Why so much oppostion to the "L" word (latin)

[PA650]

I am seriously considering switching parishes and just recently i went to my first ever Holy Mass in the extraordinary form.I told my parish’s assistant pator (he tends to be more open to tradition than the pastor himself) seemed to subtly frown upon it and my tradtional views. he seemed to imediatly get on the defensive when i mentioned it… (now he was aware of my traditional prefrences.) he began into his whole thing (for lack of a better term) about how it(the church) will never return to that (latin)then he hinted that the EF sugessted a God that is untouchable and far off (“transcendant view” were his exact words)
I love the Latin and all of the rich tradition of our church I personally believe that the EF expresses more physically what happens spiritually in both masses I jus prefer latin incense etc… now dont get me wrong I love the holy mass (Both EQUAL forms) and i wish that one day they can be held up equally together as two alternates vs. others in the church that want it to die (or at least be pushed aside as a relic) iam an altar server and once when i suggested wearing a surplice to my pastor he immediatly said “NO!” but its not just the “no” that upset me because he is the boss and his word is last when it comes to things like that but its what he said following the no that saddened me " we arent going BACK to THAT" as if it were a disease or something. i belong to very liberal parish when it comes down to liturgy (even in some cses politics you wont believe how many Obama ’ 08 tee shirts ive seen ) but thats another disscussion for another day. my question is why… when iwas a child (Born after’65)
my church did things differently alot of hings were left over from the change and i saw a hint of the traditions of the faith and it marveled me.
as the years progressed and the pastors changed it (my parish) grew further and further away from what it was. i have seen some horror stories in other parishes worse off than mine. this other one for instance had some sort of african ritual prayer service (pouring water in a bowl honorng the winds of the north south east and west)
and at my confirmation there was liturgical dance (IN THE LITURGY mind you)
as i said when i began typing was that i am really considering changing parishes to this other one that as EF of the holy mass and also i like the way they do the OF also. (i like both forms BUT when the OF is done in respect to the traditions)
a question i find myself raising the question of why?..Why is it that traditional things are treated with so much opposition within mother church at times ?why in my parish does my priest seem to almosr detest the “old ways”(for lack of a better term)
(another example is when i suggested kneeling for communion to my pastor he outright condemned it and said (we are being sent out so we should be standing)(I still do it anyway when he isnt serving mass)…why so much opposition to the “L” word?

Because the Church is clearly divided. Moreover, the issue of traditionalism versus modernism has very much affected my spiritual life and faith in the Church. In the end, things will be sorted out in due time, yet whether I will care anymore will be my most pressing issue.

 

[christosdavid]

And that is the great question isn’t it? We say one thing but do differently. **That is why I myself just stick to the tradition of the Church before the VII council as we have yet to see what is correct and what is not…**and more often than not it is incorrect. The OF still hasn’t gotten the chance it deserves.

looks really balanced. total acceptance of Catholic teaching here. which is why I used the word extrme. as in unbalanced.

Benedict XVI has said that there is no rupture between pre and post vatican II church.

An non acceptance or adherence to the reception of VII is against the pastoral office of the pope.

Pope Paul VI said at the council’s closing on 8/12/65

“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally** is to be religiously observed by all the faithful,** for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church…We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain fulland complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever and whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.”

 

[TrueLight]

Pope Paul VI said at the council’s closing on 8/12/65

“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally** is to be religiously observed by all the faithful,** for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church…We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain fulland complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever and whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.”

Yes and now guess what we have? Universae Ecclesiae.

 

[christosdavid]

Yes and now guess what we have? Universae Ecclesiae.

I dont think theyre meant to be used against each other. VII is a real council of the church. It is fine to be FSSP and worship according to the EF.

It is not fine to think that you then become a superior kind of catholic or somehow more spiritual. Spirituality comes from God, not a language.

Its one thing to promote your own spiritual life in latin, quite another to somehow think it should become the main version of the liturgy again.

You can say people are ignorant but the truth is most people dont know latin, and the few that do know some, probably not very well. Thus there is an English reading as well as the latin and the homily is in English, because it is the language of our understanding.

Paul said he would rather speak 5 intelligble words than thousands in tongues. latin is only a human language, not one of angels or the Holy Spirit. My guess is an appropriate application of this is 5 words in English is probably better than a whole liturgy in a foreign language which can be misinterpreted

 

[TrueLight]

I dont think theyre meant to be used against each other. VII is a real council of the church. It is fine to be FSSP and worship according to the EF.

Of course they shouldn’t be.

But neither should you call people extremists if they prefer the EF.

 

[rben20]

Christosdavid I accept the VII council as a Catholic (pretty sure everyone does on this forum) but I do worship according to the rite as celebrated before it. I am allowed to so I do as it suits me spiritually and makes my relationship with God closer through the ancient liturgy. Sorry that you cannot see this. People are allowed and can attend the EF. Again your extremist and unbalanced labels are ridiculous and not necessary.

 

[zab]

christosdavid;8137809:

I see nothing wrong with this statement.

 

[Dan_Daly]

its been 40 years, longer than Jesus ministered on earth.

The devil doesnt just hate Latin, he also hates Hebrew and koine Greek. What language do you suppose Paul was speaking when he exorcised the girl in Philippi? probably not latin.

the only people I see conserving the latin are extrmists, sorry, there may be some more balanced people out there but rejecting ecumenical councils (also in latin) is not my idea of being a faithful catholic.

If you think the only people trying to conserve Latin also reject the Church’s authority then you are mistaken. Our current Pope is working to promote the TLM for one.

The issue with the SSPX isn’t what they think of Vatican II. It was disobedience to the Pope regarding ordinations.

At the same time, the Pope is now telling all his bishops to promote the use of the EF. Yet, there are disobedient bishops suppressing the EF in defiance of the Pope.

It becomes a reasonable question to ask what is the difference? Why is disobedience grounds for excommunication when it is done in an effort to preserve the Traditional liturgy, but it’s not when it’s done in an effort to stamp out that same liturgy?