Vatican II

[clem456]

This thread seems to be all about externals like using Latin in the Mass, various articles of clothing and other items, etc.

I’ve been thinking about what I would like to see Catholic culture be in 2012 and beyond:

1. Good works and practical acts of love for fellow Christians as well as non-Christians.
2. Intellectualism–the Catholic Church started universities, right? The BEST schools for all ages in the world.
3. Prolife, pro-family, pro-marriage one man/one woman.
4. The originators and patrons of the very best in the arts: music, theater, visual arts, dance, literature, film, etc. The “movers and shakers” of the arts worlds.
5. The wellspring of the most reliable and politically-neutral science.
6. The voice of reason in politics–the “peacemakers” of the world, who are able to persuade enemies to sit down together and discuss issues rather than waging war.
7. Pro-woman–not women priests, but women as valuable members of society and worthy of taking on any intellectual issue.
8. Pro-children–ALL children welcomed and loved, and provided with the basic decent necessities of life.
9. Shameless and outspoken followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in all areas of private and public life, and constantly speaking of Him and giving Him all glory and honor.

These are just a few of the visual attributes that I would like to see, and that I’m pretty certain have been part of the past of the Catholic Church. To me, these kinds of things are much more important than some of the things that have come up on this thread.

Well said…

 

[Cat]

I agree with your propositions but I might as well point out that 4, potentially 5, and potentially 6 seem rather “external” by your definition. I think you have defeated your own argument. You say that externals are not important but then say how the Church should patronize the arts. ??? Of course she should! But if she should patronize the arts then it isn’t too much of a logical leap to say that the Church should be resplendent in every other external way insofar as possible.

I am trying to use specific examples to illustrate larger, more elusive principles. As I said, Latin and cassocks are not “the” Faith, but these and other related external things make up the corpus of how we sensually EXPERIENCE the Faith–even if we don’t “like” every one of these things–and are almost just as important to us on a psychological level as the Sacraments are to our souls.

We are not emotionless, perfectly intellectual brains. We are body, soul and mind, and if we neglect one aspect of it–and I think it is clear that I think we have been neglecting our psychological and physical dependency on externals for identity purposes–then we are not doing a particularly good job.

We can say what we “think” would be “the best way” of living the faith in some fantasyland where people aren’t limited by the human condition and the natural world, but that is not the way it works. We are limited by the human condition and we live in the natural world and that is why building brutal modernist churches, sacropop, awful liturgy, and a lack of people praying devotions are wrong. In a perfect world it wouldn’t matter what our churches look like, what music we have at Mass, how sloppy Father is at the altar. But since we live in the natural world and since the human condition limits us, these things do matter.

4, 5, and 6 are clearly visible and available to those outside of the parish walls. This is very different than liturgy, Latin, pipe organs, vestments, etc. that are only visible to those who are actually inside of the Church.

Also, 4,5, and 6 are not merely externals for the purpose of teaching or imparting faith, but are “service” to mankind. (I would consider the arts as “service,” perhaps because as a pianist, I feel that I am “serving others” by bringing them pleasure with my music.)

Perhaps that’s the little problem I’m having with your proposals. Yes, I certainly agree that these “externals” like Latin, etc., can be a great help to the Catholic who has actually made it to Mass.

I get that.

But I’m not so sure that these “Catholic externals” within the Mass would attract those outside of the Catholic Church. Based on my experiences growing up as an evangelical Protestant, if I even knew that any of these externals were happening in a Catholic church, I would quite possibly be put-off by them and I would consider them “works of man.”

Obviously, the Holy Spirit can lead anyone to the True Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, with or without external. Yes, even if the parish is housed in a huge spaceship and the priest refuses to wear a cassock and the music is all guitars at every Mass! Or even if the parish is housed in a Gothic-style building as old as the U.S. and the priest always wears a cassock and the music is played on a magnificent centuries-old pipe organ!

In other words, I will buy that the externals are meaningful and helpful to practicing Catholics. But I’m not buying that they are evangelistic to non-Catholics.

Or am I misunderstanding your reasoning here? Perhaps you don’t mean that any of these externals should be done with the purpose of reaching out to non-Catholics?

 

[YoungTradCath]

4, 5, and 6 are clearly visible and available to those outside of the parish walls. This is very different than liturgy, Latin, pipe organs, vestments, etc. that are only visible to those who are actually inside of the Church.

Also, 4,5, and 6 are not merely externals for the purpose of teaching or imparting faith, but are “service” to mankind. (I would consider the arts as “service,” perhaps because as a pianist, I feel that I am “serving others” by bringing them pleasure with my music.)

Perhaps that’s the little problem I’m having with your proposals. Yes, I certainly agree that these “externals” like Latin, etc., can be a great help to the Catholic who has actually made it to Mass.

I get that.

But I’m not so sure that these “Catholic externals” within the Mass would attract those outside of the Catholic Church. Based on my experiences growing up as an evangelical Protestant, if I even knew that any of these externals were happening in a Catholic church, I would quite possibly be put-off by them and I would consider them “works of man.”

Obviously, the Holy Spirit can lead anyone to the True Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, with or without external. Yes, even if the parish is housed in a huge spaceship and the priest refuses to wear a cassock and the music is all guitars at every Mass! Or even if the parish is housed in a Gothic-style building as old as the U.S. and the priest always wears a cassock and the music is played on a magnificent centuries-old pipe organ!

In other words, I will buy that the externals are meaningful and helpful to practicing Catholics. But I’m not buying that they are evangelistic to non-Catholics.

Or am I misunderstanding your reasoning here? Perhaps you don’t mean that any of these externals should be done with the purpose of reaching out to non-Catholics?

“Internal externals” versus “external externals” lol. Okay. I don’t see how gorgeous liturgy and beautiful church architecture is not a service to mankind. In fact, I would argue these things are, since Catholics are of course mankind.

I think the problem is that if you argue against “internal externals” then you are effectively arguing against the underlying principle of externals period, which then undermines “external externals.” I do not find that distinction helpful in that sense. It is as important to externally “witness” to our own Catholics as it is to externally “witness” to non-Catholics.

You admit that Catholic Mass felt very different to you from your regular Protestant worship. So what if instead of having statues in the church–I’m assuming your church has those, yikes!–your pastor used a Latin Gloria and Sanctus? Is there a certain “amount” of “works of man” that pushes a Protestant over the, “No, I’m not going to convert cliff?” Are practices and things interchangeable with a “works of man point value” attached to them? I know this is getting a little silly. I do believe it is not worth getting rid of our traditions to maybe make the religion more appealing to non-Catholics. I have already shown why I think that is a false line of thinking in the first place.

 

[jam070406]

If we believe in the Church, if we believe that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, if we believe in the Magisterium, and if we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium, then the only conclusion is this:

Vatican II was exactly the right Council, led by the right People, at exactly the right time, and gave exactly the message the the Holy Spirit wished.

If there are any mistakes, issues, problems stemming from Vatican II then they are entirely of human making and have no bearing on the truth or teaching of Vatican II, nor can Vatican II be interpreted in light of them.

The new man in charge of talks with the SSPX admitted that the Faith has changed. And that the SSPX must be brought around to the post concilliar way of thinking. If the Catholic Faith changes from council to council then the Church is not the true Church. Or we have a crisis of Faith that goes to the top.

 

[clem456]

The new man in charge of talks with the SSPX admitted that the Faith has changed. And that the SSPX must be brought around to the post concilliar way of thinking. If the Catholic Faith changes from council to council then the Church is not the true Church. Or we have a crisis of Faith that goes to the top.

There is no crisis of faith, other than possibly in the hearts of individual Catholics.
Why do people argue with the Holy Spirit???

 

[jam070406]

There is no crisis of faith, other than possibly in the hearts of individual Catholics.
Why do people argue with the Holy Spirit???

Exactly, in many many many many hearts, that would rather please man or themselves over God. All the while grieving the Holy Spirit.

 

[clem456]

Exactly, in many many many many hearts, that would rather please man or themselves over God. All the while grieving the Holy Spirit.

Yes but you were alleging a crisis of faith that goes “to the top”. Your words.That is nonsense.

 

[jam070406]

Yes but you were alleging a crisis of faith that goes “to the top”. Your words.That is nonsense.

Is it?
If you think I meant the Holy Father, you are mistaken, I didn’t.

Out the 2 men handling the SSPX situation one holds to liberation theology and the other believes the old Jewish covenant is a valid means of salvation. This is only ONE example.

 

[clem456]

Is it?
If you think I meant the Holy Father, you are mistaken, I didn’t.

Out the 2 men handling the SSPX situation one holds to liberation theology and the other believes the old Jewish covenant is a valid means of salvation. This is only ONE example.

Ok well I guess I’m confused then. My bad. This is what you said:

““The new man in charge of talks with the SSPX admitted that the Faith has changed. And that the SSPX must be brought around to the post concilliar way of thinking. If the Catholic Faith changes from council to council then the Church is not the true Church. Or we have a crisis of Faith that goes to the top””.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Is it?
If you think I meant the Holy Father, you are mistaken, I didn’t.

Out the 2 men handling the SSPX situation one holds to liberation theology and the other believes the old Jewish covenant is a valid means of salvation. This is only ONE example.

And the problem with that is… why bother with being Catholic, if old Jewish covenant works, and if Protestants are the same Church, and the Faith changes every so and so decades…

Maybe some people want a more “user friendly” Church, but, at what prize?

Blessings!

 

[Cat]

“Internal externals” versus “external externals” lol. Okay. I don’t see how gorgeous liturgy and beautiful church architecture is not a service to mankind. In fact, I would argue these things are, since Catholics are of course mankind.

I think the problem is that if you argue against “internal externals” then you are effectively arguing against the underlying principle of externals period, which then undermines “external externals.” I do not find that distinction helpful in that sense. It is as important to externally “witness” to our own Catholics as it is to externally “witness” to non-Catholics.

You admit that Catholic Mass felt very different to you from your regular Protestant worship. So what if instead of having statues in the church–I’m assuming your church has those, yikes!–your pastor used a Latin Gloria and Sanctus? Is there a certain “amount” of “works of man” that pushes a Protestant over the, “No, I’m not going to convert cliff?” Are practices and things interchangeable with a “works of man point value” attached to them? I know this is getting a little silly. I do believe it is not worth getting rid of our traditions to maybe make the religion more appealing to non-Catholics. I have already shown why I think that is a false line of thinking in the first place.

I agree that it is important for the Church to reach out to Catholics and non-Catholics. I do have a softer spot for the non-Catholics, especially the non-Christian non-Catholics, as without a witness to tell them about Jesus, they are very likely going to spend eternity in hell.

I certainly don’t believe Catholics should get rid of the traditions of the Church. But I think it’s important for traditionalists to realize that contemporary architecture, music, dress, also bears witness of the True Church of Jesus Christ. Some people can see better Jesus in the ancient and some can see Him better in the modern. My husband and I see Him better in the modern, especially when it comes to music.

BTW, my parish church building was built in the early 1970s, and has the clamshell architecture, which is icky when it comes to acoustics. The nave/sanctuary has four statues–a true-to-life (i.e., not stylized) group of the Holy family in the nave, and a slightly-bigger than life-sized, true-to-life Crucifix at the front of the church (in the sanctuary) that is absolutely stunning. Both pieces of sculture appear to have been done by the same artist. I think they are both beautiful, but mainly because they are true-to-life. I tend to be a real dodo bird about visual art, as I appreciate art that looks real!

 

[edwest2]

Well, it’s a bit of a struggle understanding the word “modernity.” We can use it in two ways. The first is simply “the modern age,” i.e., the present period in history, post-medievality (probably beginning around 1700). The second is the “spirit of the modern age.” It’s the spirit of the modern age that makes the modernity/medievality distinction meaningful, so we often mean both things by the same word. So “modernity” is just the present age and its ideological baggage. That baggage may be usefully summed as “atheist androgynist utilitarianism.”

Now what can the Church do about this? Nothing to actively destroy it, certainly. But then modernity is destroying itself, as we can well see. Europe will be majority Muslim in a lifetime or two, for instance. There will be no atheism or liberalism there afterward. Saying “what can we do about modernity?” is really the wrong question. May as well ask “what can we do about the Titanic?” Well, for one thing, you can get off the Titanic before it sinks and takes you down with it. Get into a lifeboat. That’s what we needed around the time Vatican II started: lifeboats, not soapboxes, as a friend of mine put it once. We needed *more *insularity. We needed *higher *walls. We needed an even stronger identification with the faith – even more signs and symbols and externals and sacramentals. We needed even sharper distinctions between the faith and the world.

Instead, we did the exact opposite: we tossed the boats overboard (they’re so divisive!). We threw open the gates and let the walls fall into disrepair. We stopped emphasizing our differences with the world. Well, surprise, huge numbers of Catholics are now “of the world.” Contracepting (probably a majority endorse this). Increasingly endorsing sodomy and abortion, or voting happily for those that do. Denying central tenets of the faith, like the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (last I heard around 40-45% of Catholics deny the real presence). And so on. The city was besieged and we abandoned its defenses; small wonder it’s been sacked!

Abandoning the structures and symbols of the old way may have been of use to those with the intelligence and sophistication to persevere in faith after losing them, but it has obviously harmed the vast majority of people who lack that intelligence and sophistication and who were relying on those structures and symbols to make immanent the soteriological realities of the Catholic faith in their lives. Lots of souls have probably been lost over this series of completely gratuitous errors.

These were all carefully planned errors. I did not Love God less after Vatican II and it was certainly not my intelligence and sophistication that kept me going. I was being obedient. Whatever was changing, God was still God without change.

Peace,
Ed

 

[triumphguy]

There were no errors in Vatican II.

To say there were puts the person in grave danger of being out of communion with the Church.

Read this thoroughly: ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/

 

[sw85]

There were no errors in Vatican II.

To say there were puts the person in grave danger of being out of communion with the Church.

Read this thoroughly: ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/

I guess this is directed at me. Review my words here:

Which means we are dealing not with doctrinal errors but with prudential ones. This is the only way I can understand Vatican II and its consequences. It cannot be heretical as the sedes think because it taught nothing new. It just tried to adopt new strategies. Those strategies can be said to have failed without reflecting on the Church’s doctrinal authority. Its guarantees from God are fairly limited: it won’t teach error. It has no guarantee that, in any particular time, it will teach the truth as well as it could or ought to.

Abp. DiNoia himself acknowledges this in the article you forward along, when he says that parts of Vatican II documents are “imprecise.” Again, God did not promise “You’ll teach everything perfectly all the time.” He simply promised He would not let us teach falsehood. There’s a whole range of values between teaching falsehood and teaching the entire truth as perfectly as possible. There’s no guarantee we’ll have the latter, just a guarantee we won’t have the former, which doesn’t preclude the possibility of ambiguity, imprecision, etc.

There’s an attitude that man really isn’t at the wheel here so the Church cannot possibly do anything wrong, even the little stuff. Well, maybe man’s not at the wheel and God is, but man’s certainly a copilot, and a copilot can do a lot to screw up a flight. (Let’s keep building that metaphor: the pilot is talented enough that He’ll touch the plane down on the runway no matter how inattentive, imprecise, etc., his copilot is, but the crappiness of the copilot means the flight’s going to take longer, it’s going to be extremely turbulent, the people will be terrified and maybe some will die of heart attacks from all the swooping and flipping, etc.).

What I’m saying are errors are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted for dealing with modernity. They were errors in judgment – the wrong choices of strategy (at least I think; a friend of mine has a very convincing argument that Vatican II was exactly what the church needed, though conciliar enthusiasts would not much enjoy hearing that argument). This doesn’t put me out of communion with the Church because the Church itself doesn’t teach that it will always make the optimal choice 100% of the time, and if you think it does, then you are in the very awkward position of thinking that Vatican finances are A-OK or that it handled the sex abuse cases just fine. Nor does it entail disobedience on my part. I may not the like the mess but I do my required part in it, even as I work within my station to repair it (e.g., volunteering to teach RCIA classes).

 

[TrueLight]

.

There’s an attitude that man really isn’t at the wheel here so the Church cannot possibly do anything wrong, even the little stuff. Well, maybe man’s not at the wheel and God is, but man’s certainly a copilot, and a copilot can do a lot to screw up a flight. (Let’s keep building that metaphor: the pilot is talented enough that He’ll touch the plane down on the runway no matter how inattentive, imprecise, etc., his copilot is, but the crappiness of the copilot means the flight’s going to take longer, it’s going to be extremely turbulent, the people will be terrified and maybe some will die of heart attacks from all the swooping and flipping, etc.).

What I’m saying are errors are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted for dealing with modernity. They were errors in judgment – the wrong choices of strategy (at least I think; a friend of mine has a very convincing argument that Vatican II was exactly what the church needed, though conciliar enthusiasts would not much enjoy hearing that argument). This doesn’t put me out of communion with the Church because the Church itself doesn’t teach that it will always make the optimal choice 100% of the time, and if you think it does, then you are in the very awkward position of thinking that Vatican finances are A-OK or that it handled the sex abuse cases just fine. Nor does it entail disobedience on my part. I may not the like the mess but I do my required part in it, even as I work within my station to repair it (e.g., volunteering to teach RCIA classes).

Great post. Love the analogy!

 

[jam070406]

There were no errors in Vatican II.

To say there were puts the person in grave danger of being out of communion with the Church.

Read this thoroughly: ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/

There were certainly errors that came out of misinterpretations. That’s why Dominus Iesus was issued.
To deny this is to deny reality.

 

[jam070406]

I guess this is directed at me. Review my words here:

Abp. DiNoia himself acknowledges this in the article you forward along, when he says that parts of Vatican II documents are “imprecise.” Again, God did not promise “You’ll teach everything perfectly all the time.” He simply promised He would not let us teach falsehood. There’s a whole range of values between teaching falsehood and teaching the entire truth as perfectly as possible. There’s no guarantee we’ll have the latter, just a guarantee we won’t have the former, which doesn’t preclude the possibility of ambiguity, imprecision, etc.

There’s an attitude that man really isn’t at the wheel here so the Church cannot possibly do anything wrong, even the little stuff. Well, maybe man’s not at the wheel and God is, but man’s certainly a copilot, and a copilot can do a lot to screw up a flight. (Let’s keep building that metaphor: the pilot is talented enough that He’ll touch the plane down on the runway no matter how inattentive, imprecise, etc., his copilot is, but the crappiness of the copilot means the flight’s going to take longer, it’s going to be extremely turbulent, the people will be terrified and maybe some will die of heart attacks from all the swooping and flipping, etc.).

What I’m saying are errors are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted for dealing with modernity. They were errors in judgment – the wrong choices of strategy (at least I think; a friend of mine has a very convincing argument that Vatican II was exactly what the church needed, though conciliar enthusiasts would not much enjoy hearing that argument). This doesn’t put me out of communion with the Church because the Church itself doesn’t teach that it will always make the optimal choice 100% of the time, and if you think it does, then you are in the very awkward position of thinking that Vatican finances are A-OK or that it handled the sex abuse cases just fine. Nor does it entail disobedience on my part. I may not the like the mess but I do my required part in it, even as I work within my station to repair it (e.g., volunteering to teach RCIA classes).

There is a good talk by Robert Sungenis that can be found on YouTube.
It’s called “Was God behind the ambiguities of Vatican II?”
He unpacks it all quite well.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I guess this is directed at me. Review my words here:

Abp. DiNoia himself acknowledges this in the article you forward along, when he says that parts of Vatican II documents are “imprecise.” Again, God did not promise “You’ll teach everything perfectly all the time.” He simply promised He would not let us teach falsehood. There’s a whole range of values between teaching falsehood and teaching the entire truth as perfectly as possible. There’s no guarantee we’ll have the latter, just a guarantee we won’t have the former, which doesn’t preclude the possibility of ambiguity, imprecision, etc.

There’s an attitude that man really isn’t at the wheel here so the Church cannot possibly do anything wrong, even the little stuff. Well, maybe man’s not at the wheel and God is, but man’s certainly a copilot, and a copilot can do a lot to screw up a flight. (Let’s keep building that metaphor: the pilot is talented enough that He’ll touch the plane down on the runway no matter how inattentive, imprecise, etc., his copilot is, but the crappiness of the copilot means the flight’s going to take longer, it’s going to be extremely turbulent, the people will be terrified and maybe some will die of heart attacks from all the swooping and flipping, etc.).

What I’m saying are errors are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted for dealing with modernity. They were errors in judgment – the wrong choices of strategy (at least I think; a friend of mine has a very convincing argument that Vatican II was exactly what the church needed, though conciliar enthusiasts would not much enjoy hearing that argument). This doesn’t put me out of communion with the Church because the Church itself doesn’t teach that it will always make the optimal choice 100% of the time, and if you think it does, then you are in the very awkward position of thinking that Vatican finances are A-OK or that it handled the sex abuse cases just fine. Nor does it entail disobedience on my part. I may not the like the mess but I do my required part in it, even as I work within my station to repair it (e.g., volunteering to teach RCIA classes).

Excellent explanation.

 

[TimothyH]

I agree with your propositions but I might as well point out that 4, potentially 5, and potentially 6 seem rather “external” by your definition. I think you have defeated your own argument. You say that externals are not important but then say how the Church should patronize the arts. ??? Of course she should! But if she should patronize the arts then it isn’t too much of a logical leap to say that the Church should be resplendent in every other external way insofar as possible.

I am trying to use specific examples to illustrate larger, more elusive principles. As I said, Latin and cassocks are not “the” Faith, but these and other related external things make up the corpus of how we sensually EXPERIENCE the Faith–even if we don’t “like” every one of these things–and are almost just as important to us on a psychological level as the Sacraments are to our souls.

We are not emotionless, perfectly intellectual brains. We are body, soul and mind, and if we neglect one aspect of it–and I think it is clear that I think we have been neglecting our psychological and physical dependency on externals for identity purposes–then we are not doing a particularly good job.

We can say what we “think” would be “the best way” of living the faith in some fantasyland where people aren’t limited by the human condition and the natural world, but that is not the way it works. We are limited by the human condition and we live in the natural world and that is why building brutal modernist churches, sacropop, awful liturgy, and a lack of people praying devotions are wrong. In a perfect world it wouldn’t matter what our churches look like, what music we have at Mass, how sloppy Father is at the altar. But since we live in the natural world and since the human condition limits us, these things do matter.

For you.

You like Latin and cassocks. That’s how you like to sensually experience the faith. These things are just as important to you on a psychological level as the Sacraments are to your soul.

These things are important to you, and you are projecting your desire for identity through them onto others, and that isn’t fair. These things are your preferences.

I have experienced my faith, and recieved my identity as a Christian and as a Catholic through the crucible of half a century of living my life, not yours - my eyes and my ears, the death of my family members, birth of my children, the moral sense of scripture as it applies to my personal situation and the everyday struggles in my life.

We are not emotionless, perfectly intellectual brains.

Your idenity is somehow bound to architecture, and music, and language. Mine is not. These things are as important to your psychological help as the sacraments are to your spiritual health, but they are not as important to me. Trust me. I know me better than you know me. We are not emotionless. We are individuals. I am an individual. Please stop projecting your emotional and spiritual needs onto me.

Please?

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

For you.

You like Latin and cassocks. That’s how you like to sensually experience the faith. These things are just as important to you on a psychological level as the Sacraments are to your soul.

These things are important to you, and you are projecting your desire for identity through them onto others, and that isn’t fair. These things are your preferences.

I have experienced my faith, and recieved my identity as a Christian and as a Catholic through the crucible of half a century of living my life, not yours - my eyes and my ears, the death of my family members, birth of my children, the moral sense of scripture as it applies to my personal situation and the everyday struggles in my life.

Your idenity is somehow bound to architecture, and music, and language. Mine is not. These things are as important to your psychological help as the sacraments are to your spiritual health, but they are not as important to me. Trust me. I know me better than you know me. We are not emotionless. We are individuals. I am an individual. Please stop projecting your emotional and spiritual needs onto me.

Please?

-Tim-

As I have said innumerable times before, I am using specific examples to illustrate a larger principle about the psychological need for a strong outward and perceivable identity for any group to have any measure of cohesion, and all the more for such an institution as God’s Church. I am not, in fact, arguing from the viewpoint of “likes.” Just because it so happens that I like many of the things (but not all) that I have used as examples does not mean that I am telling you what you must like. For example, the Rosary–one of my examples–is by far not my favorite prayer, but I use it as an example of a part of traditional Catholic identity, and it fits in traditional Catholic identity so much that it is practically unthinkable to not have it in the life of the Church.

I am not arguing about likes and dislikes. I am using tangible examples–and yes, Latin and clerical dress are validly among them–to explain why it is necessary to show a strong outward, visible identity, an identity that does not change on a whim and without extremely good reason. Regardless of whether we like how that identity has been traditionally shown or not.

I believe you have taken this the wrong way. Please stop acting like I have targeted you in some sort of personal attack when I have done nothing but pursue an impersonal argument of using examples to show a principle.