I
Inisfallen
Guest
If she was confessing her homosexuality as a sin (rather than homosexual actions), those priests were right – the state of being homosexual is not a sin.
What if the Catholic Church actually supported the division so badly craved by "traditional Catholics"?
- Status
D
dallas_r
Guest
I’m all about tradition but creating a whole different branch?
L
LittleFlower
Guest
@Duesenberg Was the link I provided of any help? Also, what does this mean for this debate? 
D
Duesenberg
Guest
The Catholic Church does not recognize the distinction of a “tlm” parish or a “novus ordo” parish. They’re not different rites. They’re different forms of the Mass.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Local parishes can call themselves anything they like I’m sure.
P
PJM
Guest
My FRIEND, we must live on different planets:thinking:
Here on planet earth as a VERY Traditional Catholic, I have head not even a whisper of such a desire. And I AM better informed than many.
God Bless you
Partick
Here on planet earth as a VERY Traditional Catholic, I have head not even a whisper of such a desire. And I AM better informed than many.
God Bless you
Partick
L
LittleFlower
Guest
Actually, they can’t. I know of one parish that tried to call themselves something, that didn’t work out too well for them.
This division already exists, just not as an official branch, as you are enquiring about.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
It’s honestly sad that you believe that because it’s not true. The Church would never recognize such division.
I know prior to the issuance of SP, a great number of bishops were leery of the EF Mass because they felt it would cause division. I didn’t agree with them at the time. I certainly do now – at least in the minds of the EF-only folks and it’s quite sad to witness.
Last edited:
L
LittleFlower
Guest
The personal parishes are clear evidence of the division. Division isn’t meant in a judgemental way. However, clearly there is a need to accomodate EF in a full manner.
Treating EF just as a Mass form isn’t satisfying the needs of a certain parishioners.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
What if they are right?
Last edited:
L
LittleFlower
Guest
What if they aren’t?
Why can’t different forms exist and be cultivated without demonising the other one?
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Maybe they aren’t, but the arguments do make a lot of sense to a lot of people.
Maybe it’s the nature of people to make a side and fight for it, or maybe one form of Mass actually is superior in God’s eyes. We know that God was hyper-specific with the Israelites for how He wanted to be worshipped.
Maybe it’s the nature of people to make a side and fight for it, or maybe one form of Mass actually is superior in God’s eyes. We know that God was hyper-specific with the Israelites for how He wanted to be worshipped.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
There’s nothing wrong with religious orders/societies/groups limiting themselves to the celebration of the EF Mass, but that’s a lot different than a diocesan parish calling itself an “tlm-only parish.”
What do you mean by “full-manner”? You mean greater division?
So the Church is wrong on this matter?
L
LittleFlower
Guest
No, because the Church is already allowing personal parishes to only be tlm.
I guess, the crux of the matter is we all like different things. We are part of specific Catholic communities, religious orders, and much more that puts us into little shoe boxes but we are all housed in the same cupboard of Catholicism.
We are no more or less divided / separated from each other in those ways as we are in OF or EF.
I recently read up on how different communities celebrate their faith, some here would perhaps drop of their chair but it’s approved. It may be different to the Anglo-Saxon white way of practicing the faith but it is no less valid.
This is a broader question IMHO on the divisions within the faith community, which have always existed.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
No, the “crux” of the matter is that EFers are causing division within the Church. Finis.
L
LittleFlower
Guest
If this is the case, why are allowances being made for them? Clearly, at least in Melbourne they have the endorsement of the Archdiocese.
The Church is therefore allowing itself to be divided, from within.
L
LisaB
Guest
I’ve never heard of a diocesan parish labeled as “TLM only.” Have you? The only TLM only parishes I know of are run by FSSP or ICKDP, which are personal parishes you already said you had no problem with.
And, define “division.” What does that look like in a concrete day-to-day life of a Catholic? People not attending the same picnic? Other church activities? What is “division”?
And, define “division.” What does that look like in a concrete day-to-day life of a Catholic? People not attending the same picnic? Other church activities? What is “division”?
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Sure. Our former bishop did not allow the EF Mass because he feared division. He retired and we received our current bishop. SP was released shortly thereafter. The bishop chose 4 existing parishes in the diocese to host the celebration of the EF Mass. He chose parishes that were sound, well placed geographically and were strictly orthodox with good pastors.
The pastor of the chosen parish nearest to me had a great time preparing to host the EF Mass. The tabernacle was relocated back to the rear center of the sanctuary. He procured large “communion prie dieus” a 1962 Missale Romano, a gorgeous set of altar cards, etc., etc. He trained two altar boys. All on his dime or the parish’s dime.
The only problem was that both he and his parochial vicar already celebrate 3 Masses each/Sunday. The bishop came through however and located a retired Catholic priest prison chaplain to celebrate the EF each Sunday. The coming Mass made the local evening news. They were off and running!
The first Mass was absolutely packed – about 750 attendees. It was a low Mass because they did not have a cantor, choir or a musician – despite offers from the parish. I knew a great many people there, but there was also a group of harsh, overly severe individuals who took it up themselves to act as ushers and liturgical police. Two such ushers at one door tried to forced women to cover their heads – using paper towels and bobby pins if necessary until the pastor told them to go sit down.
Anyhow, following Mass there was coffee in the parish hall. Immediately the talk amongst the severe folks went to forming a “TLM-only parish.” You could stand back and watch it spread like an infection. A month later the Mass had 90 attendees. It’s remained at that level ever since.
It’s still a low Mass. They don’t have the $$$ to hire an organist and they reject the hosting parish’s offer of a pianist and a cantor. Once in a while they attempt a Missa Cantata with someone trying to play a harmonium and it’s absolutely painful. They received permission to have the EF Mass during the week as well. Instead of holding it at the church (which is free to them), they hold it at one of the parishioner’s homes so they can be “independent.”
I think things would have been different if either the pastor or the PV had covered the weekly EF Mass – they both started with the EF Mass back in the day. Sadly it didn’t work out that way. Instead of having a well-attended EF Mass as an integral part of a thriving parish, there is this Sunday afternoon Mass that few attend that actually advertise themselves online as a “Latin Mass community” – with no mention of the parish that actually hosts the Mass.
The EFers had a chance to do something great here – (re)introduce a lot of people to the EF Mass and make it part of a great parish. Instead they created a failing “tlm community.”
That’s what I call division.
Last edited:
D
Debbie_Kono
Guest
Forcing women to veil? Really? I know the sedevacantists do that and even some SSPXers. I attend Sunday Solemn High Mass at an ICKSP parish and they have a basket with veils in the entry…but 25-30% do not veil…and nothing is said. I honestly think what you’re describing is the exception and not the norm.
- Status