Why don't orthodox Catholics "organize"?

[Chalice]

I’m sorta curious why it seems like orthodox (with respect to the liturgy) Catholics are slow to organize, while heterodox Catholics have seemed to worm their way into, and have taken over most of the “liturgical slots” at many parishes?

Has the strong tradition of protesting most commonly found in the liberal areas of secularism provided a basis for protesting and infiltration (and control) of the Mass within the Church?

It would seem to me that in most parishes, something like a “Saint Michaels Society” could be created at the grassroots level at each individual parish. With enough skill, determination and resolve such a group could become a real voice to either the pastor or the bishop depending on the individual situation. Given the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, now would seem like the time.

Has anyone else here thought along these lines?

 

[Freeway4321]

First off I am of the opinion that constantly using all these valueless titles isn’t a good thing for those who just want to be Catholic.

It is a disturbing trend that I have been seeing where we have “Orthodox Catholics” “Progressive Catholics” “Liberal Catholics” “Concervative Catholics” “Traditional Catholics” “Solemn High Nosebleed Mass Catholics”

It’s annoying. Whatever happend to being Catholic? Just… Catholic? If you knowingly reject a teaching and want to run the church that values tradtion the same way we do the bible (Sacredly) into some abnormally progressive liberalistic concoction isn’t Catholic. And the same (only the exact opposite) for the “Traditional Catholics”.

Just my thoughts.

On to the main premiss of your thread…

I think there are a good amount of groups (maybe not as prominent) as the other groups who oppose the “orthodox Catholic” position… either way these groups can only do so much. Plenty of the heads of these groups have had meetings with Bishops and what not, and things move pretty slowly…

 

[bear06]

www.catholicmediacoalition.org

 

[YinYangMom]

While orthodox Catholics do organize, I think the secular groups push forward the non-orthodox Catholic propaganda with their support so while it seems the non-orthodox are organizing so quickly and so well, it’s probably due to the support of non-catholic organizations who share their agenda.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Because they all think they’re the only orthodox one?

Kidding.

KIDDING.

 

[netmilsmom]

Freeway4321:

First off I am of the opinion that constantly using all these valueless titles isn’t a good thing for those who just want to be Catholic.

It’s annoying. Whatever happend to being Catholic? Just… Catholic? If you knowingly reject a teaching and want to run the church that values tradtion the same way we do the bible (Sacredly) into some abnormally progressive liberalistic concoction isn’t Catholic. And the same (only the exact opposite) for the “Traditional Catholics”.

Just my thoughts.

.

I’m sorry, are you Catholic?
I’m not sure I understand .

 

[Freeway4321]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m sorry, are you Catholic?
I’m not sure I understand .

Yes. And the basic point I was making was, all the titles for so called Catholics is annoying.

Wasn’t ment to be complicated.

 

[netmilsmom]

Freeway4321:

Yes. And the basic point I was making was, all the titles for so called Catholics is annoying.

Wasn’t ment to be complicated.

I’m sorry it’s annoying to you, I really meant no insult.

The reason why so many of us classify ourselves as something is because the mass we knew in the 70’s and 80’s is not the mass we see today. We are trying to find like minded people, just as we are trying to find a liturgy we are familiar with.

 

[Freeway4321]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m sorry it’s annoying to you, I really meant no insult.

The reason why so many of us classify ourselves as something is because the mass we knew in the 70’s and 80’s is not the mass we see today. We are trying to find like minded people, just as we are trying to find a liturgy we are familiar with.

No, no… I wasn’t trying to be snooty. I just wanted to let it be known my intentions were not to make it difficult to understand in anyway. I wanted to express my opinion, that’s all.

I do understand the reasoning, I just don’t think it’s edifying for the church.

 

[Chalice]

Freeway4321:

First off I am of the opinion that constantly using all these valueless titles isn’t a good thing for those who just want to be Catholic.

It is a disturbing trend that I have been seeing where we have “Orthodox Catholics” “Progressive Catholics” “Liberal Catholics” “Concervative Catholics” “Traditional Catholics” “Solemn High Nosebleed Mass Catholics”

It’s annoying. Whatever happend to being Catholic? Just… Catholic? If you knowingly reject a teaching and want to run the church that values tradtion the same way we do the bible (Sacredly) into some abnormally progressive liberalistic concoction isn’t Catholic. And the same (only the exact opposite) for the “Traditional Catholics”.

Just my thoughts.

On to the main premiss of your thread…

I think there are a good amount of groups (maybe not as prominent) as the other groups who oppose the “orthodox Catholic” position… either way these groups can only do so much. Plenty of the heads of these groups have had meetings with Bishops and what not, and things move pretty slowly…

I did not use the terms: “Orthodox Catholics” “Progressive Catholics” “Liberal Catholics” “Concervative Catholics” “Traditional Catholics” “Solemn High Nosebleed Mass or Catholics.”

I used the term “Catholic” with the adjective “orthodox” in front of it, as opposed to those dissidents who reject the Church where they see fit.

 

[shannin]

To be Catholic means to obey the authority of the Holy Father. If a person doesn’t want to be obedient and follow the rules he’s free to join another faith. It’s very simple.

 

[Freeway4321]

I think we should disregard my comments. It seems to be causing too much confusion. My apologies.

Please do carry on with the topic of this thread, it’s a good one.

Although… I do appreciate the “Solemn High Nosebleed Mass Catholics”

 

[caroljm36]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

The reason why so many of us classify ourselves as something is because the mass we knew in the 70’s and 80’s is not the mass we see today. .

Huh? That’s a GOOD thing isn’t it? Is it better or worse?

 

[netmilsmom]

caroljm36:

Huh? That’s a GOOD thing isn’t it? Is it better or worse?

It depends on where you were.
I was at an Old Polish parish. The mass I knew as a child in the 70’s was very conservative.
Through the 80’s my parish had one conservative mass and one “anything goes” mass.
In the 90’s I moved to MI. It’s all “anything goes” here. (When trying to get a more conservative mass, I was told by our DRE that she didn’t understand people like me.)

Except of course at my wonderful parish!
saintcyrils.org/

 

[palmas85]

I think one of the problems with Traditionalist organizing is that there are too many ideas floating around as to what is the correct course of action. On one of the Traditionalist Web Sites has a saying that trying to get Traditionalists to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats. A good analogy.

In order to understand a little you have to understand where the Traditionalist mind set comes from in the first place. The 60’s were a time of turmoil and social upheaval. The Church was no exception. Vatican II came and went and left a lot of suggestions for reform of the faith to make it more revelent to todays world. Remember, the 60’s.

Pretty much overnight, things changed. And continued changing. You really couldn’t keep up. Most Catholics, through that spirit of obedience and our belief that the Church is always right, accepted the changes and tried to cope. Others, used the politics of the time and the lessening of restrictions to push their agendas. Yes, they did, so nobody get mad OK? Still others, resisted the changes, arguing that if everything they had been taught prior to Vatican II had been correct. how could it now be wrong? Good question. I have yet to see a good answer to that one. Some groups still professed loyalty to the Pope, others felt the church was in heresy, others felt there was no Pope. This mindset continues to this day sadly.

Anyway, from that was born the Traditionalist movement. The more wild and radical the Church became, in their eyes, the more they dug in. Some more others less. From the 1970’s through I would guess the early 90’s, there was simply tremendous experimentation with the Mass. Protestant elements were tried at various locations, Jewish elements, Afro Caribbean, Wiccan etc. Don’t have valid matter for the host, use a bagel or a sandwich, it doesn’t matter. The Mass in many cases was nothing more than a blaspehmous joke. Anything and everything was all right. The spirit of ecumenism and collegiality was in full swing. Mass attendance plummeted. The Traditionalist movement grew and expanded as a direct result of the abuses at the Mass.

The Vatican, rightfully alarmed at all this, issued guidelines to curb the abuses and reign in some of the wilder things that were going on. Many Traditionalists saw this as vindication of their views and dug in deeper, again some more than others.

Some Bishops acepted the Vaticans rulings and stopped allowing experimentation and abuses. Others pretty much ignored them and continued on their way. These sort of things even more firmly convinced the Traditionalists of their views, and they dug in a little more.

So, hopefully, this kind of explains why the traditionalists are the way they are, and why joining under one banner will not likely happen.

I have deliberately left out the Indult and that particular dialogue.

 

[Lorrie]

I’ve often thought the same as Freeway4321, what ever happened to just being Catholic? There are so many labels these days it seems. Labels are good though, that way we or some thing can be identified. Without labels we would all be walking around not knowing what anyone was talking about.

Netmil(name removed by moderator): The reason why so many of us classify ourselves as something is because the mass we knew in the 70’s and 80’s is not the mass we see today. We are trying to find like minded people, just as we are trying to find a liturgy we are familiar with.

Thank you for saying this as it never occured to me to think of it like that.

 

[Topher]

I think the problem is that many different types of Catholics call themselves orthodox. But different orthodox groups will not acept the other orthodox groups. For example, I am an orthodox Catholic because I believe all the teachings of the Church and believe the Divine Liturgy should be done exactly according to what the rubrics given by the Chruch say. However, I do not believe that gregorian chant or classical music are necessary because the Chruch does not say they are necessary. But the really really traditional Catholics (ultra trads) will not admitt that I am orthodox because they believe orthodoxy requires gregorian chant. Go figure. So until we actually unite on what is important, the teachings of the Church and the following of the rubrics, then we cannot organize against the liberal and modernist heretics.

 

[palmas85]

Topher:

I think the problem is that many different types of Catholics call themselves orthodox. But different orthodox groups will not acept the other orthodox groups. For example, I am an orthodox Catholic because I believe all the teachings of the Church and believe the Divine Liturgy should be done exactly according to what the rubrics given by the Chruch say. However, I do not believe that gregorian chant or classical music are necessary because the Chruch does not say they are necessary. But the really really traditional Catholics (ultra trads) will not admitt that I am orthodox because they believe orthodoxy requires gregorian chant. Go figure. So until we actually unite on what is important, the teachings of the Church and the following of the rubrics, then we cannot organize against the liberal and modernist heretics.

Isn’t the term “ultra trad” the same sort of thing as rad trad? I didn’t think those terms were acceptable. Am I wrong on that?

 

[Al_Masetti]

This same issue seems to afflict the political “right”.

A friend of mine [who claims to be allegedly conservative] stated that he didn’t think Bush (Sr) or Dole were conservative enough, so he voted for Clinton!!!

Go figure.

Same friend quit the National Rifle Association because he felt they weren’t assertive enough!!!

[Maybe he figured that Bush and Dole only deserved a grade of “C” on the “conservative scale”. Whereas, on the other hand, Clinton deserved an “A” on the “liberal scale”. So he voted for the candidate with the higher letter grade.]

The political landscape is littered with examples of this kind of thinking.

 

[Chalice]

Topher:

I think the problem is that many different types of Catholics call themselves orthodox. But different orthodox groups will not acept the other orthodox groups. For example, I am an orthodox Catholic because I believe all the teachings of the Church and believe the Divine Liturgy should be done exactly according to what the rubrics given by the Chruch say. However, I do not believe that gregorian chant or classical music are necessary because the Chruch does not say they are necessary. But the really really traditional Catholics (ultra trads) will not admitt that I am orthodox because they believe orthodoxy requires gregorian chant. Go figure. So until we actually unite on what is important, the teachings of the Church and the following of the rubrics, then we cannot organize against the liberal and modernist heretics.

Extremely good point. I think many self-described “traditionalists” also claim to be orthodox Catholics. Unfortunately their focus seems to be more on head veils, receiving Communion only on their tongues, receiving Communion while kneeling, altar rails, female altar servers, etc. etc. and not on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Others unfortunately lump these “traditionalists” together with truly orthodox Catholics, causing confusion and distrust.