EMBRACING TRADITION: SMALL BUT GROWING NUMBER OF CATHOLICS RETURN TO RIGID RULES, LATIN MASSES

San Jose Mercury News ^ | Fri, Jul. 04, 2003 | Lisa Fernandez

[nickcarraway]

Cynthia Hummon, left, and Cassie Hamilton recite the stations of the cross during a retreat at St. Aloysius Retreat Center.

Tucked away in the hills of Los Gatos is a conservative Catholic retreat where much of modernity is rejected: Priests wear ankle-length black cassocks, children's play structures look like ancient castles, and Mass is celebrated in Latin.

[sinkspur]

Traditionalists have much more to object to in the New Mass, for instance, than the priest facing the people. There are issues of theological complexity dealing with central dogmas of the Catholic faith which go completely over this ignoramus' head.

Get off it! The trad-in-the-pew doesn't understand those "theological complexities" either; the Tridentine makes them "feel" closer to God, with all the smoke and mysterious language and the priest doing his thing. It's mostly emotion, like some of the Novus Ordo crowd "feels" the "God-experience."

Traditionalists are no more theologically literate than the average Novus Ordo attendant. And don't try to convince me they are.

[sinkspur]

Traditional Catholics who attend SSPX Masses are not separated from Rome by doing so.

The SSPX Masses are illicit, which means that a Catholic sins by attending them if a Novus Ordo mass is available.

You know this.

[ultima ratio]

Christ's Church was out of the mainstream in ancient Rome as well. It began as a mustard seed, remember. And traditionalist Catholics are better informed and more dedicated--and have much larger families--than so-called "mainstream" Catholics. The wind is in our sails--whereas scandal and apostasy has dogged the poorly-led Novus Ordo Church.

When Jesus was asked how we were to tell the false prophets from the true ones, he answered: By their fruits you will know them. Our fruits have been plentiful and multiply yearly--we are growing at about the same rate as the Novus Ordo is diminishing. Even more, the spiritual harvest has been bountiful--strong families, many vocations, homeschooled children raised in innocence, good, solid catechesis for all.

[ultima ratio]

Feel? Feel? Catholicism was never about feelings. Never. Read John of the Cross. Read Teresa of Avila. Read Ignatius Loyola. The greatest mystics will tell you it is about the rightness of will--not the vaguaries of feelings. You need to get off this Princess Diana crap--it has nothing to do with being a Catholic and is decidedly Protestant. The faith is not for our entertainment, it's for our salvation.

[ultima ratio]

A Catholic may attend such Masses according to the Vatican--and fulfill the Sunday obligation by doing so. There is no sin--but even if there were--how does this mean we are not in union with Rome? Are all sinners automatically excommunicated? In any case, I'll post the Perle letter some time--just to show how phony your slanders are--and how typical of the Novus Ordo crowd.

[sinkspur]

A Catholic may attend such Masses according to the Vatican--and fulfill the Sunday obligation by doing so.

Unless there is no Novus Ordo mass available, this is absolutely untrue!

There is no sin--but even if there were--how does this mean we are not in union with Rome?

What does "illicit" mean to you?

You are not in union with Rome because your leadership has been excommunicated. All of them.

Dance, UR, if you must, but why would Rome be discussing "reunion" if the SSPX weren't outside the Church?

[pascendi]

Get off it! The trad-in-the-pew doesn't understand those "theological complexities" either; the Tridentine makes them "feel" closer to God, with all the smoke and mysterious language and the priest doing his thing. It's mostly emotion, like some of the Novus Ordo crowd "feels" the "God-experience."

Ignorance.

[pascendi]

"Unless there is no Novus Ordo mass available, this is absolutely untrue!"

That's absolutely untrue.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Christ's Church was not only out of the mainstream during its initial expansion in ancient Rome, it also spoke Aramaic and Greek as its language of mission - it was not Latin based. Ironic that 4 of the 5 initial Patriarchates were Greek speaking - appealing to the vernacular.

Did you happen to notice that Sts Cyril and Methodius didn't use Latin charcters as their base for the Cyrillic alphabet, but instead used Greek as the base, reaching out to their target converts (the Slavs) in a liturgy done in their own language, as opposed to a dead one?

Lastly, I'm trying to find great mass conversions done through use of the Latin liturgy, and am coming up short. Would that be when indians in the new world were forced to convert at gun and swordpoint?

And wouldn't you agree that by encouraging the use of Latin, the RCC of past days was encouraging a culture of clericalism where the clergy and hierarchs felt themselves greater than the laity which they allegedly served?

[pascendi]

"Dance, UR, if you must, but why would Rome be discussing "reunion" if the SSPX weren't outside the Church?"

I've got a better question... if there's salvation outside the Church through some "mysterious relationship", then, what's he got to worry about?

[pascendi]

That's one of the lousier articles I've seen as far as its depiction of traditional Catholicism. It's so full of errors it isn't really worth commenting on, unless someone really takes it seriously. If they do take it seriously, commenting on it would be a virtual waste of time.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

``A professor of mine once said, `Religion is a container for your faith,' '' said Arlene Goetze of Sunnyvale, former communications director for the San Jose Diocese and director of the Catholic Women's Network. ``And sometimes you outgrow that container. Rejecting modern thought for religion makes as much sense as living by medicine or modes of transportation of 100 years ago. Religion needs to adapt. If you don't, you'll continue to live in ignorance, which isn't very adult, Christian or spiritual.''

Does this woman have any remnant of faith whatsoever? I can't see it. Modernist through and through. Apparently, to her, everyone lived in ignorance until the new revelvation of Vatican II.

In the traditionalist Catholic world, there are no shades of gray in the issues of abortion and contraception, and women can't perform liturgical duties. Believing in purgatory is a must. Eating meat on Fridays is forbidden. Women must wear head coverings in church. Strumming a guitar at church or a pastor entertaining the parish with jokes are seen as silly if not sacrilegious.

Ummm ... the non traditionalist Catholic world, if it denies those things like Purgatory, the sinfulness of abortion, etc., doesn't sound very Catholic.

[pseudo-ignatius]

Would that be when indians in the new world were forced to convert at gun and swordpoint?

Well, you might look to the Jesuit missions rather than the Spanish Franciscan missions as places where there were mass conversions, without bloodshed or threat of force... (this isn't to suggest that bloodshed or threat of force characterized the Franciscan missions either... trying to characterize conversions as 'by the sword' in the Americas involves the generalization of extreme individual cases) in particular, the reductions in Paraguay, where the entire Guarani people were converted, is a pretty amazing case. Anyways... you have some legitimate questions about how well a people can be converted to Catholicism without any room for cultural adaptation. This is why the Jesuits emphasized a balanced cultural adaptation in their early missions--it's also why they had far more success than anyone else in evangelizing the East. But I think this is all entirely beside the point... why are we talking about the proper way to evangelize other peoples when the real question is what *our* Christian cultural heritage has given us?

In general, I tire of those (I'm not grouping you with them, just saying in general) who clamor on and on for trying to understand other cultures, when those same people understand next to nothing of their *own* cultural heritage. I guess you could say I look at my own monthly trips to an indult Mass as, in some sense, my own attempts at cultural diversity... I'm just choosing to start with my own culture.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

And the bulk of the laity are satisfied in their NO parish and with their parish priest.

With 20-30% Mass attendance levels and an apostasy of over 10 million from the parish registers, the bulk of the laity no longer go to Church or practice what was their faith. That doesn't show much satisfaction to me.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The only people formally canonically excommunicated are the 4 SSPX Bishops. None of the SSPX Priests, Deacons, or Seminarians coming over to the FSSP from the SSPX have been made to have excommunications lifted, since none ever existed against them in the external forum.

Canon Law guarantees Catholics the right to go to any Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite to satisfy their Sunday obligation. Mere attendance at an SSPX chapel (or a Russian Orthodox one for that matter) does not make one a schismatic. You must reject the authority of the Pope or perform a schismatic act.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The SSPX Masses are illicit, which means that a Catholic sins by attending them if a Novus Ordo mass is available.

What is worse - attending an SSPX Mass, or going to a Novus Ordo Mass approved by the Bishop using a made up Form and/or invalid Matter and/or invalid Ministers (like laywomen co-consecrators)? I've seen it all.

I believe the sin attached to SSPX Masses is on the Priest for saying them without canonical faculties or mission, not on the laity attending them.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Lastly, I'm trying to find great mass conversions done through use of the Latin liturgy, and am coming up short. Would that be when indians in the new world were forced to convert at gun and swordpoint?

Gosh, I don't know. How about, all of the territory currently under the Roman Catholic Church, which was converted by Priests using the Latin Missal? You know. Africa, Phillipines, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, the Americas, etc.?

And no, we didn't force Indians to convert at gunpoint, you sacreligious pompous condescending blankety-blank. The missionaries to the Indians were more frequently martyred than anything else, as the barest knowledge of Spanish, French, and Portuguese missionary work in the Americas would tell you. They certainly didn't travel with armaments.

Do you get all your knowledge of Catholicism from Jack Chick and Friends?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Unless there is no Novus Ordo mass available, this is absolutely untrue!

Nothing in Canon Law says this.

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Can. 923 Christ's faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

You are not in union with Rome because your leadership has been excommunicated. All of them.

Just the Bishops. And not all the Bishops are leaders, nor are all the leaders Bishops.

[ultima ratio]

Rome is more careful of its language than you. It does not speak of "reunion" with the SSPX, it speaks of "regularization" of the situation. Regarding your point that because a Mass is "illicit", it is therefore sinful to attend one--this is nonsense. The licitness or illicitness applies only to a priest, not to the faithful--and, indeed, Rome has stated as much explicitly.

[ultima ratio]

"Get off it! The trad-in-the-pew doesn't understand those 'theological complexities' either; the Tridentine makes them "feel" closer to God, with all the smoke and mysterious language and the priest doing his thing. It's mostly emotion, like some of the Novus Ordo crowd 'feels' the 'God-experience.'"

This is one of your more assinine comments--and totally wrong. Don't judge traditionalists by Novus Ordo standards. Some of our families have moved from distant states to have access to the Old Mass. We travel hours to get to a chapel. We have discussions and pass out literature. Even our kids know more about the faith than the average adult Novus Ordo Catholic.

Your idea is typical of those who think traditional Masses are the baroque affairs such as Cardinal Hoyos recently celebrated at Mary Major. Our chapels are plain--mine is a converted clapboard Baptist church. They are poorly heated in winter and stiffling hot in summer. Our vestments are homemade. Even the music is makeshift. But the faithful stay in their pews after Mass is concluded. There is no rush to the doors--there is silence to give thanks to the Lord.