What if the Catholic Church actually supported the division so badly craved by "traditional Catholics"?

[Duesenberg]

What if the Catholic Church actually supported the division so badly craved by many if not most “traditional Catholics” (tC)? What if the Catholic Church either created a suri juris Tridentine Catholic church (TCc) or a separate Tridentine ordinariate within the Latin Rite of the Church? Would this, coupled with an end to Summorum Pontificum satisfy what the tC’s so terribly crave?

How would it impact the Church? How would it impact tC’s? Would it last? Would it eventually implode or dry-up and wither away? How would it impact relations with the sspx?

What would the financial/operation nuts and bolts implications be? Would the TCc be given existing Church buildings already in use or would they be required to fund their own operations, including the leasing of space from existing parishes in some cases?

 

[Duesenberg]

I look at the local implementation of the EF Mass by our bishop following the issuance of SP and all I can do is shake my head.

There is no question the bishop carefully chose which parish churches would offer the EF (at least as a start.) He chose good, healthy parishes with “traditional” leanings. Parishes that were positioned well geographically who welcomed the celebration of the EF Mass in their parish. Yet it’s never really worked out.

Instead of becoming part of an already healthy and vibrant parish, those attending the EF Mass made it clear from the outset that they wanted their own “TLM-only parish.” That mindset of division has done a lot of damage to the local celebration of the EF Mass. I really do wonder what would happen if their dreams of division were granted and they were left to fend for themselves?

 

[ChunkMonk]

You’re still mistaking the motives behind the struggle. This isn’t one side wishing to be separated from the Church and one side begging them to stay. This is one side (currently in power) trying to determine the future direction of the Church and the other side trying to prevent that from happening and perhaps take the Church in the direction they think best. If the “traditional Catholics” wanted to be separate, they would just join SSPX or maybe form their own society or Church. What it seems to me is that many, if not most, just want to prevent the Church from being led into a place they don’t think is right.

What is the problem with wanting a “Latin mass only” parish? Why should people be forced to attend a liturgy they don’t like and don’t feel is reverant or relevant? What is the danger in satisfying the demand for the approved and valid Latin Mass? I’ve never understood the white-knuckled trembling at the idea among progressives and some clergy that the traditional mass might be celebrated as often as it is liked. Mass is mass, right? Then why the need to keep one as the exception and the other as the norm?

Anyway the divisions are deeper than just which mass is celebrated. Pretending it doesn’t exist and telling everyone to sing Kumbaya won’t make it go away.

 

[misstherese]

What makes you think traditionalists “crave division”? What about those who prefer the Novus Ordo mass? Does that mean they want division if it is just a Novus Ordo parish? Or those who bash the extraordinary form of the mass, do they not seek division? The extraordinary form is hardly accessible anymore. In my hometown, I would have to travel an hour to attend one. I have to travel half an hour to find one and I live in a busy city. My sister refuses to come with me to it because it’s at 7 in the morning, no other time slot. Is it so bad to desire a parish that only offers the EF of the mass at as many different times as possible?

The division came when the mass jumped so suddenly to something people didn’t recognize. When it went into place, it was a huge shock to people. A lot of people left the Church. I think it could have been avoided if they hadn’t changed it so suddenly and drastically as they did.

Many also despise the EF, saying they don’t like Latin, they don’t understand what’s going on, they would never go to a mass they don’t get, glad they got rid of it, etc. It comes from both sides, my friend.

 

[Duesenberg]

No.

You’ll note I used the term churches, not Churches. The Catholic Church is comprised of 24 sui iuris particular churches. The Western church (which many refer to as the Latin or Roman Rite) and 23 Eastern churches.

 

[Duesenberg]

You’re still mistaking the motives behind the struggle. This isn’t one side wishing to be separated from the Church and one side begging them to stay. This is one side (currently in power) trying to determine the future direction of the Church and the other side trying to prevent that from happening and perhaps take the Church in the direction they think best. If the “traditional Catholics” wanted to be separate, they would just join SSPX or maybe form their own society or Church. What it seems to me is that many, if not most, just want to prevent the Church from being led into a place they don’t think is right.

First things first. If tC’s simply left, at best they would hold the same status as spxxers. I would hope they want more than that.

Your comment about “one side” is most telling. There aren’t “sides” in this case. There are two different forms (not rites) of the Mass. Boiled down to the bone, this is about some who prefer the EF Mass.

What is the problem with wanting a “Latin mass only” parish? Why should people be forced to attend a liturgy they don’t like and don’t feel is reverant or relevant? What is the danger in satisfying the demand for the approved and valid Latin Mass? I’ve never understood the white-knuckled trembling at the idea among progressives and some clergy that the traditional mass might be celebrated as often as it is liked. Mass is mass, right? Then why the need to keep one as the exception and the other as the norm?

Because it creates division. That mindset has GREATLY harmed the celebration of the EF Mass where I live. No one is going to be forced to attend either form of the Mass. That’s a red herring as is your notion that the demand for the EF Mass is not being satisfied. The EF Mass CAN be celebrated as “often as it is liked” provided there are resources. Don’t expect priestly and facility resources currently expended to celebrate a OF Mass for 500 be diverted to the celebration of an EF Mass for 40.

Anyway the divisions are deeper than just which mass is celebrated. Pretending it doesn’t exist and telling everyone to sing Kumbaya won’t make it go away.

Aww, “kumbaya”? Really? So what is your solution? A tiny Tridentine Catholic church analogous to one of the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches?

 

[Duesenberg]

You have never attended either an OF or EF Mass?

You need to do a bit of study on the difference between the Catholic Church and the particular churches which comprise it. Also how a church and a Church differ from a rite.

This discussion has nothing at all to do with the Catholic Church being the one true Apostolic Church. That’s axiomatic. You’re simply confused about the nomenclature.

 

[phil19034]

I look at the local implementation of the EF Mass by our bishop following the issuance of SP and all I can do is shake my head.

There is no question the bishop carefully chose which parish churches would offer the EF (at least as a start.) He chose good, healthy parishes with “traditional” leanings. Parishes that were positioned well geographically who welcomed the celebration of the EF Mass in their parish. Yet it’s never really worked out.

Instead of becoming part of an already healthy and vibrant parish, those attending the EF Mass made it clear from the outset that they wanted their own “TLM-only parish.” That mindset of division has done a lot of damage to the local celebration of the EF Mass. I really do wonder what would happen if their dreams of division were granted and they were left to fend for themselves?

What you say here makes little sense to me.

From my point of view, having a regularly schedule Latin Mass is no different than having a regularly scheduled foreign language mass.

From my point of view, there are four kinds of people who prefer the Latin Mass every weekend:

1. Those, who like the SSPX, see flaws with the new Liturgy and parts of Vatican II (I believe this is a vocal minority, not a majority)
2. Those who have a devotional love for it because of beauty of that mass, and who want to celebrate it so it remains so people can experience Catholic history - I place FSSP here.
3. Some people really love ritual, and simply just want a lot of solemnity and symbolism used in Mass, the fact that priests who celebrate the EF do it with tons of reverence and respect to the rubrics satisfies their need for solemnity and symbolism.
4. People who prefer contemplative prayer vs charismatic prayer. Due to the fact that the people who attend the Latin mass today are mostly contemplative prayer people, who like silence and chant to assist with their prayer contemplative prayer, the Latin mass is conducive to that.

In my opinion, points 3 and 4 can be addressed by a parish using the Ordinary Form of the Mass by simply having at least one Sunday mass dedicated to the use of Latin and Chant in a similar way EWTN does it on TV. If every parish had at least one Sunday mass performed the similarly to EWTN, then points 3 and 4 would disappear.

Also, I suggest the book A Bitter Trial from Ignatius Press. It does a pretty good job of illustrating the frustration some people had at the end of Vatican II, with the new Liturgy, and how it was rolled out.

https://www.amazon.com/Bitter-Trial-Cardinal-Liturgical-Changes/dp/158617522X

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I’m old enough to remember both forms. I actually have no major preference, but I will note that The Litany of Saints, for instance as done at Easter Vigil, is unbeatable in Latin, Sung.

I suspect there are several categories of people represented in these fora…

1. Those who wish the EF would quietly disappear.
2. Those who would like the OF to go away.
3. Those who support both.
4. Those who want to separate.
5. Those who don’t care, save that is reverent.
6. Those who don’t care save that it is fast.
7. Those who don’t care, except it needs to be rigidly defined.
8. Other (I’ve probably left some out).

The problem, as I see it, is many (not all) in each one of these groups concurrently subscribe to the “I’m right, you’re wrong - so there!” Philosophy.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[Duesenberg]

Here’s a start. You can Google the rest at your own pace:

Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites - Wikipedia

Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia

 

[ChunkMonk]

There are two different sides. And they don’t totally fall in line with the TLM vs NO either. Some progressives like the form and beauty of the Latin Mass and some traditionalists or consercatives don’t have access to TLM and have to go to NO, or maybe have a personal relationship with someone who goes to the NO or with a NO priest. So if you’re really just talking about TLM vs. NO then I think you’re missing the forest for the trees and I agree that isn’t a real division. The teal division is far deeper than that.

No one is going to be forced to attend either form of the Mass.

The closest FSSP parish to me is three hours away, six hours round trip. The closest Latin Mass is two hours away, four hours round trip. Granted my parish is tiny and the only one in my town, and probably won’t exist in ten years because 85-90% of the parishioners are ancient, but the point stands. I am de facto forced into attending the Novus Ordo. Which is okay, but also a little vexing.

Aww, “kumbaya”?

When I was in San Diego visiting my parents, no joke, that was the Communion song when I went to mass one Sunday. Which is why I wish the war on the Latin Mass hadn’t been won by the progressives, because very few men my age can take it seriously when Kumbaya is the communion song.

 

[commenter]

What if the Catholic Church actually supported the division so badly craved by many if not most “traditional Catholics” (tC)? What if the Catholic Church either created a suri juris Tridentine Catholic church (TCc) or a separate Tridentine ordinariate within the Latin Rite of the Church? Would this, coupled with an end to Summorum Pontificum satisfy what the tC’s so terribly crave?

How would it impact the Church? How would it impact tC’s? Would it last? Would it eventually implode or dry-up and wither away? How would it impact relations with the sspx?

• You are assuming that traditional Catholics are those who want the EF. But most persons who support traditional values of doctrine and worship are not especially interested in the EF, they want faithful OF Masses.
• You assume traditional Catholics want a “division” from the main part of the Church. I see no evidence of this. They support conservative institutions and ministries within the Church.
• You suggest a possible end to Summorum Pontificum. Nothing would be gained from this.
• The Anglican Ordinariate was created for persons coming into the Catholic Church from a totally different historical context outside Catholicism. It was not created for a group that disagreed with the leadership of the Catholic Church. In any event, the Ordinariate is mostly integrated or overlapping with ministries in their territorial diocese, which they are not in disagreement with, to my knowlege.

Likewise, the diocesan Latin Mass communities appear to be active within the regional ministries of prolife, evangelism, and so on. In my city the TLM people are not looking to split from the regional ministries, but to impact on them and the diocese. That essentially is what “traditional Catholics” want to do.

• The only “division” would be the SSPX, and various groups that have or are splitting off from this. If a priest wants “independence” from the pope’s bishop-ordinary, he won’t sign up for anything that is under the pope.

 

[Duesenberg]

From my point of view, having a regularly schedule Latin Mass is no different than having a regularly scheduled foreign language mass.

I VERY much agree, but it certainly doesn’t play out that way around there. When the EF Mass was announced locally, it attracted people from at least a 50 mile radius. Largely extremists. They set the tone for the parish and the desire for division. It has never changed. That has happened in other parts of my diocese as well.

Also, I suggest the book A Bitter Trial from Ignatius Press. It does a pretty good job of illustrating the frustration some people had at the end of Vatican II, with the new Liturgy, and how it was rolled out.

A grave misstep by the Church. People (both clerical and lay) were not suitably educated and trained to understand and implement the OF Mass. I don’t know if this was due to ignorance, arrogance or indolence, but it’s really not defendable. When the refinements to the OF Mass were issued in 2011, my parish went to great lengths to educated and train. It’s tragic that did not happen in 1970.

 

[Duesenberg]

I wonder how many Latin Rite parishes with multiple Masses each Sunday have a well-attended EF Mass on their schedule that is celebrated by one of the resident clergy? I’m not talking about EF Masses that are celebrated in small hospital or mausoleum chapels. I’m asking about EF Masses in existing, healthy parishes?

Parishes that offer both where there is no stigma attached to attending either form of the Mass?

 

[Duesenberg]

You are assuming that traditional Catholics are those who want the EF. But most persons who support traditional values of doctrine and worship are not especially interested in the EF, they want faithful OF Masses.

I reject the notion of “traditional Catholics” as being nothing more than a divisive term.

 

[Duesenberg]

I’m old enough to remember both forms. I actually have no major preference, but I will note that The Litany of Saints, for instance as done at Easter Vigil, is unbeatable in Latin, Sung.

I suspect there are several categories of people represented in these fora…

Those who wish the EF would quietly disappear.
Those who would like the OF to go away.
Those who support both.
Those who want to separate.
Those who don’t care, save that is reverent.
Those who don’t care save that it is fast.
Those who don’t care, except it needs to be rigidly defined.
Other (I’ve probably left some out).

The problem, as I see it, is many (not all) in each one of these groups concurrently subscribe to the “I’m right, you’re wrong - so there!” Philosophy.

Blessings,

Stephie

Interesting post, although none of these categories are mutually exclusive.

I’m definitely a #3. I’m a Catholic Christian that seeks authentic, reverent and dignified celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which may be found in both forms (including the Ordinariate) of the Mass.

Unfortunately those I come in contact with who attend the EF Mass both in person and here online are strongly #4s – often times with a bit of #2 mixed in.

Those two qualities/beliefs are in my opinion what will be most responsible for limiting the spread of the EF Mass.

 

[commenter]

The division came when the mass jumped so suddenly to something people didn’t recognize. When it went into place, it was a huge shock to people. A lot of people left the Church. I think it could have been avoided if they hadn’t changed it so suddenly and drastically as they did.

I am not sure this is where the “division” is. In my city the SSPX chapel began 40 years ago, when the diocese was much more liberal, there was lots of criticism of the Latin Mass, which was non existent outside the SSPX.

But 40 years later, the chapel is still there. The diocese is much less liberal, there are 2 diocesan Latin Masses on Sunday, and occasionally on other times. But the chapel goes on, even though presumably there can’t be that many current Mass goers now who had been going to the TLM for many years prior to Vatican II, and in any event they are bypassing the 2 diocesan Masses now. Even people outside SSPX encourage suspicion of the Vatican.

No, there is an anti religious authority movement in the land. The division has taken on momentum of its own, with little to do with wanting a place to worship the old Mass. Now, the SSPX Resistance holds periodic Masses to try to pull local people from the SSPX chapel. So in 2017 it is less and less about liturgical rites.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

From my point of view, having a regularly schedule Latin Mass is no different than having a regularly scheduled foreign language mass.

I VERY much agree, but it certainly doesn’t play out that way around there. When the EF Mass was announced locally, it attracted people from at least a 50 mile radius. Largely extremists. They set the tone for the parish and the desire for division. It has never changed. That has happened in other parts of my diocese as well.

No one is denying that can happen, esp when the number of Latin Masses are limited. But those lay people are wrong, just like the lay people who refuse to allow Marian hymns on Marian feast days are wrong.

This comes down to parish leadership. If the pastor is weak, the extremists (on either side) take control.

In the Diocese of Camden (NJ), there was a parish that was ran by a schematic group. When the group moved out of state, the Diocese eventually turned it into a EF only parish and assigned a strong priest, and now they are a wonderful parish, dedicated to the Latin mass.

Again, your concern is addressed by good/strong pastoral leadership.

God Bless

 

[Duesenberg]

No one is denying that can happen, esp when the number of Latin Masses are limited. But those lay people are wrong, just like the lay people who refuse to allow Marian hymns on Marian feast days are wrong.

This comes down to parish leadership. If the pastor is weak, the extremists (on either side) take control.

In the Diocese of Camden (NJ), there was a parish that was ran by a schematic group. When the group moved out of state, the Diocese eventually turned it into a EF only parish and assigned a strong priest, and now they are a wonderful parish, dedicated to the Latin mass.

Again, your concern is addressed by good/strong pastoral leadership.

God Bless

I think things would have been better if one of the existing parish pastors was celebrating the EF Mas each Sunday both both are already offering 3 Masses each Sunday so a retired priest had to be called upon who probably didn’t exacerbate the division, but he certainly didn’t put a stop to it either. On the other hand pretty much the same thing happens at another parish that offers the EF Mass in my parish and the overall leadership at that parish is quite strong.

I would value your (name removed by moderator)ut on a question I asked above:

I wonder how many Latin Rite parishes with multiple Masses each Sunday have a well-attended EF Mass on their schedule that is celebrated by one of the resident clergy? I’m not talking about EF Masses that are celebrated in small hospital or mausoleum chapels. I’m asking about EF Masses in existing, healthy parishes?

Parishes that offer both where there is no stigma attached to attending either form of the Mass?

We certainly do that with Masses in English and Spanish at my parish right now…

 

[Duesenberg]

So in 2017 it is less and less about liturgical rites.

It has never been about liturgical rites, rather liturgical forms.

I do agree. Even if a healthy Catholic parish offers an EF Mass as another Mass on their schedule, there is resistance by many “traditional Catholics” to attend it.