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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
it would be another schism and nothing more and the Catholic Church would keep going. Like it always has, and I say it, because the Church isn’t a physical or spiritual woman, nor a metaphorical one.
 
commenter said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that and it includes the Catholic Christians. Those that consider themselves so adherent and pious are often some of the ringleaders too.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the number one reason why I like the Latin mass. I feel like I can actually connect with God. In a world filled with noise, it is definitely a relief to get an hour of silence with God every Sunday.
 
commenter said:
No, there is an anti religious authority movement in the land.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that. My sister is not really a practicing Catholic, but she has the same sentiments of the Catholic faith. It might be because she’s American. We Americans tend to dislike any type of authority, thinking everything is corrupt.
 
Why not just declare the end of the Church? Why not just sell the whole shooting match and give to the poor.

Why not why not why not…

Why do so many crave the end of the Church for the purposes of ego stimulation?

The evil one roams and patrols this earth.

Why not speak of unity?

Not popular.
 
Duesenberg said:
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?
Click to expand...
In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, we have a three parishes in the archdiocese that have a regularly scheduled Mass in a healthy parish - which are parish scheduled (not diocesan or religious order) .
I know of one in Diocese of Wilmington.
The Diocese of Trenton (NJ) has 3 Parishes that offer the EF
  • one of them has 5 Masses (1 in Latin) every Sunday.
Diocese of Arlington (VA) has 8 Sunday EF Masses
***NOTE: I’m only including parishes that have the Latin Mass every Sunday, not parishes that have it on weekdays, a few Sundays a month, or by Religious Orders

I’m sure there are MANY other dioceses with a number of parishes that have the Latin Mass.
 
phil19034 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an interesting book. From one of the Amazon reviews I saw this quote from Evelyn Waugh, written shortly before he died, in a letter to Cardinal Heenan in 1966:

“Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his Council – they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church-going is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it restored. It is worse in many countries.”

That captures the sentiment of many Catholics in 1966. I don’t know that Evelyn Waugh would have felt the same if he were alive today. The OF today is not the same as in 1966. Most parishes today follow the rubrics and no longer use “Kumbaya” as a communion song or “Bridge Over Troubled Water” as an entrance hymn.
 
JimG said:
40.png
phil19034:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an interesting book. From one of the Amazon reviews I saw this quote from Evelyn Waugh, written shortly before he died, in a letter to Cardinal Heenan in 1966:

“Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his Council – they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church-going is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it restored. It is worse in many countries.”

That captures the sentiment of many Catholics in 1966. I don’t know that Evelyn Waugh would have felt the same if he were alive today. The OF today is not the same as in 1966. Most parishes today follow the rubrics and no longer use “Kumbaya” as a communion song or “Bridge Over Troubled Water” as an entrance hymn.
Click to expand...
NOTE: In that quote “Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his Council – they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church-going is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it restored. It is worse in many countries.” Evelyn Waugh is actually referring to the the changes to Holy Week under Pope Pius XII, but is so hurt by the removal of the Latin Mass.

The book goes on show how in England when the old Mass allowed to be prayed in English, every parish in England and Wales was required to have at least one mass still in Latin.

The Archbishop and many others expected and hoped that every parish would be required to have at least one Mass in Latin. But that ruling never happened.

Its a very interesting book and a fast read.
 
Last edited:
The title of this thread is so lacking in anything factual. Where are these Traditionalists? How many are there? Are they forcing others to do something? I was there before and after Vatican II. I saw the new altar one day and the priest facing the people. I had no desire to disobey the Church. I had no reason to believe the Mass in English was anything more or less than the Mass in Latin. The Mass I grew up with and which some falsely claim, could not be understood. Missals were available with the Latin and English right next to each other. And the priest spoke to the people in the pews and we responded, in Latin. The organist played and we sang.

Obedience is lost for some. If the OF is the only option for some, fine. If the EF is available, fine. The point is - both have to be celebrated reverently. No arbitrary distortions allowed or other “creativity.” The house of God is holy. It is meant for prayer and worship. But due to some cases where distortions occurred, of course people took offense. If I walked in on a “clown Mass,” I would walk right out and be driving to see the local Bishop or Archbishop with a few witnesses. Enough is enough.

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."
 
phil19034 said:
***NOTE: I’m only including parishes that have the Latin Mass every Sunday, not parishes that have it on weekdays, a few Sundays a month, or by Religious Orders

I’m sure there are MANY other dioceses with a number of parishes that have the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
I wonder in how many of those parishes the EF Mass is truly an integral part? If there was an annual parish picnic for instance, would staunch EFers attend at the same rate as those that attended the OF Mass at that parish on average?
 
edwest211 said:
The title of this thread is so lacking in anything factual. Where are these Traditionalists? How many are there? Are they forcing others to do something? I was there before and after Vatican II. I saw the new altar one day and the priest facing the people. I had no desire to disobey the Church. I had no reason to believe the Mass in English was anything more or less than the Mass in Latin. The Mass I grew up with and which some falsely claim, could not be understood. Missals were available with the Latin and English right next to each other. And the priest spoke to the people in the pews and we responded, in Latin. The organist played and we sang.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s not. For years now, both in the real world and online, I have heard people refer to themselves as “traditional Catholics” and attempt to treat the Extraordinary Form as if it were a separate rite or even a sui juris church and obviously it’s not. I’m curious what said really people want? Do they want to control the Church to meet their own personal preferences?

I see this in disaffected Roman Catholics who join Eastern Catholic parishes here on the West Coast as well. They have NEVER been subject to Latinizations (foisting Latin Rite traditions onto the Eastern Catholic churches in generations past), yet once they become aware of the history, they become consumed by the topic which stokes their bitterness. It’s not the actual EC’s in such parishes who bemoan the actual Latinizations they once endured back east. They’re just happy to be long rid of them and to be worshiping in a setting that never had them to begin with. It’s the bitter RC’s who find Latinizations to be a topic they can complain about. One they can use to divide. It’s just hideous.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think such a construct already exists, to a certain extent, in the form of the Ecclesia Dei societies like the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. But it isn’t division such Catholics crave, its access to the Traditional Mass and Traditional Sacraments and the experience of a close-knit parish full of like-minded people, while remaining faithful to the Holy See. Your loaded words significantly cheapen the thread and call into question your motives. Traditional Catholics faithful to the Pope “crave division”? Come on.
 
Last edited:
That was my parish. Close-knit, like-minded and Traditional. Division is not a goal. But arbitrary deformations of the Liturgy began to creep in and people want to recover the Mass that was/is dear to them.
 
R_H_Benson said:
Your loaded words significantly cheapen the thread and call into question your motives. Traditional Catholics faithful to the Pope “crave division”? Come on.
Click to expand...
My regrets, but that division is very real. Even the label “traditional Catholic” is divisive.
 
edwest211 said:
That was my parish. Close-knit, like-minded and Traditional. Division is not a goal. But arbitrary deformations of the Liturgy began to creep in and people want to recover the Mass that was/is dear to them.
Click to expand...
“Traditional”, aye? Odd how some equate “traditionalism” with a dearth of liturgical deformations.
 
Your response in not clear to me. Pope Benedict wrote:

“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.”

He uses the words “many places” and “frequently.” Those who want those arbitrary deformations removed or to go to a Church without them, are following the observations of the Pope. No more “arbitrary deformations.” Period.
 
edwest211 said:
Your response in not clear to me. Pope Benedict wrote:

“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.”

He uses the words “many places” and “frequently.” Those who want those arbitrary deformations removed or to go to a Church without them, are following the observations of the Pope. No more “arbitrary deformations.” Period.
Click to expand...
There is no problem with having a desire to attend the EF Mass. That’s very clear. There’s also not a problem with choosing one’s parish – we are no longer corralled by our local parishes. But to actively seek division and EF Mass-only parishes is quite wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top