What exactly does "Traditional Catholicism" mean?

[friardchips]

Actually, I think that piety has more to do with our love for God. Because of our love for God, we also love His Church and His vicar on earth. But love for God comes first.

Pious love starts with Him, yes. I agree. If we love our Creator, the signs of this will follow in our love for His Holy Church (His gift to humankind), and respect for the line of St. Peter (the annointing). If we love our Creator, then we also love the Person Who IS the Holy Spirit, and the amazing work He does in the Church to guide us and console us.

 

[Denise1957]

Pious love starts with Him, yes. I agree. If we love our Creator, the signs of this will follow in our love for His Holy Church (His gift to humankind), and respect for the line of St. Peter (the annointing). If we love our Creator, then we also love the Person Who IS the Holy Spirit, and the amazing work He does in the Church to guide us and console us.

And yet we are not required to accept as gospel truth everything that our Pope utters. The upcoming encyclical on the environment, for example. I doubt that it will be promulgated De Fide; therefore, we do not have to accept it as part of the Deposit of Faith. We can disagree with the Pope in regards to his views on the environment (hopefully in a respectful manner) Also, a faithful Catholic can disagree with the Pope. In general, the Pope himself must show (and is expected to show) obedience to Church teaching as an example of obedience for us to follow. He’s our primary example of obedience to Church teaching. At least in a traditional view, that is.

 

[Bookcat]

I find the name “traditional Catholic” as it often gets used — to be rather a misnomer.

All Catholics are to receive and hand on “Tradition” as part of being Catholic (thus be “traditional” ).

I know the term is used by some…often to denote a preference for the a particular period in Church history but I would love if they found a different one.

One that better describes the period they like particularly.

 

[Bookcat]

Excuse my ignorance but since joining CA I have come across the term so frequently.

I find the name “traditional Catholic” as it often gets used — to be rather a misnomer.

All Catholics are to receive and hand on “Tradition” as part of being Catholic (thus be “traditional” ).

I know the term is used by some…often to denote a preference for the a particular period in Church history but I would love if they found a different one.

One that better describes the period they like particularly.

 

[friardchips]

And yet we are not required to accept as gospel truth everything that our Pope utters.

We are required to trust that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Church is only another organisation. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith, morals and doctrine. This is a holy annointing.

The upcoming encyclical on the environment, for example. I doubt that it will be promulgated De Fide; therefore, we do not have to accept it as part of the Deposit of Faith. We can disagree with the Pope in regards to his views on the environment (hopefully in a respectful manner)

The environment comes under theology. Check out the very first Creation story. Either way, we could do first with questioning our own integrity if he makes a comment we do not agree with. He might well stay clear of making pronouncements about specific causes of climate change.

Also, a faithful Catholic can disagree with the Pope. In general, the Pope himself must show (and is expected to show) obedience to Church teaching as an example of obedience for us to follow. He’s our primary example of obedience to Church teaching. At least in a traditional view, that is.

One can. But all too often, there are wild assertions made about certain Popes being against traditions of the Church, when this simply is not true. We could do with questioning ourselves first to see if it is maybe us who don’t understand the greater picture. It is the Pope who has the annointed blessing of being the ‘Holy Father’, and the word ‘Holy’, is, to great detriment to the Church and her followers, often forgotten.

 

[Denise1957]

We are required to trust that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Church is only another organisation. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith, morals and doctrine. This is a holy annointing.

The environment comes under theology. Check out the very first Creation story. Either way, we could do first with questioning our own integrity if he makes a comment we do not agree with. He might well stay clear of making pronouncements about specific causes of climate change.

One can. But all too often, there are wild assertions made about certain Popes being against traditions of the Church, when this simply is not true. We could do with questioning ourselves first to see if it is maybe us who don’t understand the greater picture. It is the Pope who has the annointed blessing of being the ‘Holy Father’, and the word ‘Holy’, is, to great detriment to the Church and her followers, often forgotten.

I’ve never heard of the “anointing of the Holy Spirit” that you are referring to, regarding the Pope. Can you point to a traditional view of what it means? Thanks.

As far as the Pope will be talking about Creation, perhaps, in his encyclical, maybe you’re right, in that it falls into the category of theology. I hadn’t though of that before.

I agree that wild assertions have sometimes been made regarding the Pope and his allegiance to Church teaching. I generally try to see what is behind the sometimes strong (and at times cringeworthy) views of some Catholics, in particular, traditional Catholics, and why it is that they have such strong views. I think it’s important to have an understanding of where they’re coming from, even when I disagree with what they are saying, or how they are saying it.

 

[friardchips]

I’ve never heard of the “anointing of the Holy Spirit” that you are referring to, regarding the Pope. Can you point to a traditional view of what it means? Thanks.

As far as the Pope will be talking about Creation, perhaps, in his encyclical, maybe you’re right, in that it falls into the category of theology. I hadn’t though of that before.

I agree that wild assertions have sometimes been made regarding the Pope and his allegiance to Church teaching. I generally try to see what is behind the sometimes strong (and at times cringeworthy) views of some Catholics, in particular, traditional Catholics, and why it is that they have such strong views. I think it’s important to have an understanding of where they’re coming from, even when I disagree with what they are saying, or how they are saying it.

Check out King David and his annointing.

Reading into such things beyond a certain point is not advisable. One can know what goes on by reading material from pious authors without having to delve into murky territory.

 

[Denise1957]

Check out King David and his annointing.

Reading into such things beyond a certain point is not advisable. One can know what goes on by reading material from pious authors without having to delve into murky territory.

I don’t want to go too far off-topic, but I’m still not understanding what you mean by the ‘holy annointing’ regarding the Pope. You’ve mentioned it twice now, I think. I assume that there’s not a specific Church teaching about this. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[edwest2]

And yet the Ordinary Form of the Mass was not designed to be celebrated in Latin. It was designed to be said in the vernacular, so that the faithful could hear and understand every word. It depends solely on understanding everything the priest says, and understanding what responses are to be said by the laity.

The TLM, on the other hand, relies on some verbal cues, but also on non-verbal cues.

After all, how does God communicate with us? Does He speak to us directly, in our language? This is one of the reasons why I like the EF. The Mass is the sensible bond between Heaven and earth. Between God and us. Since God speaks to us in a non-verbal form, usually, I like that the EF also communicates non–verbally at times. There’s a sense of mystery to the Old Mass that is not present in the New Mass. It was not intended to be present in the New Mass, since it’s all about understanding and participation by the laity. That’s fine, as far as it goes. I like the New Mass well enough, but I absolutely love the Old Mass, but that’s just my opinion.

First, I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English on the same page.

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

Ed

 

[edwest2]

We are required to trust that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Church is only another organisation. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith, morals and doctrine. This is a holy annointing.

The environment comes under theology. Check out the very first Creation story. Either way, we could do first with questioning our own integrity if he makes a comment we do not agree with. He might well stay clear of making pronouncements about specific causes of climate change.

One can. But all too often, there are wild assertions made about certain Popes being against traditions of the Church, when this simply is not true. We could do with questioning ourselves first to see if it is maybe us who don’t understand the greater picture. It is the Pope who has the annointed blessing of being the ‘Holy Father’, and the word ‘Holy’, is, to great detriment to the Church and her followers, often forgotten.

Well said.

Ed

 

[Denise1957]

First, I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English on the same page.

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

Ed

Forgive me for being a bit thick here, but what point is it, exactly, that you’re trying to make? I’m not seeing how it relates to my post that you were responding to.

 

[Brendan_64]

I have to disagree. In the Nicene creed affirm the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We do not state the one holy (Roman) Catholic and apostolic church. We affirm the catholic ie universal church, this is why the Orthodox (right thinking) churches affirm the same creed (with the exception of the bit added on by the Roman church). So certainly the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches make part of the universal church as understood in the Nicene creed.

Nevertheless, there is no ‘invisible’ Church, outside the visible physical structures of the Catholic Church, which is made up of different denominations of Christians. Even the Orthodox are separated from our Church, they do not make up part of an invisible Church to whom we also belong…

Henry VIII did not found Anglicanism.

Yes he did, he split from Rome, declaring himself head of the Church in England. In doing so he created a separate schismatic Church

After all, England became (Roman) catholic again after the death of Henry’s son, Edward VI Queen Mary, very bloodily and forced England into becoming Roman again.

Yes,. because unlike Henry VIII, Mary was Catholic and loyal to Rome, unlike her father and her brother Edward who were not.

Also the term ‘Anglican’ is somewhat complicated. In England, Anglicanism is a part of the Church of England, which was founded by St Augustine of Canterbury. The Church of England has quite a wide spread of practices. From Anglicans (high church) to Evangelicals who tend to be very low church. This is just England, as in Ireland there is the Church of Ireland and in Scotland the Church of Scotland; neither of which is Anglican.

The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian (and has no connection to the Anglican Communion) but the Church of Ireland is most definitely Anglican.

By reciting the Creed we are not saying that we (as Catholics) are part of a wider Church, made up of other denominations of which we are one. There is no such wider Church. We are Catholics, part of the one true Church, and other Christians are our separated brethren whose ancestors have walked away from the one true Church and whom we sincerely hope will one day return to us.

 

[gracepoole]

First, I was there before and after Vatican II. Missals were available that had the Latin and English on the same page.

Pope Benedict:

Pope Benedict also had this to say about how Vatican II was understood by the media and the results of this:

[T]here was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the Council that immediately, effectively, got thorough to the people was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And meanwhile, the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellect, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the whole council – as I said – moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics.

The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help.

This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: “Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world”. Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat historically and nothing else, and so on.

And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. **So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized … and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. **

 

[gracepoole]

If people support gay marriage, abortion or any other controversial process not in line with Catholic teaching then they can call themselves Catholic but they are not, they are not even Christian.

Except that Thomas White wisely noted earlier in this thread that anyone baptized Catholic is always a Catholic.

Similarly, if people go around calling themselves Traditional Catholics, they may be Christian, but they are not Catholic, because, beyond the extra title, the details don’t matter: you are either Catholic, or nonCatholic, and if you call yourself Traditional Catholic, then this is not Catholic, so it has to be nonCatholic.

That seems uncharitable. Clearly they’re Catholic. While some may dislike their use of the term “traditional Catholic,” there is nothing in what they believe and practice that would mark them as non-Catholics.

 

[gracepoole]

Indeed, tradition is not just about the liturgy. That’s a big part of what is important for traditional Catholics (like myself), but it means more than that, of course.

Tradition means having processions after Mass on the feast of Corpus Christi, so that our faith in the Real Presence can be made public. It means that we prefer traditional hymns at Mass, rather than Protestant songs like…“Gather us in.” It means that we should strive to stay in a state of grace with regular confession. It means not presenting ourselves for communion if we are aware of being in a state of mortal sin. It means believing that virtues are to be developed, and that it should not be assumed that we are going to Heaven. It means that we forgive those who are less than perfect, or who do not agree with our views.

This is a great list! It’s important, too, to note that none of the above was abrogated by Vatican II, which means that those Catholics still engaging in the above practices are not heretics.

Many Churches can’t cater for the procession which is why it is more likely that processions happen at friaries and monasteries. Nothing to do with ‘Traditional Catholicism’.

I actually don’t think this is accurate. My parish is enormous and has 4 priests and 3 deacons. There’s no practical reason why processions can’t take place – it seems to be a matter of preference only.

The reason less people go to confession and less often has more to do with not enough priests being available to commit.

Again, I don’t think this is accurate. With the number of priests available at my parish, the confession lines are still remarkably small. I grew up post-VII, attended Catholic schools for 12 years, and honestly was never taught that it was itself a mortal sin to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. I was never taught that I should confess at least once a year if in a state of mortal sin. There isn’t a focus in most parishes on confession, even though the Church’s teachings on confession haven’t changed. It’s typically in parishes populated by those calling themselves traditional Catholics that confession remains important.

 

[Denise1957]

This is a great list! It’s important, too, to note that none of the above was abrogated by Vatican II, which means that those Catholics still engaging in the above practices are not heretics.

Thanks! You are right about Vll not abrogating any of those things, and that Catholics engaging in those practices are not heretics.

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict also had this to say about how Vatican II was understood by the media and the results of this:

Which is why too many, Catholics and non-Catholics, misunderstood the Council and how dissidents were able to use it later as a scapegoat for “creativity” and “deformations” in the liturgy, not to mention causing general havoc which continues to this day.

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

I will try to explain something. I would think that many who might at times describe themselves as “traditional Catholics” were, like myself, of the generation born following WWII, the Boomers, those who would come of age with Vatican II. They were baptized Roman Catholic as infants and received their First Communion and Confirmation in the early 1950’s. During elementary school, they attended a Tridentine Mass at the beginning of every school day. Discipline of the era was strict, and one was expected to be present. Any excuse had better be a very good one. Many of this generation graduated from a Catholic high school in the early 1960’s, some years before Vatican II was ever implemented. The Catholicism they were taught and that they had practiced from a young age and on into adulthood would only years later become what is now known as “traditional Catholicism”. But for them at that time, their faith was simply Catholicism.

Change would come from outside. And what would change was, among other things, the liturgy of the Mass. And it was a profound change. During the Tridentine Mass, the priest said a number of silent prayers in Latin. This introduced mystery. It wasn’t necessary for the laity to verbally follow along during the silent prayers of the priest, and it was from impractical to impossible to even attempt this in any strict way. But there were good reasons for it. It was during these periods that one became contemplative and empty of thought. The communication was non-verbal and intuitive, mysterious and sacred. For those new to the EF Mass, this experience can at first be confusing.

The Liturgical Reform Movement began in the Roman Catholic Church during the 19th Century and was part of the Counter Reformation. The Tridentine Mass had remained virtually unchanged for four centuries while the Protestant liturgy had undergone significant change during the Reformation, including the introduction of the vernacular and a turning toward Scripture rather than the sacraments (specifically, to the ritual remembrance of the Last Supper and the sacrifice of the Crucifixion). The LRM sought an ecumenical reconcilliation, but the Church resisted this movement right up until Vatican II.

Liturgical experts believed that the single most important thing was that the laity should understand the text intellectually, and the OF Mass was very deliberately designed to attain this result. And it did. That was fine so far as it went, and the OF Mass is a valid Mass. But by focusing on verbal communication, the result was the inadvertent elimination of much of the mystery of the EF Mass that is conveyed silently by non-verbal communication. As Pope Benedict XVI would later decry, it was liturgical experts that gained control of the reform of the liturgy of the Mass and its implementation following Vatican II, introducing changes never contemplated by the Council.

I try to understand this broadly. There are and have long been two distinct types of personality in the world: extrovert and introvert. Neither is either good or bad. There is also what psychologists describe as right hemisphere and left hemisphere domination. This is in reference to the lobes in the human brain, and is the difference between those drawn toward reason or intuition, math or literature, science or art, and so on. This is natural and normal. In the grand scheme of things, I’ve thought this is unfolding here too. Why remains a mystery. Perhaps it is this dynamic that propels history toward the end of time. But we clearly live in an era when science is dominant.

The thing is to try to understand this phenomenon and respect what are real differences in outlook rather than become unnecessarily contentious about it, I think. Neither way is right or wrong in and of itself. The devil is in the details.

 

[edwest2]

I will try to explain something. I would think that many who might at times describe themselves as “traditional Catholics” were, like myself, of the generation born following WWII, the Boomers, those who would come of age with Vatican II. They were baptized Roman Catholic as infants and received their First Communion and Confirmation in the early 1950’s. During elementary school, they attended a Tridentine Mass at the beginning of every school day. Discipline of the era was strict, and one was expected to be present. Any excuse had better be a very good one. Many of this generation graduated from a Catholic high school in the early 1960’s, some years before Vatican II was ever implemented. The Catholicism they were taught and that they had practiced from a young age and on into adulthood would only years later become what is now known as “traditional Catholicism”. But for them at that time, their faith was simply Catholicism.

Change would come from outside. And what would change was, among other things, the liturgy of the Mass. And it was a profound change. During the Tridentine Mass, the priest said a number of silent prayers in Latin. This introduced mystery. It wasn’t necessary for the laity to verbally follow along during the silent prayers of the priest, and it was from impractical to impossible to even attempt this in any strict way. But there were good reasons for it. It was during these periods that one became contemplative and empty of thought. The communication was non-verbal and intuitive, mysterious and sacred. For those new to the EF Mass, this experience can at first be confusing.

The Liturgical Reform Movement began in the Roman Catholic Church during the 19th Century and was part of the Counter Reformation. The Tridentine Mass had remained virtually unchanged for four centuries while the Protestant liturgy had undergone significant change during the Reformation, including the introduction of the vernacular and a turning toward Scripture rather than the sacraments (specifically, to the ritual remembrance of the Last Supper and the sacrifice of the Crucifixion). The LRM sought an ecumenical reconcilliation, but the Church resisted this movement right up until Vatican II.

Liturgical experts believed that the single most important thing was that the laity should understand the text intellectually, and the OF Mass was very deliberately designed to attain this result. And it did. That was fine so far as it went, and the OF Mass is a valid Mass. But by focusing on verbal communication, the result was the inadvertent elimination of much of the mystery of the EF Mass that is conveyed silently by non-verbal communication. As Pope Benedict XVI would later decry, it was liturgical experts that gained control of the reform of the liturgy of the Mass and its implementation following Vatican II, introducing changes never contemplated by the Council.

I try to understand this broadly. There are and have long been two distinct types of personality in the world: extrovert and introvert. Neither is either good or bad. There is also what psychologists describe as right hemisphere and left hemisphere domination. This is in reference to the lobes in the human brain, and is the difference between those drawn toward reason or intuition, math or literature, science or art, and so on. This is natural and normal. In the grand scheme of things, I’ve thought this is unfolding here too. Why remains a mystery. Perhaps it is this dynamic that propels history toward the end of time. But we clearly live in an era when science is dominant.

The thing is to try to understand this phenomenon and respect what are real differences in outlook rather than become unnecessarily contentious about it, I think. Neither way is right or wrong in and of itself. The devil is in the details.

Obedience is the only detail that matters. As Pope Benedict wrote, the EF and OF are the same rite. I felt nothing profound when celebrating the Mass in the vernacular was introduced. I obeyed the Church and worshiped God.

The dissidents of the late 1960s and 1970s were the profound thing. Those that pushed for invention, distortion and “creativity.” I heard a priest on Catholic radio. He said all that creativity at Mass is going away because people need those things that elevate them to a sense of the sacred and divine. That inspire them to worship.

Ed

 

[eamonnroma]

Not quite true. Protestanism is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church, sure. But Eastern Orthodoxy is an early offshoot from the Catholic Church because of the line of St. Peter carrying through to our present Pope. If we believe in Scripture then we believe the true path to righteousness, to carry through this line. The keys to the Kingdom are in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. In terms of orthodox Catholics - I am not sure what that means. All Catholics are orthodox due to their baptism. It is the word being misused again which is the issue.

If you asked a historian who knew nothing about Faith or Christian history to examine the history of the early Christian church, most probably he would see that, historically, the Roman church in fact broke away from the mainstream.