What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[CradleCath]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religious liberty?

If we share the same Catholic faith we share the same goal.

If so why the divisions?

I don’t know, for sure, why so many find the Traditional arm of the Roman Catholic Church threatening, but I do want to share an odd experience that I participated in today.

I went back to my old Novus Ordo parish to help the woman who is assuming my duties of decorating the sanctuary. This responsibility is not at all complicated or hard…there are no staues or side altars left & the modernistic architecture of the Church calls for nothing more than a large floral & the changing of scarf colors for the Liturgical seasons. It’s quite barren & cold. Still this lady called me, so I went.

A little background. This woman is one of the parish “busybodies”. She tends to take over anything she’s involved in, thus has a hard time getting anyone to help her. She is also a gossip & seems to need constant attention. You know the kind I mean…every parish has one or two or a dozen. I do not know her well, but have observed her for years as she’s “everywhere” that the pastor will allow her to be. (Which is pretty much EVERYWHERE!!

Anyway, today seemed to be more about the fact that I had “deserted” my parish. What a surprise that was, as I tend to keep a pretty low profile & I doubted that many had even noticed that I left. After listening to her talk for almost 45 minutes, it came down to this:

She is an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister & is terribly afraid that the Novus Ordo will decline so badly that “she’ll lose her important job”.
I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when she told me this. IMO., it is so against everything that Christ preached to use an “upfront position” at the Mass, to build one’s own self-esteem. It is so like the “look-at-me” pharisees. Yet part of me was appalled that this poor woman needed so much attention. Could this be the reason that so many fear the TLM? Have any of you dealt with anything like this?

 

[GerardP]

In the end, there’s nothing wrong with people feeling threatened by Traditionalism. It should help them step up their game.

Protestants used to look to the Catholics and imitate a lot of their positions so as to look “legit”. Post-conciliar times have eroded both that lead the Church took and degraded the Protestants in many places as well.

Ironically, I’m seeing a lot of St. Thomas being taught by Protestants (without naming him of course) in order to justify their conservative positions and their belief in God.

 

[ethelzguy]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religious liberty?

If we share the same Catholic faith we share the same goal.

If so why the divisions?

Speaking from my personal experiences, it is far less about the traditional issues themselves, than it is about the attitudes of those pushing for them…the “We’re more Catholic than you liberals or the post Vatican II Church are…” mentality.

The issues have been beaten to death. The attitudes remain.

Mainstream Catholics don’t appear to be interested in a bunch or arrogant, self-righteous, chest-beating…much of which occurs any time Rome gives the slightest nod toward traditionalism.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Mainstream Catholics don’t appear to be interested in a bunch or arrogant, self-righteous, chest-beating…much of which occurs any time Rome gives the slightest nod toward traditionalism.

Indeed, instead most “mainstream” Catholics are far more interested in loud, obnoxious, hand-clapping nonsense during Mass.

By mainstream I’m not referring to people who just prefer the NO, that’s all well and good, I’m referring to the people (largely absent from CAF) who care more about the entertainment value of the Mass than the spiritual value. And in my experience in Orange County, that is the “mainstream” attitude.

 

[ethelzguy]

It amazes me that there is such an abundance of people…supposedly adult…who can subsist on a diet of pabluum & run away when the meat dishes arrive.

Another comparison between the EF and OF, I suppose…

 

[ethelzguy]

Indeed, instead most “mainstream” Catholics are far more interested in loud, obnoxious, hand-clapping nonsense during Mass.

By mainstream I’m not referring to people who just prefer the NO, that’s all well and good, I’m referring to the people (largely absent from CAF) who care more about the entertainment value of the Mass than the spiritual value. And in my experience in Orange County, that is the “mainstream” attitude.

Apparently, California and Florida seem to be where the bulk of the problems exist, based on what I read here. I haven’t seen any “mainstream” Catholics behaving in the manner described here.

I have spent weeks, “touring” parishes in the area, covering two states and three dioceses, and have found things to be nothing like what I read about here…no clapping, no leotards, no lay homilists, no priests sitting while EMHCs distribute Communion, no “social justice” homilies…etc.

I still have about six weeks’ worth of “tour” on the schedule. It has been interesting and enlightening.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religious liberty?

If we share the same Catholic faith we share the same goal.

If so why the divisions?

I don’t consider myself liberal or traditional; I consider myself Catholic loyal to the teaching authority of the Church who happens to prefer the N.O. Mass.

What I find to be a real turn off is the attitude of some traditionalists who believe that if you do not cling to the TLM you are a heretic; an attitude you run into fairly often on this thread.

Last October, I met a guy who noticed a brochure I had on the rosary. He asked me if I was Catholic and when I replied I was he told me he was also. Since we only have one Catholic Church here, I asked what Mass he attended. He told me that they were traditionalist and they gathered together as a family to say the rosary. What’s up with that?!?!?!?!?

 

[GerardP]

I don’t consider myself liberal or traditional; I consider myself Catholic loyal to the teaching authority of the Church who happens to prefer the N.O. Mass.

But the heirarchy hasn’t been loyal to the perennial Magisterium of the Church and her traditions.

What I find to be a real turn off is the attitude of some traditionalists who believe that if you do not cling to the TLM you are a heretic; an attitude you run into fairly often on this thread.

That would be a bad attitude, unless you are a person that doggedly refuses to look into the arguments for the traditional resistance to the post conciliar policies that are disguised as Catholic teachings.

Last October, I met a guy who noticed a brochure I had on the rosary. He asked me if I was Catholic and when I replied I was he told me he was also. Since we only have one Catholic Church here, I asked what Mass he attended. He told me that they were traditionalist and they gathered together as a family to say the rosary. What’s up with that?!?!?!?!?

What’s up with that? The illegal suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass. It’s the bishops fault that that guy and his family can’t get a Liturgy that is the central part of the patrimony of the Latin Rite.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Speaking from my personal experiences, it is far less about the traditional issues themselves, than it is about the attitudes of those pushing for them…the “We’re more Catholic than you liberals or the post Vatican II Church are…” mentality.

The issues have been beaten to death. The attitudes remain.

Mainstream Catholics don’t appear to be interested in a bunch or arrogant, self-righteous, chest-beating…much of which occurs any time Rome gives the slightest nod toward traditionalism.

Let me tell you why you sometimes see, what you refer to as, “chest-beating”.

For years those Catholics who held to Tradition and resisted the errors that envade the Church after Vatican II (errors which had been explicitly condemned by the Pope), were labeled as schimatics, heretics, and anything else that came to mind. They were the only group that was ridiculed, calumniated, and held in scorn, yet their “crime” was resisting the novelties and errors of the time. The Protestants, who hate the Catholic Church, were treated with great affection, and the schismatic and heretical Orthodox were embraced as a “sister Church”. The only group that was hated were those who continued to resist the errors that had been condemned by the Popes prior to the Council.

When the Traditionalists would quote papal encyclicals or Church councils as their authority for resisting certain errors, they were accused of being “more Catholic than the Pope”, or something similar.

Now, after about 45 years of this diabolical disorientation, Rome has began to reverses it position on a number of issues and admitted that, low and hehold, the Tradttionalists were right all along.

When this happens, those who ridiculed them for holding to these truths in the face of almost unbelievable opposition, simply ignore how they treated these people for doing nothing but holding to the truth. Instead of apologizing for calumniating them they simply ignored these points and moved on to others.

Therefore, since these same calumniators have continued to ridicule them, the Traditionalists point out the areas in which Rome has reversed itself and admitted that they are right. Yet when the Traditionalists do this, the same calumniators, who have no reply, accuse them of “beating their chest”.

But inside the Traditionalists realize that this is their glory. Christ Himslef was ridiculed and calumniated for speaking the truth, and so too are the Traditionalists.

 

[ethelzguy]

But inside the Traditionalists realize that this is their glory. Christ Himself was ridiculed and calumniated for speaking the truth, and so too are the Traditionalists.

Traditionalists equating themselves with Christ. Gives new meaning to the term “chest-beating”.

sheesh

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Traditionalists equating themselves with Christ. Gives new meaning to the term “chest-beating”.

sheesh

Are you kidding, man? We’re SUPPOSED to try to imitate Christ.

What your saying is essentially “Jesus went to the bathroom, and if you go to the bathroom as well, you’re equating yourself with Christ.”

 

[ethelzguy]

Are you kidding, man? We’re SUPPOSED to try to imitate Christ.

What your saying is essentially “Jesus went to the bathroom, and if you go to the bathroom as well, you’re equating yourself with Christ.”

“Trying to imitate Christ”, is a long way from “equating yourself with Christ”.

I was commenting on this quote:

Christ Himself was ridiculed and calumniated for speaking the truth, and so too are the Traditionalists.

If you can’t see the self-righteous arrogance in such a comment, there is nothing further for us to discuss.

 

[KingAlfred]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religious liberty?

If we share the same Catholic faith we share the same goal.

If so why the divisions?

I don’t think we’re divided. We’re a bit diversified, in the sense that some prefer a more traditional approach to celebrating our faith. There are traditionalists in every walk of life.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If you can’t see the self-righteous arrogance in such a comment, there is nothing further for us to discuss.

Really? So basically you are calling the poster either a liar, a fool, or both.

You’re saying that while he asked for nearly 40 years to have the EF. . .and was told, for those 40 years, with absolutely no ‘justification’. . ."NO’. . .and now it turns out that all those years **he should have been able to have that right, **and all those years the people who said ‘no’ were wrong to do so --but gee, I guess that isn’t really suffering, you know.

After all, all that time they had the OF. So if they were ‘wailing’ over having the EF (Latin Mass), hey, tough toenails. How dare they equate their suffering with that of Christ’s? **You **don’t think they suffered, I suppose.

So tell me, if suddenly the OF (while remaining the OF, of course) disappears from your diocese and from all the ‘driveable’ points around you due to the demand for the EF, so that you only had the EF available, you wouldn’t ‘suffer’ not having your OF, eh? For nearly 40 years? With no explanation, and with people mocking you, “Why are you wailing for the OF? You have the EF anytime you want. . .and if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”

No, I guess you wouldn’t suffer at all. Not when people call you names, or act as if you’re crazy for wanting a perfectly valid Mass, insult you, deny you, call you a liar and a fool and an idiot and a throwback and everything else.

You’d say, “But the OF is a valid Mass, and I would like it?” "So what? They’d say to you. “The EF is a valid Mass. It’s what the people want. Like it. . .or lump it.”

Yes, it is easy to stand there ‘now’, because your ‘preferred’ Mass was always there and (abuses notwithstanding), it was the ONLY Mass you could have, for years and years. Now, of course, the EF is ‘coming back’ and is becoming more available.

Go back about 5, 10, 15, 20 years though. . .and there were many places were not only was it NOT available. . .if you had even asked for it, you would have been not just laughed at, but denied, insulted, and treated like a leper. How dare a person in the enlightened year of 1980 something ask for “That old Thing” when everybody KNEW that Vatican 2 had dumped it for the ‘real Mass’ that 'everybody could understand?" If you asked for the Latin Mass then you were a schismatic, a bigot, somebody who wanted to drag us back into the Middle Ages, a snob, and a regressive. Away with ye!!!

We know. We were there. We were asking. And we were treated, for the most part, as if we were dirt. Looked at askance, patronized, then outright mocked and insulted and finally dismissed with a “good riddance to bad rubbish --the last thing the Church needs are these apes clinging to the Dark Ages”.

But all us ‘apes’ were right, all along. Not only were we right THEN, we are right NOW.

You know, we have moved on from the past. We are delighted both that Rome (and mostly the U.S., really, Rome was with us from the start, God bless Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Paul VI–who never sanctioned the dismissal of the EF himself --and we have nothing against the OF anyway). . has finally acknowledged that we were right.

We are delighted that the same cavalier (and wrong) attitude that ‘whisked away’ the EF for 40 years isn’t going to be done to those of you who love the OF. We suffered --why would we want others to suffer?

All we want is simple justice. . .which is an acknowledgement on the part of some here that, guess what, we were right in saying all along that we had a right to a Mass which was never abrogated but which was unfairly denied to many by many, with no right.

What was right then. . . is still right today. God’s truth is unchanging.

But it appears that there are some for whom this justice is still ‘too much’. It appears that there are some who refuse to accept the idea that people ‘suffered’ for 40 years and that this suffering was both for Christ, and was a suffering of Christ Himself, in that we united our sufferings to His and offered them to Him. I guess that to some, that appears ‘self-righteous’ and arrogant. It isn’t. . .but I guess some people just can’t understand what it was like to have a gift of their faith unfairly and in many cases vindictively denied to them, without cause, for many years. . .and can’t accept that this was a true suffering, and that it should not have happened, and that justice demands that we at least acknowledge that suffering, embrace the sufferer, and move on, vowing to do our best not to let any others suffer if we can possibly help it.

If people can’t get it–they can’t–but it seems to me very sad.

 

[ethelzguy]

Really? So basically you are calling the poster either a liar, a fool, or both.

You’re saying that while he asked for nearly 40 years to have the EF. . .and was told, for those 40 years, with absolutely no ‘justification’. . ."NO’. . .and now it turns out that all those years **he should have been able to have that right, **and all those years the people who said ‘no’ were wrong to do so --but gee, I guess that isn’t really suffering, you know.

After all, all that time they had the OF. So if they were ‘wailing’ over having the EF (Latin Mass), hey, tough toenails. How dare they equate their suffering with that of Christ’s? **You **don’t think they suffered, I suppose.

So tell me, if suddenly the OF (while remaining the OF, of course) disappears from your diocese and from all the ‘driveable’ points around you due to the demand for the EF, so that you only had the EF available, you wouldn’t ‘suffer’ not having your OF, eh? For nearly 40 years? With no explanation, and with people mocking you, “Why are you wailing for the OF? You have the EF anytime you want. . .and if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”

No, I guess you wouldn’t suffer at all. Not when people call you names, or act as if you’re crazy for wanting a perfectly valid Mass, insult you, deny you, call you a liar and a fool and an idiot and a throwback and everything else.

You’d say, “But the OF is a valid Mass, and I would like it?” "So what? They’d say to you. “The EF is a valid Mass. It’s what the people want. Like it. . .or lump it.”

Yes, it is easy to stand there ‘now’, because your ‘preferred’ Mass was always there and (abuses notwithstanding), it was the ONLY Mass you could have, for years and years. Now, of course, the EF is ‘coming back’ and is becoming more available.

Go back about 5, 10, 15, 20 years though. . .and there were many places were not only was it NOT available. . .if you had even asked for it, you would have been not just laughed at, but denied, insulted, and treated like a leper. How dare a person in the enlightened year of 1980 something ask for “That old Thing” when everybody KNEW that Vatican 2 had dumped it for the ‘real Mass’ that 'everybody could understand?" If you asked for the Latin Mass then you were a schismatic, a bigot, somebody who wanted to drag us back into the Middle Ages, a snob, and a regressive. Away with ye!!!

We know. We were there. We were asking. And we were treated, for the most part, as if we were dirt. Looked at askance, patronized, then outright mocked and insulted and finally dismissed with a “good riddance to bad rubbish --the last thing the Church needs are these apes clinging to the Dark Ages”.

But all us ‘apes’ were right, all along. Not only were we right THEN, we are right NOW.

You know, we have moved on from the past. We are delighted both that Rome (and mostly the U.S., really, Rome was with us from the start, God bless Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Paul VI–who never sanctioned the dismissal of the EF himself --and we have nothing against the OF anyway). . has finally acknowledged that we were right.

We are delighted that the same cavalier (and wrong) attitude that ‘whisked away’ the EF for 40 years isn’t going to be done to those of you who love the OF. We suffered --why would we want others to suffer?

All we want is simple justice. . .which is an acknowledgement on the part of some here that, guess what, we were right in saying all along that we had a right to a Mass which was never abrogated but which was unfairly denied to many by many, with no right.

What was right then. . . is still right today. God’s truth is unchanging.

But it appears that there are some for whom this justice is still ‘too much’. It appears that there are some who refuse to accept the idea that people ‘suffered’ for 40 years and that this suffering was both for Christ, and was a suffering of Christ Himself, in that we united our sufferings to His and offered them to Him. I guess that to some, that appears ‘self-righteous’ and arrogant. It isn’t. . .but I guess some people just can’t understand what it was like to have a gift of their faith unfairly and in many cases vindictively denied to them, without cause, for many years. . .and can’t accept that this was a true suffering, and that it should not have happened, and that justice demands that we at least acknowledge that suffering, embrace the sufferer, and move on, vowing to do our best not to let any others suffer if we can possibly help it.

If people can’t get it–they can’t–but it seems to me very sad.

Feel better now? I just LOVE these “I was right, and the Church was wrong” rants.

 

[Walking_Home]

Really? So basically you are calling the poster either a liar, a fool, or both.

You’re saying that while he asked for nearly 40 years to have the EF. . .and was told, for those 40 years, with absolutely no ‘justification’. . ."NO’. . .and now it turns out that all those years **he should have been able to have that right, **and all those years the people who said ‘no’ were wrong to do so --but gee, I guess that isn’t really suffering, you know.

After all, all that time they had the OF. So if they were ‘wailing’ over having the EF (Latin Mass), hey, tough toenails. How dare they equate their suffering with that of Christ’s? **You **don’t think they suffered, I suppose.

So tell me, if suddenly the OF (while remaining the OF, of course) disappears from your diocese and from all the ‘driveable’ points around you due to the demand for the EF, so that you only had the EF available, you wouldn’t ‘suffer’ not having your OF, eh? For nearly 40 years? With no explanation, and with people mocking you, “Why are you wailing for the OF? You have the EF anytime you want. . .and if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”

No, I guess you wouldn’t suffer at all. Not when people call you names, or act as if you’re crazy for wanting a perfectly valid Mass, insult you, deny you, call you a liar and a fool and an idiot and a throwback and everything else.

You’d say, “But the OF is a valid Mass, and I would like it?” "So what? They’d say to you. “The EF is a valid Mass. It’s what the people want. Like it. . .or lump it.”

Yes, it is easy to stand there ‘now’, because your ‘preferred’ Mass was always there and (abuses notwithstanding), it was the ONLY Mass you could have, for years and years. Now, of course, the EF is ‘coming back’ and is becoming more available.

Go back about 5, 10, 15, 20 years though. . .and there were many places were not only was it NOT available. . .if you had even asked for it, you would have been not just laughed at, but denied, insulted, and treated like a leper. How dare a person in the enlightened year of 1980 something ask for “That old Thing” when everybody KNEW that Vatican 2 had dumped it for the ‘real Mass’ that 'everybody could understand?" If you asked for the Latin Mass then you were a schismatic, a bigot, somebody who wanted to drag us back into the Middle Ages, a snob, and a regressive. Away with ye!!!

We know. We were there. We were asking. And we were treated, for the most part, as if we were dirt. Looked at askance, patronized, then outright mocked and insulted and finally dismissed with a “good riddance to bad rubbish --the last thing the Church needs are these apes clinging to the Dark Ages”.

But all us ‘apes’ were right, all along. Not only were we right THEN, we are right NOW.

You know, we have moved on from the past. We are delighted both that Rome (and mostly the U.S., really, Rome was with us from the start, God bless Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Paul VI–who never sanctioned the dismissal of the EF himself --and we have nothing against the OF anyway). . has finally acknowledged that we were right.

We are delighted that the same cavalier (and wrong) attitude that ‘whisked away’ the EF for 40 years isn’t going to be done to those of you who love the OF. We suffered --why would we want others to suffer?

All we want is simple justice. . .which is an acknowledgement on the part of some here that, guess what, we were right in saying all along that we had a right to a Mass which was never abrogated but which was unfairly denied to many by many, with no right.

What was right then. . . is still right today. God’s truth is unchanging.

But it appears that there are some for whom this justice is still ‘too much’. It appears that there are some who refuse to accept the idea that people ‘suffered’ for 40 years and that this suffering was both for Christ, and was a suffering of Christ Himself, in that we united our sufferings to His and offered them to Him. I guess that to some, that appears ‘self-righteous’ and arrogant. It isn’t. . .but I guess some people just can’t understand what it was like to have a gift of their faith unfairly and in many cases vindictively denied to them, without cause, for many years. . .and can’t accept that this was a true suffering, and that it should not have happened, and that justice demands that we at least acknowledge that suffering, embrace the sufferer, and move on, vowing to do our best not to let any others suffer if we can possibly help it.

If people can’t get it–they can’t–but it seems to me very sad.

---

Well said ----

 

[Timothysis]

But all us ‘apes’ were right, all along. Not only were we right THEN, we are right NOW.

Thank you for this quote. You just verified the reason why you and some others attacked me for no reason.

May I ask, in all seriousness, that the statement that you were “right THEN” and “right NOW” means that you knew/know better than church authorites? And what will it take to make you relax, knowing that everything is under control?

 

[Walking_Home]

Since when are those who worked against Pope John Paul II’s call for a wide and generous application of the EF – and who now may be working against Pope Benedict XVI ---- the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As I said, I guess some people just don’t get it.

They would rather mock and insult people by calling them ‘ranters’ and dismissing their words as ‘opinion’ and just sweeping the whole subject under the rug, rather than admit that for the last 40 years, the EF should have been ‘available’ to Catholics along with the OF, instead of falsely ‘denied’.

That the people who were denied were not only ‘right then’ to ask, but are right 'now-as is shown by the fact that not only Pope John Paul 2 but Pope Benedict went out of their way to state, categorically, that the EF had ‘never been abrogated’ and should be made widely available, as the OF had never been meant to ‘replace’ the EF.

That is all.

It really does not seem like much to have a plain fact acknowledged, without being called, ranters, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, etc.

Nobody is trying to claim that all you who love the OF (which I reiterate has as it was intended by the Council to be promulgated is a perfectly valid Mass. I am not and never have been claiming that it is not) were responsible for the denial and the deceit involved in the unlawful suppression of the EF (at its worst) or the ignorance (at its best) of those who were. There simply is no other way to put it, they were quite wrong in the denial–no matter how ‘right’ they may have thought they were.

I notice that people were very careful to ignore the majority of the post by dismissing it as ‘rants’ and ‘wrong’. Why is that? If I am so wrong in my ranting, you ought to be able to support your contention that I am wrong.

So please do. Please give me the official Church documentation that suppressed the EF. In doing so, you will be able to justify what was done and to show us that we really ARE malcontents and ‘wrong.’

Of course, if you cannot. . .then not only are we not malcontents. . .we were right to ask for the EF then, and right now.

I don’t know why this is so threatening a concept to you–to acknowledge that some people ‘made mistakes’ years ago in falsely assuming the EF was ‘gone for good’. It wasn’t you who made the decision (none of you being priests and bishops), right? It wasn’t you who called us names and mocked us, was it? And even if it was, don’t you think that if you just said, “Sorry. . .we didn’t realize, we didn’t mean it’, that we wouldn’t accept the apology?”

What is the huge problem with accepting that a great number of Catholics in the U.S. had something terrible done to them, which should not have been done–that the wrong is now being redressed (thank God) but that for some reason, it threatens some people to admit that wrong was done?

I’m not attacking the Catholic Church. I’m not saying it taught anything wrong. I have a fairly good understanding that if some priests and bishops misunderstood church teaching and made some wrong decisions, it doesn’t mean the Church ITSELF taught the wrong teaching.

Why can’t you simply admit that there was a wrong done?

Why are you so vested in continuing to deride and mock your fellow Catholics who happen to prefer an equally valid Mass to your own? Why is it so important that you continue to make us feel like ‘second-class’ citizens, or to minimize the last 40 years as though the whole thing ‘never happened’?

Can you answer me?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you for this quote. You just verified the reason why you and some others attacked me for no reason.

May I ask, in all seriousness, that the statement that you were “right THEN” and “right NOW” means that you knew/know better than church authorites? And what will it take to make you relax, knowing that everything is under control?

First, I never attacked you. I simply said that your experiences are your experiences. . .that there are, and were, others whose experiences differ.

And no, I am not claiming I knew ‘better than church authorities’. . .because the Church Authorities say exactly what I have said. It was never the Church who said, “There will be no more EF in this parish/diocese”. That there were some in authority who made mistakes (all of us being human) does not mean I place myself ‘over them’. I have made plenty of errors in my time. However, when it comes to this particular Church teaching, the Church taught that the EF was never abrogated. I believe that–I did then and I do now. So I agree with the Church’s teaching. . .which doesn’t make me ‘better’, just obedient. Some others made a mistake. . .which doesn’t make them ‘worse’, it makes them simply wrong on a particular subject. I’m not ‘better’ than they are. I simply was ‘right’ in following the Church on this subject.

It appears that either I haven’t been clear, or that for some other reason, people just don’t get that an acknowledgement that some people made a mistake (not the Church and its teachings, but some people in it, and most likely not deliberately) is not tantamount to proclaiming me better than the Pope. Sheesh!!

Come on, now. If I went around and proclaimed that the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women (Because that is the truth, it does not) are you going to accuse me of thinking myself better than church authorities, because there are some priests who say that it should ordain women???

So why is it such a huge deal when I point out a simple fact about an incident in U.S. history?