confession, even annually.
So it seems to ME at least that the percetange of self-professed catholics who do not attend regularly, Sunday and Holy Day Mass, and those who do not go to Confession MIGHT be classified as Non-Traditional Catholics.
GBY
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Sorry, to have to disagree with “THIS WOULD BE THE MATURE DECISION”
Dear friend, The Seven Sacraments, most notably the Eucharist, [John 6:47-58 & 1 St Cor. 11:23-30] and Sacramental Confession [1 Jn 1:8-9; 1 Jn 5;16-17 & John 20: 19-23, are only Valid in the RCC & the Orthodox Churches; & only both Valid and LICIT in the RCC
This MEANS that Jesus Christ is ONLY Truly, Really and Substantially PRESENT in these churches.
**Hebrews 6:4-8
EXPRESSES WELL WHAT IS FORETOLD OF THOSE BAPTOZED & CONFIRMED CATHOLIC WHO FOR ANY REASON CHOOSE TO THEN LEAVE THE RCC
**Explanation from the DOUAY Bible
[4] It is impossible: The meaning is, that it is impossible for such as have fallen after baptism, to be again baptized; and very hard for such as have apostatized from the faith, after having received many graces, to return again to the happy state from which they fell.**
[4]For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated,[BAPTIZED AS A CATHOLIC] have tasted also the heavenly gift,[JESUS HIMSELF IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,[FREELY CONFIRMED IN THE RCC] [5] Have moreover tasted the good word of God, [ATTENDED MASS & HAVE BEEN TAUGHT GOD’S SINGULAR TRUTHS] and the powers of the world to come, [6] And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery. [7] For the earth that drinketh in the rain which cometh often upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is tilled, receiveth blessing from God. [8] But that which bringeth forth thorns and briers, is reprobate, and very near unto a curse, whose end is to be burnt.
Dear friend the meaasge you shared is not the official teaching of the RCC.
God Bless you
Patrick
:
P
PJM
Guest
A
angeltime
Guest
Pax et Bonum! I consider myself to be traditional in my tastes and the Mass I attend. It is not about what I am wearing, but more about the way the Mass was celebrated dating back in history and before the Vatican 11 changes. This does not make me an old fuddy duddy or someone who resists change and my age and life have proven this out.
I like incense and Gregorian music with no instruments or just the organ and the tabernacle to be the main centered and obvious focus before Mass and after Mass for private prayer. The respect presented by an individual (when not an act), is something to be cherished and passed on to children. I prefer the quiet mystical contemplative mood of the Tridentine Mass, well-behaved children and adults during Mass.
This also does not mean I never attend the Novus Ordo. angeltime
I like incense and Gregorian music with no instruments or just the organ and the tabernacle to be the main centered and obvious focus before Mass and after Mass for private prayer. The respect presented by an individual (when not an act), is something to be cherished and passed on to children. I prefer the quiet mystical contemplative mood of the Tridentine Mass, well-behaved children and adults during Mass.
This also does not mean I never attend the Novus Ordo. angeltime
O
OraLabora
Guest
You should try attending Mass at a Benedictine monastery. I see you’re in Canada. If you ever attended at Saint-Benoît-du-Lac in Quebec, you’d find everything you say, but in the Ordinary Form Mass: incense, Gregorian chant sung a cappella, pipe organ. However as is customary at many Benedictine monasteries (and this pre-dates Vatican II), the tabernacle is in a beautiful side chapel that is conducive to silent contemplation and adoration.Pax et Bonum! I consider myself to be traditional in my tastes and the Mass I attend. It is not about what I am wearing, but more about the way the Mass was celebrated dating back in history and before the Vatican 11 changes. This does not make me an old fuddy duddy or someone who resists change and my age and life have proven this out.
I like incense and Gregorian music with no instruments or just the organ and the tabernacle to be the main centered and obvious focus before Mass and after Mass for private prayer. The respect presented by an individual (when not an act), is something to be cherished and passed on to children. I prefer the quiet mystical contemplative mood of the Tridentine Mass, well-behaved children and adults during Mass.
This also does not mean I never attend the Novus Ordo. angeltime
Closer to Montreal, the Benedictine cloistered nuns of Ste-Marie-des-Deux-Montagnes would offer a similar experience and moreover a couple of days a week the Mass is entirely in Latin. Also in the Ordinary Form.
Reverence is not the monopoly of the EF!!!
A
angeltime
Guest
Pax et Bonum! tks for the info about the Bendictines; I may get there sometime! You are right reverence is not the monopoly, but it certainly is an obvious improved behavior. This seems to me too, to be a reflection of the disposition of the individual; not judging - just noticed. angeltime
- Status