Why are there a lot of misinformed and frankly uneducated Catholics that frown upon orthodox Church teachings and Traditions that were otherwise belov

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AltarSoldier said:
I personally hate how some clergy and laity are so open to embrace sudden changes in the Church but are too hesitate and need I say ignorant to study their sacred God given roots. it seems with each passing generation Catholics are becoming more and more passive and indifferent to their faith.
Click to expand...
I think it boils down to different strokes for different folks. Most people don’t mind others believing differently from them, as long as they don’t feel coerced to believe the same things. I think there is room for everyone. No need to judge, or call someone ignorant. It’s quite possible they aren’t ignorant, but they just see things differently. One person doesn’t have to be wrong for another person to be right.
 
Jen95 said:
So the Church should give up using a liturgical language, which she saw the benefits of using for over a millennium, so people in the Information Age, the people with the most education in human history, can hear the liturgy in their “heart language”?
Okay…
Click to expand...
@Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman didn’t make any suggestion of that kind. He explained why he prefers OF instead of TLM.

See, this is the problem. You don’t have to give up one thing to have another, when it comes to your preference in this regard. And yet, when someone explains what THEIR preference is, they get jumped on for “wanting to change everying” or “wanting to do away with tradition”. It just isn’t so.
 
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
Jen95:
So the Church should give up using a liturgical language, which she saw the benefits of using for over a millennium, so people in the Information Age, the people with the most education in human history, can hear the liturgy in their “heart language”?
Okay…
Click to expand...
@Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman didn’t make any suggestion of that kind. He explained why he prefers OF instead of TLM.

See, this is the problem. You don’t have to give up one thing to have another, when it comes to your preference in this regard. And yet, when someone explains what THEIR preference is, they get jumped on for “wanting to change everying” or “wanting to do away with tradition”. It just isn’t so.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but didn’t the Church not allow the ancient Latin Mass from the mid-1960s until 1984, except by special permission (such as the “Agatha Christie indult”)? Didn’t the Church Herself force everyone to “give up one thing for another” for at least twenty years, and even now, most Catholics don’t have easy access to the EF Mass?
FYI

 
Last edited:
Yes plus Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum (2007) had to clarify that the TLM was not abrogated.
 
QwertyGirl said:
I think it boils down to different strokes for different folks. Most people don’t mind others believing differently from them, as long as they don’t feel coerced to believe the same things. I think there is room for everyone
Click to expand...
The problem with that is indifferentism. All religions can not be right and God’s Divine Revelation to us is found only in the Catholic church.

It is the Church’s responsibility to spread the correct understanding of God, heaven and how we attain salvation.

Believing wrong or believing incorrectly can put one’s soul in danger.
 
Jen95 said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but didn’t the Church not allow the ancient Latin Mass from the mid-1960s until 1984, except by special permission (such as the “Agatha Christie indult”
Click to expand...
Then your argument should be with the Church, not with posters here who express a preference.
 
I was referring to the believe that one form of Mass is more meaningful to an individual than an other.

My understanding is that both forms are equal in validity.
 
Yes. It’s too bad all those sisters and priests who taught us to say things like, “et cum spiritu tuo” aren’t here to be corrected. 😏
 
I dont understand how a Catholic can not love the beautiful traditional liturgy. It is a masterpiece, and a treasure !!!

But I do understand how many never give it a chance do to their dislike of condeming judgmental , uncharitable, and self righteous attitudes they experience from some traditionalists. Especially on the internet.

Although I belive this attitude is rare and doesn’t reflect the majority of TLM faithful , it’s a problem that is not helping the noble cause of restoring the holy , faith building traditions.
 
Mac said:
I dont understand how a Catholic can not love the beautiful traditional liturgy. It is a masterpiece, and a treasure !!!
Click to expand...
The same way it is difficult for me to understand why some people don’t like chocolate!
 
Mac said:
I dont understand how a Catholic can not love the beautiful traditional liturgy. It is a masterpiece, and a treasure !!!
Click to expand...
I gave it a try and didn’t like it. Just not my thing.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
The problem with that is indifferentism. All religions can not be right and God’s Divine Revelation to us is found only in the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
I don’t think other religions are correct but there are different ways that people express their Catholic faith. Saying that those two beliefs are the same is a huge stretch.
 
Reverence and piety can turn into idolatry, and idolatry can take many forms in addition to the classic “pagan” forms. Even “correct” and edifying elements of the faith can be taken up in idolatry. Idolatry lies in the person, not the idol.

Reverence appreciates cult in proper perspective to God. Reverence doesn’t make cultural religious expressions into a god, and insist on exclusive or even relative rights to grace through certain cultural religious expressions.

Think about that please. There is a big to-do about pachemamas, and at the same time a similar idolatry permeates the hearts of some Catholics.
 
Last edited:
To me, a major reason for allowing the vernacular is the Catholicism had spread to communities with little knowledge or linguistic connection to Latin, or communities in which the connection to Latin was disappearing.

Latin was once the vernacular. Then it became a sort of “high language” which was still understood. Then it became the root language of the vernacular to a language taught in school.

Eventually even this last fell away. At the same time, missionaries were operating in countries with no connection to Latin.

It is different to attend Mass which you have grown up understanding, or as a convert attending Mass with a language which is completely foreign.

Sure the saints loved the Latin Mass, but their language and societies had more connection to Latin and it was part of their heritage.

Look at where the Protestant Reformation occcurreed: in areas where the language was much less Latin based.
 
Some experienced it before it changed. And they’re thrilled it changed. Or some that were fine with the change.

Some experienced it and simply see the current ordinary form as beautiful form.

They aren’t self righteous, uncharitable or judgemental. Like you, they see beauty in the mass.
 
Which is the line from the Vatican that discourages dialogue Masses?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top