What does it mean to be a traditional parish?

[mommamaree]

Okay, I enjoy learning loads of interesting things about my new faith here in the Traditional Catholicism forum at CAF. But I must confess I am still ignorant about what it means to be traditional or liberal, as a Catholic or as a parish. In my parish, we have no Latin mass, nor do many women headcover. Are those the only things that differentiate between traditional and liberal? Also, please enlighten me as to appropriate use and definition of these terms I see used a lot: OF, NO or Novus Ordo, EF, TLM. I cannot tell what kind of parish I am in, and I am wondering also, isn’t it wrong of me to be looking for such a label? But with so much discussion here of Vatican II and liturgical abuse and conservative, traditional, liberal parishes, I am left wondering what type of parish I belong to…?

 

[angelic06]

OF= Ordinary Form (of the Roman Mass)
EF= Extraordinary Form (of the Roman Mass)

NO= Novus Ordo (New Order of the Roman Mass)
TLM= Traditional Latin Mass

OF=NO=Mass of Paul VI= Mass currently in effect for most Latin (Roman) Catholic parishes, experienced by most Roman Catholics in the venacular.

EF=TLM (I haven’t been to one myself, but I hear that it is very beautiful. This is where we get a lot of discussion regarding headcoverings for women.)

 

[mommamaree]

OF= Ordinary Form (of the Roman Mass)
EF= Extraordinary Form (of the Roman Mass)

NO= Novus Ordo (New Order of the Roman Mass)
TLM= Traditional Latin Mass

OF=NO=Mass of Paul VI= Mass currently in effect for most Latin (Roman) Catholic parishes, experienced by most Roman Catholics in the venacular.

EF=TLM (I haven’t been to one myself, but I hear that it is very beautiful. This is where we get a lot of discussion regarding headcoverings for women.)

So, does it mainly have to do with the language spoken during the Mass?

 

[MarkThompson]

So, does it mainly have to do with the language spoken during the Mass?

That’s usually the easiest way to tell, however the Mass of Paul VI (i.e. the current Mass) is actually written in Latin originally, and can be celebrated in Latin, though this is rare.

There are substantial differences between the two forms of the Mass other than the language, though. The extraordinary form (i.e. the TLM), has a number of prayers that are not in the modern form, most of the prayers including the consecration are said in an inaudibly low voice, there is only one reading before the Gospel, and a variety of other things are different. You can read all the texts and the rubrics (instructions) for the extraordinary form here.

 

[corsair]

May I suggest that you do an internet search for “Side by Side comparison of the EF and OF Masses.”

there are many differences in the prayers as well as the Ritual itself. Generally speaking a Traditional Parish is one that offers the EF Mass and its Sacraments. Although the Mass has always “evolved”, the changes were most dramatic during the 1960’s and 1970’s. In fact many a Cardinal has refered to the “rupture” with tradition within the Pauline Mass (OF).

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has boldly begun a Reform of the Reform. This move should bring together (over time) both forms of the Mass. Perhaps in 100 years all of this Hullabalu will be barely remembered.

Many of us Traditional Catholics get very emotional about what has happened in the last 45 years. We wait with hope and prayer that before we die we’ll experience the old Mass again at least once a Sunday in every parish.

well, we can dream. its kept us going since 1970.

 

[Cathryn]

But I must confess I am still ignorant about what it means to be traditional or liberal, as a Catholic or as a parish. In my parish, we have no Latin mass, nor do many women headcover. Are those the only things that differentiate between traditional and liberal?

You are asking a complex question. There are so many variables. I would call some parishes who do not offer the Traditional Latin Mass traditional if they are orthodox and try to be in line with the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. I also personally refer to parishes as liberal if they do “their own thing”, and are not concerned about what the Holy Father wants the Church to be doing. If they are more concerned about everyone being comfortable and happy, than reverent, they are probably liberal.

My own parish has a traditional diocesan pastor who offers both the Novus Ordo Mass (English post Vatican II Mass) and the Traditional Latin Mass. Even if he didn’t say the Traditional Latin Mass 2X a week, he would still be a traditional priest because he believes and loves the traditions of the Church. Like Pope Benedict says, what was sacred at one period of time in the history of the Church remains sacred today. I generally call a priest traditional if they respect in their words and actions the traditions of the Church. Examples: Does the priest, and laity genuflect to the tabernacle? Does the priest encourage frequent Confession? Is belief in the Real Presence reflected in how the parish behaves. Is there a llot of talking going on in Church? Is it accepted as normal. Do people act as if they are in an auditorium rather than the house of God?

A traditional parish is reverent and puts God first. The teachings of the Church are promoted. Our feelings are secondary. I hope this helps, I am sure you will get varied answers to your questions. I personally consider myself orthodox rather than traditional and I love all forms of the Mass, as long as the Mass is done reverently and in conformity to the rules of the Church.

 

[mommamaree]

You are asking a complex question. There are so many variables. I would call some parishes who do not offer the Traditional Latin Mass traditional if they are orthodox and try to be in line with the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. I also personally refer to parishes as liberal if they do “their own thing”, and are not concerned about what the Holy Father wants the Church to be doing. If they are more concerned about everyone being comfortable and happy, than reverent, they are probably liberal.

My own parish has a traditional diocesan pastor who offers both the Novus Ordo Mass (English post Vatican II Mass) and the Traditional Latin Mass. Even if he didn’t say the Traditional Latin Mass 2X a week, he would still be a traditional priest because he believes and loves the traditions of the Church. Like Pope Benedict says, what was sacred at one period of time in the history of the Church remains sacred today. I generally call a priest traditional if they respect in their words and actions the traditions of the Church. Examples: Does the priest, and laity genuflect to the tabernacle? Does the priest encourage frequent Confession? Is belief in the Real Presence reflected in how the parish behaves. Is there a llot of talking going on in Church? Is it accepted as normal. Do people act as if they are in an auditorium rather than the house of God?

A traditional parish is reverent and puts God first. The teachings of the Church are promoted. Our feelings are secondary. I hope this helps, I am sure you will get varied answers to your questions. I personally consider myself orthodox rather than traditional and I love all forms of the Mass, as long as the Mass is done reverently and in conformity to the rules of the Church.

Wow. I had no idea how complex this issue is. From the picture you are painting with your description here, I think my parish tends to be rather traditional. For example, recently our priest gave a rather long homily on who may receive communion. He used the readings of the day to demonstrate how the Church has always had requirements for the faithful to follow in order to be prepared for communion. I really liked listening to that homily, because it encouraged me that our priest and our parish are following the teachings of the Church. And I love to watch everyone after they receive communion. My family sits up front so our children can see, and we are able to witness the reverent behavior of the communicants. But we do not have a Latin mass. We do not have a lot of talking. Most of us do genuflect toward the tabernacle (as a new Catholic who loves this practice, I tend to remember, but my husband who is also new and cannot figure out the genuflecting thing will still remember to bow about half the time). Your explanation has given me much to think about. I am thankful for that, because with the ruckus caused over liturgical abuse issues that I witness here at CAF, I really started wondering about things. When I first decided to come into the Catholic faith, I thought Catholic was Catholic, and that was that. How naive I was! But I really love our new parish and my new faith, and I am especially thankful for the guidance and wisdom of our new priest.

 

[Famule]

So, does it mainly have to do with the language spoken during the Mass?

Here is nice footage of a TLM. It may look like something from Mars the first time you see it. That’s what I thought the first time I went to one. Now that I have learned much about it, am now serving it as a Master of Ceremonies, it makes more sense to me than the Novus Ordo. You have to study it to really understand it. There is a reason for everything that is done.

Copy and paste this link:

sanctamissa.org/en/tutorial/missa-solemnis/missa-solemnis-rorate-ewtn-2007.html

 

[ljubim]

A “traditional” parish doesn’t have to have the EF, or even Latin. The main thing is that people are educated and faithful to the teachings and traditions of the Church.

Some things that can flag a parish as unorthodox/liberal/progressive:
-Nobody bows at the “by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born unto the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
-Over half of the congregation does orans posture/hand holding during the Our Father (orans posture is like an exaggerated shrug, like you’d see on cartoons.)
-There’s talk about women’s ordination, odd things like that.
-There’s blatant liturgical abuse (like dancers, people trampling all over the sanctuary, changing the words of the consecration, etc)
-People go crazy with the Sign of Peace (people walk all over the church for over a minute)
-The music is the more recent stuff in the OCP book, or anything shallow and with mostly guitars.
-There’s applause (the Pope said something about applause being the sign of a total disintegration of the liturgy)
-Few genuflect, or they genuflect to the altar rather than the Tabernacle, if they’ve moved it.
-They’ve moved the Tabernacle either to the side or totally out of sight (touristy cathedrals are the exception)
-People don’t kneel during the consecration!!! / No kneelers in the church!
-People chat loudly before and after Mass, making prayer virtually impossible.

If any of these happen at your parish, you might be in a less traditional environment. Good things at Mass are incense, chant/polyphony for music, ornate vestments and statues, strong pro-life focus, at least occasional Latin, priest that is not showy or acting like a performer. Also, long lines for confession are very good, and announcements about “Only Catholics who are not aware of any grave sins are able to receive the Eucharist.”

 

[mommamaree]

A “traditional” parish doesn’t have to have the EF, or even Latin. The main thing is that people are educated and faithful to the teachings and traditions of the Church.

Some things that can flag a parish as unorthodox/liberal/progressive:
-Nobody bows at the “by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born unto the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
-Over half of the congregation does orans posture/hand holding during the Our Father (orans posture is like an exaggerated shrug, like you’d see on cartoons.)
-There’s talk about women’s ordination, odd things like that.
-There’s blatant liturgical abuse (like dancers, people trampling all over the sanctuary, changing the words of the consecration, etc)
-People go crazy with the Sign of Peace (people walk all over the church for over a minute)
-The music is the more recent stuff in the OCP book, or anything shallow and with mostly guitars.
-There’s applause (the Pope said something about applause being the sign of a total disintegration of the liturgy)
-Few genuflect, or they genuflect to the altar rather than the Tabernacle, if they’ve moved it.
-They’ve moved the Tabernacle either to the side or totally out of sight (touristy cathedrals are the exception)
-People don’t kneel during the consecration!!! / No kneelers in the church!
-People chat loudly before and after Mass, making prayer virtually impossible.

If any of these happen at your parish, you might be in a less traditional environment. Good things at Mass are incense, chant/polyphony for music, ornate vestments and statues, strong pro-life focus, at least occasional Latin, priest that is not showy or acting like a performer. Also, long lines for confession are very good, and announcements about “Only Catholics who are not aware of any grave sins are able to receive the Eucharist.”

Well, I bow at that point in the creed. It clearly directs us to do so in our hymnal and missal, and also in the Magnificat booklet I subscribed to. I don’t see many others doing so, although the priest does.
About half of the people hold their arms out palms facing up or actually hold hands with their families during the Our Father. Again, it clearly states in my book (can’t remember the name, but it was a gift for our RCIA class) on postures during the Mass that this should not be done, so I and my family follow the Church’s teachings, even if others ignore it.
Never seen any of those blatant liturgical abuses that you listed, but the priest does offer a blessing during the communion procession to candidates in the RCIA class and also to the very young Catholic children. I know this is controversial and there are plenty of documents online that either deny the validity of this practice or question the validity of the documents that deny the validity of this practice. [Sigh]
We sing the Gloria in English, and also most of the prayers and responses. I have never heard ordination of women even mentioned. The Sign of the Peace is joyful but only shared with our immediate neighbors, not clear across the room. Music is from the hymnal, and is led by the choir at the back of the church and is accompanied by a piano (an organ for those services that can actually fit in the church). We do not kneel on the hard floor between the tight rows of chairs while celebrating Mass in the parish hall, but do use the kneelers when we can pack in the church. It is quiet prior to Mass, but a bit rowdy as everyone leaves the echoing hall en masse following the Mass. It does bother me greatly that a lot of people take off during the last hymn, but at least they aren’t taking off right after communion. I just don’t like the dwindling voices during our last hymn.
The Tabernacle is directly behind the altar, so I am not sure to which people are genuflecting. Being a new Catholic, I still feel somewhat distracted when genuflecting toward the Tabernacle because there is a huge beautiful painting of our Lord on the cross directly above the Tabernacle. But my priest assured me in RCIA that genuflecting in the direction of the Tabernacle while reflecting on the beautiful painting is appropriate, and that the painting actually aids him in worship, too. (Remember this is in the parish hall; our church is set up in the more traditional style, but we just cannot possibly fit everyone!)
We do occasionally use Latin (definitely all the way through Lent), we use incense on certain days but not others, we use chanting of some sort every week although I am ignorant about what the type and purpose of the chanting is.
The time when I went for confession, the line was short but it was still a long wait. Our most recent homily dealt with not coming to Communion if not in a state of grace. Very strong pro-life focus, priest not at all showy.
So, it seems like we are quite traditional in some things except for the blessing during communion and the body posture during the Our Father. I really liked going through your list, it really helped me to see things more clearly. It seems like some people in our parish are determined to follow the guidelines set down in the literature provided us by our parish on how to conduct oneself during Mass, and others want to do as they see fit. But the amazing thing is, I was already feeling uncomfortable about the things that should not be happening, because it just didn’t feel right. And now, having read those books on Mass and visited here frequently, I know why!

 

[mommamaree]

I also want to post a clarification here, for those who might misunderstand my purpose in this thread. I am not trying to find a way to point fingers at others and play holier-than-thou, but was really curious to understand what is meant by traditional/conservative vs. liberal. Having only been to one Catholic church, my parish, it was all I knew, and from visiting this forum, I begin to understand that there are some parishes that are not in line with the Church in their teachings or actions. I guess I just wanted some reassurance. And while I realize that there are a couple of issues in our parish, overall, I feel greatly relieved to see that my parish is not just doing their own thing and defying authority right and left.

 

[otjm]

When you ask for definitions, it some times depends on whom you are asking as to what answer you will get.

There is no official definition of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in regards to parishes, and further there is no offical definition of the term “traditional”.

The net result is that one person will define the terms one way, another will have a different spin on, a third person might actually have two definitions, and someone else will probably contradict all of the above.

The term “orthodox” might be easier to define. With a small “o” (excpet of course, at the beginning of a sentance - which confuses the whole question ), the term “orthodox” should mean “following what Rome says”. That, too, can end up being defined by come people differently (just get into a discussion about Extrordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or femal altar servers, or Communion in the hand and watch the fur fly).

Liberal can mean someone who very strongly believes in following the Social Gospel, or following the documents from Rome which have spoken to us concerning our duties towards our brethern. It can also mean people who bend or break the rubrics of the Mass. And further, it can mean people who espouse ideas which the Church has firmly rejected, such as women being ordained, or gay marriage. So you can see that trying to get an exact definition is risky unless one puts all the qualifiers “on the table”.

So also the issue of conservatives. I have a few friends who consider me to be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun; and a few others who think I am somewhere to the left of Trotsky. Essentially, they measure my “political” stance in comparison to theirs, rather than to a fixed standard upon which we can all agree, and from which we mark our “liberalness” or our “conservativeness”. I do not consider it “conservative” to follow Rome, but some others do. And some feel that following Rome is “liberal” as they do not agree with some of the decisions Rome has made.

This may not serve to give you an answer; but hopefully it will prevent you from getting sucked down into a quagmire that might begin to resemble what Alice found when she fell down the rabbit hole.

Welcome to the Catholic Church! I don’t recall who the wag was who said that the term Catholic means “Here comes everybody!”, but he wasn’t far wrong.

 

[ljubim]

Well, I bow at that point in the creed. It clearly directs us to do so in our hymnal and missal, and also in the Magnificat booklet I subscribed to. I don’t see many others doing so, although the priest does.
About half of the people hold their arms out palms facing up or actually hold hands with their families during the Our Father. Again, it clearly states in my book (can’t remember the name, but it was a gift for our RCIA class) on postures during the Mass that this should not be done, so I and my family follow the Church’s teachings, even if others ignore it.
Never seen any of those blatant liturgical abuses that you listed, but the priest does offer a blessing during the communion procession to candidates in the RCIA class and also to the very young Catholic children. I know this is controversial and there are plenty of documents online that either deny the validity of this practice or question the validity of the documents that deny the validity of this practice. [Sigh]
We sing the Gloria in English, and also most of the prayers and responses. I have never heard ordination of women even mentioned. The Sign of the Peace is joyful but only shared with our immediate neighbors, not clear across the room. Music is from the hymnal, and is led by the choir at the back of the church and is accompanied by a piano (an organ for those services that can actually fit in the church). We do not kneel on the hard floor between the tight rows of chairs while celebrating Mass in the parish hall, but do use the kneelers when we can pack in the church. It is quiet prior to Mass, but a bit rowdy as everyone leaves the echoing hall en masse following the Mass. It does bother me greatly that a lot of people take off during the last hymn, but at least they aren’t taking off right after communion. I just don’t like the dwindling voices during our last hymn.
The Tabernacle is directly behind the altar, so I am not sure to which people are genuflecting. Being a new Catholic, I still feel somewhat distracted when genuflecting toward the Tabernacle because there is a huge beautiful painting of our Lord on the cross directly above the Tabernacle. But my priest assured me in RCIA that genuflecting in the direction of the Tabernacle while reflecting on the beautiful painting is appropriate, and that the painting actually aids him in worship, too. (Remember this is in the parish hall; our church is set up in the more traditional style, but we just cannot possibly fit everyone!)
We do occasionally use Latin (definitely all the way through Lent), we use incense on certain days but not others, we use chanting of some sort every week although I am ignorant about what the type and purpose of the chanting is.
The time when I went for confession, the line was short but it was still a long wait. Our most recent homily dealt with not coming to Communion if not in a state of grace. Very strong pro-life focus, priest not at all showy.
So, it seems like we are quite traditional in some things except for the blessing during communion and the body posture during the Our Father. I really liked going through your list, it really helped me to see things more clearly. It seems like some people in our parish are determined to follow the guidelines set down in the literature provided us by our parish on how to conduct oneself during Mass, and others want to do as they see fit. But the amazing thing is, I was already feeling uncomfortable about the things that should not be happening, because it just didn’t feel right. And now, having read those books on Mass and visited here frequently, I know why!

It sounds like a great parish If you don’t mind me asking, what sorts of things go on at your parish that you think shouldn’t be happening? Or did I misunderstand your post…

 

[Dancelittleewok]

A “traditional” parish doesn’t have to have the EF, or even Latin. The main thing is that people are educated and faithful to the teachings and traditions of the Church.

Some things that can flag a parish as unorthodox/liberal/progressive:
-Nobody bows at the “by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born unto the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
-Over half of the congregation does orans posture/hand holding during the Our Father (orans posture is like an exaggerated shrug, like you’d see on cartoons.)
-There’s talk about women’s ordination, odd things like that.
-There’s blatant liturgical abuse (like dancers, people trampling all over the sanctuary, changing the words of the consecration, etc)
-People go crazy with the Sign of Peace (people walk all over the church for over a minute)
-The music is the more recent stuff in the OCP book, or anything shallow and with mostly guitars.
-There’s applause (the Pope said something about applause being the sign of a total disintegration of the liturgy)
-Few genuflect, or they genuflect to the altar rather than the Tabernacle, if they’ve moved it.
-They’ve moved the Tabernacle either to the side or totally out of sight (touristy cathedrals are the exception)
-People don’t kneel during the consecration!!! / No kneelers in the church!
-People chat loudly before and after Mass, making prayer virtually impossible.

If any of these happen at your parish, you might be in a less traditional environment. Good things at Mass are incense, chant/polyphony for music, ornate vestments and statues, strong pro-life focus, at least occasional Latin, priest that is not showy or acting like a performer. Also, long lines for confession are very good, and announcements about “Only Catholics who are not aware of any grave sins are able to receive the Eucharist.”

My parish is borked.

 

[mommamaree]

It sounds like a great parish If you don’t mind me asking, what sorts of things go on at your parish that you think shouldn’t be happening? Or did I misunderstand your post…

It is a great parish, led by a great priest who loves his flock. I don’t mind you asking concerning the liturgical abuse issue, but I just didn’t want to derail my thread with a debate. At my parish, the priest and the deacon will give a blessing to the RCIA candidates or to the young babies and children of the Catholic families during the communion procession. I realize the controversy of this practice, and do not want to get into a heated debate, as happened in another thread when I made what I thought was an innocent observation. As a result, I refuse to line-jump to receive communion from the priest at this time, even though the priest and deacon both said that would be fine for us to do if our daughter wanted to receive a blessing at that time. My husband, who has not been exposed to this debate, and who is not embarassed to line-jump, will cross the parish hall with our children to allow them to receive their blessing while he receives communion, while I stay put in the line closest to our seat.
Also, we have nearly a thousand people at each Mass, and we have four Sunday masses each weekend, with only one parish priest, so we have quite a few EMHCs, which brings me back to the point of allowing children to line-jump.
Another point is that our priest has in mind that our daughter may be ready for her first Holy Communion sooner than her age peers, because she is very upset that she may not yet receive, and because we have had repeated long discussions about the Real Presence. She always refers to Communion as ‘receiving the body and blood of Jesus’ and asks questions like ‘how is Jesus able to keep giving his body and blood every day to Catholics and still have anything left’. I have received some excellent counsel from our deacon and priest on how to answer these questions, and our priest feels that because of her witnessing her mommy and daddy having conversations on spiritual matters on a regular basis, she might not have to wait three more years for her first communion. I hope this is what happens, honestly, and so I do not want to squash her interest in going forward to receive a blessing when she has specifically been welcomed in doing so by her priest. See why I didn’t initially post the liturgical abuse issue? I hope that anyone who reads this will have compassion upon me and my daughter and will not start a crazy debate on this thread.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I would draw a distinction between traditional Catholic (individual, priest, parish, etc.) and a conservative Catholic. The center of our faith must be, of course, the Mass. A Byzantine Catholic has a different view of the faith than a Traditional Roman Rite Catholic who has a different view than a Conservative New Roman Rite Catholic who has a different view from a Liberal/Modernist/Progressive Catholic.

Conservative NO Catholic are called in slang “neocaths”, in allusion to “neocons” (like “neocon”, it is often used by opponents, though sometimes self-applied). The allusion is apropos. A neo-conservative in politics has a similar but distinct worldview and political understanding than a traditional paleo-conservative; George W. Bush or Rush Limbaugh is different from Pat Buchanan or Sam Francis. A Traditionalist Catholic is, in my mind, analogous to a paleo-conservative in the political arena. Indeed, there is a significant connection between paleo-conservatism and Traditional Catholicism.

Pat Buchanan referred to paleo-conservatives when he said “We are old church and old right, anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist, disbelievers in Pax Americana. We love the old republic…” This differs from the neo-conservative, New Right, politician who is imperialist and interventionist (“first strike”, hawkish). In France, it was the traditionalist monarchists who advocated the return of the Ancien Regime after the French Revolution.

A conservative is thoroughly in favor of the reforms of Vatican II though without the “spirit of Vatican II” advocated by the liberal. A traditionalist takes Vatican II with a heap of salt, always judging interpretations of it by Tradition. A conservative is in favor of the New Mass, though he decries the abuses committed by the liberal. A traditionalist has at least a marked preference for the Traditional Mass. Consequently, there is a difference in spirituality and worldview.

Major traditionalist groups include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS). The SSPX is in a odd position with the Catholic Church, neither in full communion nor in full schism, which causes some contention though that will be hopefully resolved soon. The FSSP and ICRSS are in full communion.

There are also sedevacantist* groups, such as the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), who are fully separated from the Catholic Church and do not recognize Pope Benedict XVI. I always think of them like the Catholic counterpart to the hard-line Protestant Fundamentalists (who are always convinced they are the last true Christian on earth…). But just as paleocons are not KKK members or neo-Nazis, authentic and orthodox traditionalists are distinct from extremist sedevacantist, sedeprivationist, conclavist or mysticist “traditionalists”.

We don’t know yet really how to understand Vatican II and what is the future of the New Mass. The Pope has been trying to emphasize a “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than one “of rupture” with how we regard Vatican II. He has also been favorable to the traditionalists in regards to the direction of the altar (facing God rather than the people) and the silent Canon (see “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, written as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). He has advocated the conservative position of “Reform of the Reform”. Although he has been critical about the creation of the New Mass, he believes it can be reformed. This is in contrast to the position of some (many?) traditionalists that we should return to the 1962 Missal and develop from there.

Traditionalists and conservatives get along in many areas, but they still remain distinct perspectives on the Church and the Faith.
* sede = "chair", "vacante" = "empty". The period of "sede vacante" is the period between the death (or resignation) of one pope and the election of another. To the sedevacantist, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Paul VI, (and sometimes Pope John XXIII) are not actually popes but heretics who have usurped the Chair of St. Peter.

 

[ljubim]

It is a great parish, led by a great priest who loves his flock. I don’t mind you asking concerning the liturgical abuse issue, but I just didn’t want to derail my thread with a debate. At my parish, the priest and the deacon will give a blessing to the RCIA candidates or to the young babies and children of the Catholic families during the communion procession. I realize the controversy of this practice, and do not want to get into a heated debate, as happened in another thread when I made what I thought was an innocent observation. As a result, I refuse to line-jump to receive communion from the priest at this time, even though the priest and deacon both said that would be fine for us to do if our daughter wanted to receive a blessing at that time. My husband, who has not been exposed to this debate, and who is not embarassed to line-jump, will cross the parish hall with our children to allow them to receive their blessing while he receives communion, while I stay put in the line closest to our seat.
Also, we have nearly a thousand people at each Mass, and we have four Sunday masses each weekend, with only one parish priest, so we have quite a few EMHCs, which brings me back to the point of allowing children to line-jump.
Another point is that our priest has in mind that our daughter may be ready for her first Holy Communion sooner than her age peers, because she is very upset that she may not yet receive, and because we have had repeated long discussions about the Real Presence. She always refers to Communion as ‘receiving the body and blood of Jesus’ and asks questions like ‘how is Jesus able to keep giving his body and blood every day to Catholics and still have anything left’. I have received some excellent counsel from our deacon and priest on how to answer these questions, and our priest feels that because of her witnessing her mommy and daddy having conversations on spiritual matters on a regular basis, she might not have to wait three more years for her first communion. I hope this is what happens, honestly, and so I do not want to squash her interest in going forward to receive a blessing when she has specifically been welcomed in doing so by her priest. See why I didn’t initially post the liturgical abuse issue? I hope that anyone who reads this will have compassion upon me and my daughter and will not start a crazy debate on this thread.

Call me crazy, but I think in a few cases (even though I’ve seen all the CDWDS letters specifically reproaching this), mild liturgical abuse is almost impossible to escape, and can be tolerated, perhaps with a light hearted comment to the priest or an innocent question. In America/the West probably 99% of parishes have their own pet abuse. I’m not trying to degrade the seriousness of them, just saying finding an orthodox parish is a lifetime accomplishment, you know? I wouldn’t worry so much… maybe just show your priest the CDWDS letters and ask if he’s ever heard of this (you seeming shocked and confused, asking him what this means )

Definitely you guys are doing right by your daughter That’s wonderful!!!

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Call me crazy, but I think in a few cases (even though I’ve seen all the CDWDS letters specifically reproaching this), mild liturgical abuse is almost impossible to escape, and can be tolerated, perhaps with a light hearted comment to the priest or an innocent question. In America/the West probably 99% of parishes have their own pet abuse. I’m not trying to degrade the seriousness of them, just saying finding an orthodox parish is a lifetime accomplishment, you know? I wouldn’t worry so much… maybe just show your priest the CDWDS letters and ask if he’s ever heard of this (you seeming shocked and confused, asking him what this means )

Definitely you guys are doing right by your daughter That’s wonderful!!!

Well, it depends on what constitutes “an abuse” in contrast to a simple variation. Even in the Traditional Rite, there are many variations, think about how many different forms there were prior to the Council of the Trent and even now there are many different variations in the West.

For example, we have the Second Confiteor (which was removed in 1962) and a limited number of server responses are said by the faithful (though nothing approaching a full 1960’s “Dialogue Mass”). When I went to Clear Creek, the Last Gospel is said by the priest privately as he walks away rather than at the altar (the Last Gospel started as part of the prayers of thanksgiving after Mass but Trent confirmed the practice of saying it at the altar but there are still licit variations).

Some people consider things which are licit to be an abuse – the altar facing the people, Communion in the hand, EMHCs, altar girls, etc. So it really depends on what your definition of “an abuse” is. If you are restricting your definition to things which are actually illicit, there are fewer than you might think. The rubrics / GIRM of the NO are very loose.