Why are we dividing ourselves?

[consumedconvert]

I would like everyone to take a deep breath and calm down a bit. Then I would like you to read a few statements.

**1. Every Catholic has a right to enjoy the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and to prefer it. **

2. Every Catholic has a right to enjoy the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and to prefer it.

3. Every Catholic must assent that both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass are equally valid and licit.

4. There is only one Church, and those who prefer the Ordinary Form and those who prefer the Extraordinary Form, as long as they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, are in communion with one another and with Christ.

5. While labels like “Traditionalist” can be useful to denote belief or preference, they are only labels. We must never divide ourselves from each other based on our preference for either usage of the mass or for our preference for any other licit devotional practice.

What is going on here? Why do we war amongst ourselves? I understand why followers of SSPX criticize those who prefer the OF–they hold it to be intrinsically evil, which those in communion with Rome cannot hold. But why are the rest of us fighting each other based on such a thing as “Mass preferance?”

Saints help us! We are brothers and sisters! Why do we tear one another, as it were tearing the Body of Christ?

 

[hasikelee]

Why do we? In my experience, because people are weird.

Yeah, that’s what I said and it’s the only way I can think to say it.

Religion is and always will be a hot topic for people who are sensitive about it. And I find time and time again that there’s no way you can possibly co-exist with someone who is sensitive about it. They will be sensitive and then attack you. Unless you completely imitate them and their style.

What can ya do.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Thank you so much for this, consumedconvert. I’ve wondered the same thing many times. We need to work on the love and charity we show towards one another, look past personal preferences for licit, valid practices, and realize that we are not “more Catholic” or “less Catholic” than anyone who is a member of Christ’s Body, the Church. The members of Holy Mother Church cannot divide themselves against one another and hope to stand upright in faith on their own.

 

[Freshman88]

This is essentially what divides the Traditionalists from everyone else. We do not see the question in terms of preference, but in terms of tradition, organic growth and integrity.

Are both valid? you bet.
Do I believe myself to better then other Catholics? On the contrary, the classical mass enforces a sense of Christian humility.

But Is one form more true to our liturgical tradition then the other?

That’s why I take the stand that I do. Until someone can prove to me that the creation of what was essentially a new mass was being faithful to organic development, then I shall remain where I am.

 

[consumedconvert]

This is essentially what divides the Traditionalists from everyone else. We do not see the question in terms of preference, but in terms of tradition, organic growth and integrity.

Are both valid? you bet.
Do I believe myself to better then other Catholics? On the contrary, the classical mass enforces a sense of Christian humility.

But Is one form more true to our liturgical tradition then the other?

That’s why I take the stand that I do. Until someone can prove to me that the creation of what was essentially a new mass was being faithful to organic development, then I shall remain where I am.

And I am perfectly fine with you enjoying the Mass where you are, EF. I only wish you could be fine with me enjoying the mass NO.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is essentially what divides the Traditionalists from everyone else. We do not see the question in terms of preference, but in terms of tradition, organic growth and integrity.

Are both valid? you bet.
Do I believe myself to better then other Catholics? On the contrary, the classical mass enforces a sense of Christian humility.

But Is one form more true to our liturgical tradition then the other?

That’s why I take the stand that I do. Until someone can prove to me that the creation of what was essentially a new mass was being faithful to organic development, then I shall remain where I am.

I attend the TLM once a month because, while it is only offered once/month, it is the first time in 25 years it has been allowed. So for its availability at all, I am grateful.

I also like the N.O. in Latin as in The Grotto in distant Detroit. None of those around here, though.

I also like the N.O. in English, and I like to see the converts from Evangelical Protestantism that join our parish every year. I look for the day when Catholicism sweeps the South, (as Flannery O’Connor predicted) and I think the N.O. might just be part of the means by which that is accomplished.

 

[Freshman88]

And I am perfectly fine with you enjoying the Mass where you are, EF. I only wish you could be fine with me enjoying the mass NO.

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe that we have a problem with parisohners enjoying the NO? I attend the NO quite regularly myself, and I can find myself enjoying it too, when it’s well done of course.

No, for the most part we don’t have a problem with the average parishioner, how could we? Not long ago all I knew was the NO, though I wasn’t much of a Catholic at the time.

No, Our concern lays elsewhere.

 

[consumedconvert]

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe that we have a problem with parisohners enjoying the NO? I attend the NO quite regularly myself, and I can find myself enjoying it too, when it’s well done of course.

No, for the most part we don’t have a problem with the average parishioner, how could we? Not long ago all I knew was the NO, though I wasn’t much of a Catholic at the time.

No, Our concern lays elsewhere.

What is it, specifically, which you disagree with in the above five statements? Perhaps I can understand you better.

 

[consumedconvert]

I attend the TLM once a month because, while it is only offered once/month, it is the first time in 25 years it has been allowed. So for its availability at all, I am grateful.

I also like the N.O. in Latin as in The Grotto in distant Detroit. None of those around here, though.

I also like the N.O. in English, and I like to see the converts from Evangelical Protestantism that join our parish every year. I look for the day when Catholicism sweeps the South, (as Flannery O’Connor predicted) and I think the N.O. might just be part of the means by which that is accomplished.

Good God, may it be!

Does the South have a Patron Saint?

 

[Freshman88]

What is it, specifically, which you disagree with in the above five statements? Perhaps I can understand you better.

I agree with all the points, its your conclusion that I disagree with.

But why are the rest of us fighting each other based on such a thing as “Mass preferance?”

Again, as I said before, our argument is not based on preference.

 

[catharina]

Great topic for a thread and poll, cc.
Good for you!

 

[consumedconvert]

I agree with all the points, its your conclusion that I disagree with.

Again, as I said before, our argument is not based on preference.

What is going on here? Why do we war amongst ourselves? I understand why followers of SSPX criticize those who prefer the OF–they hold it to be intrinsically evil, which those in communion with Rome cannot hold. But why are the rest of us fighting each other based on such a thing as “Mass preferance?”

Saints help us! We are brothers and sisters! Why do we tear one another, as it were tearing the Body of Christ?

My conclusion is posted above. Then what is it specifically in my conclusion you disagree with? I don’t understand what “our argument” is.

 

[consumedconvert]

My conclusion is posted above. Then what is it specifically in my conclusion you disagree with? I don’t understand what “our argument” is.

I’m eagerly awaiting your response, mainly because I don’t understand what exactly “our argument” is about.

 

[catharina]

consumed convert,

The very sad story seems to be that there are those who are willing to resist Church Teaching to the point of actual disagreement and rejection. It’s difficult to grasp that fact since many are unwilling to admit the fact in those terms, but it’s the way it is.

All the rest of us can do is pray for them.

 

[Dauphin]

I’m eagerly awaiting your response, mainly because I don’t understand what exactly “our argument” is about.

What Freshman88 is saying, I believe, is that the Novus Ordo, valid and sacred as it is, represents a rupture in the liturgical tradition of the Church. It fails to enunciate the Catholic faith as clearly as possible, and carries with it norms which are a dramatic break from the Church’s practice before the council.

As a consequence, we propose that the TLM is “better”, in that those who attend it will receive firmer Catholic catechesis and will have its sacrificial nature made clearer to them, their orentation brought more towards the Lord, and their faith made stronger. It is guaranteed “authentic liturgy”.

Along with this position comes the belief that the Novus Ordo, as it is practiced today, should be dramatically changed to bring it more in line with tradition. The altar should be turned around, Latin and gregorian chant should be introduced in line with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, strict guildlines for more traditional vestments should be created, the Roman Canon should be made mandatory and the optional prayers and room for “creative leeway” abolished. In addition to this, other enrichments from the extraordinary form might be considered, such as the introduction of the vastly preferable prayer for the conversion of Jews written by the Holy Father.

I really believe this to be a “middle of the road” position. Believe it or not, if I posted this on a traditionalist forum like fisheaters, I would be attacked for giving in to the post-conciliar “newchurch” by failing to distance myself fully from what is the Novus Ordo “monstrosity”, written by satanists and freemasons. I take heat from both sides

 

[Ridgerunner]

Good God, may it be!

Does the South have a Patron Saint?

Not that I know of. St. Robert of Lee, maybe? (Joking)
But you would almost think there is one.

I’m inclined to agree with O’Connor on this. One thing about Southern fundamentalists; they actually do believe in God and in the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

O’Connor also said that Southern fundamentalists would be surprised to learn that they have more in common in their beliefs with Catholicism than with classic protestantism. I am very inclined to agree with that.

Nobody had more insight into the soul of Southerners than did Flannery O’Connor.

 

[consumedconvert]

Not that I know of. St. Robert of Lee, maybe? (Joking)
But you would almost think there is one.

I’m inclined to agree with O’Connor on this. One thing about Southern fundamentalists; they actually do believe in God and in the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

O’Connor also said that Southern fundamentalists would be surprised to learn that they have more in common in their beliefs with Catholicism than with classic protestantism. I am very inclined to agree with that.

Nobody had more insight into the soul of Southerners than did Flannery O’Connor.

As a former Fundy who went to a Fundamentalist college in the deep South, I totally agree with you. Once one overcomes the ancient prejudice against Catholicism, it’s all coasting downhill from there.

 

[consumedconvert]

What Freshman88 is saying, I believe, is that the Novus Ordo, valid and sacred as it is, represents a rupture in the liturgical tradition of the Church. It fails to enunciate the Catholic faith as clearly as possible, and carries with it norms which are a dramatic break from the Church’s practice before the council.

As a consequence, we propose that the TLM is “better”, in that those who attend it will receive firmer Catholic catechesis and will have its sacrificial nature made clearer to them, their orentation brought more towards the Lord, and their faith made stronger. It is guaranteed “authentic liturgy”.

Along with this position comes the belief that the Novus Ordo, as it is practiced today, should be dramatically changed to bring it more in line with tradition. The altar should be turned around, Latin and gregorian chant should be introduced in line with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, strict guildlines for more traditional vestments should be created, the Roman Canon should be made mandatory and the optional prayers and room for “creative leeway” abolished. In addition to this, other enrichments from the extraordinary form might be considered, such as the introduction of the vastly preferable prayer for the conversion of Jews written by the Holy Father.

I really believe this to be a “middle of the road” position. Believe it or not, if I posted this on a traditionalist forum like fisheaters, I would be attacked for giving in to the post-conciliar “newchurch” by failing to distance myself fully from what is the Novus Ordo “monstrosity”, written by satanists and freemasons. I take heat from both sides

I might suggest the proper forum for these suggestions is in conversation with the Hierarchy? Really, what can we do about it? The Church is not a democracy, how many times have we heard that? Yet it is a truism because it is true. It is no more a democracy for conservatives or traditionalists than it is for liberals. If and when the change you seek comes, it will come from a Bishop or the Holy See. I suggest it would be much more appropriate to air your concerns with your Bishop or with the Holy See rather than in open forum, where all it accomplishes is stirring up divisions.

Again, you are more than welcome to encourage people to attend the EF! Emphasize its strong points. But again, there’s no call to criticize a beloved Usage, not at least to people who couldn’t change it if they wanted to.

CC

 

[catharina]

I’m inclined to agree with O’Connor on this. One thing about Southern fundamentalists; they actually do believe in God and in the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

O’Connor also said that Southern fundamentalists would be surprised to learn that they have more in common in their beliefs with Catholicism than with classic protestantism. I am very inclined to agree with that.

I tend to agree with you and dear Flannery, may she rest in peace.

The Southern fundamentalists known to me (and I include LOTS of Baptists too) have such a faithful sense of the love of the Lord and for the Lord.

 

[saint_rafael]

I disagree.
There can be no peace in the Church until the New Mass finally dies and we have complete restoration of the mass of all ages, the TLM.

Bishop Fellay got it right when he said that the death warrant for the New Mass was signed with Summorum Pontificum. That was not the Pope’s intention but it will be the result in the future.

While the New Mass is valid, many including myself, believe it is bad liturgy, not sacred, and in no way was under the guidance of the holy spirit.

My generation will lead the charge to kill the Novus Ordo within the next twenty years once everyone under forty flocks to the TLM.
The experiment failed. The Church should have listened to Pope Pius XII who believed the Church would commit suicide if it altered her liturgy.

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue {LATIN} is the day before
she returns to the catacombs.” Pope Pius XII

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God, that His Son is merely a symbol, a philosophy held by so many others, and in the churches Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Magdalen weeping before the empty tomb, “Where have they taken HIM?” – Pope Pius XII