Tradition

[Livin_the_MASS]

You know it seems that all the other demoninations give us Catholics a hard time about our Tradition.

But everyone that I talk to from another faith has there own traditions. But if a group of them do not agree with the current chruch they are attending, they will split and start another church with new traditions and teaching.

Yet us Catholics go back to Christ, Peter and all his successors! The Catholic Church is not divided. We our One with Church teaching.

So my protestant brethren explain to me how division is ok, how does this make sense to you.

It is as if making gods instead of worshiping the One True God in the Holy Eucharist!

God is not divided, He is One, He prayed for us to be One as He is One so others would know that we come from Him.

Our Tradition comes from Christ Himself, God. All other religions are man made traditions. Why?, because somebody takes Holy Scripture a certain way, not under the guidance of Holy Mother Church and makes it his or her own understanding?

Curious?

God Bless
Jason

[Archangel]

Is it out of pride that someone goes and starts their own denomination?

[RandomProddy]

Tradition is a good thing.

[ICXCNIKA]

Out of curiosity, which traditions?

When I was Roman Catholic, I increasingly saw the modernization of the liturgical service, not to mention the acceptance of other religious persuasions for the sake of ecumenicalism. This is not to say that all Catholic parishes are not traditional. FSSP in my humble opinion is performing great lengths to establish parishes which practice Catholicism in the traditional sense. But from my viewpoint, these actions are ephemeral if not a form of temporary oppeasement set up to keep traditonal catholics quiet while Bishops go on to commission churches with horrible architecture and pushing liberal priests out of seminaries.

Do not get me wrong. I love the Roman Church and my roots. The phrase "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," does have a bit of truth to it. Even though Greek Orthodox now, I tend to fall into the trap of "legalizing" canon law, rationalizing faith, and becoming beathless when looking at pictures of a traditional Latin Mass. Though, I think that if the Church kept the true spirit of Vatican II and merely translated the Tridentine into the vernacular, I probably would have remained a faithful Papist.

However, I think that if the Roman Church is going to continuously profess traditionalism, they cannot do so with a forked tongue. Liberalizing the Liturgy de-emphasizes the beauty of the theology and in my humble opinion, does not offer the Eucharist the reverence in which it is due. Perhaps in time (and maybe with this new Pope, keep fingers crossed), the Roman Church will offer provisions to those who wish to incorporate a more traditional spiritual exercise.

Edited April 15, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Mateo el Feo]

ICXCNIKA,

It sounds like you left the Catholic Church because of the scandal caused by dissidents within the Church, not so much because you were exposed to faithful priests and lay Catholics.

This really is a tragedy; and I think is part of a greater trend. My feeling is that more people leave the Church because of those who water down the faith, rather than leaving because of the "rigidness" of its teachings in faith and morals. In these days, believers really need the Church to be a firm anchor, planted in the Truth--Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It's a difficult time to stand up for the Catholic faith when there are so many dissenting voices inside and outside the Church. But if we don't act as God's instruments and defend Her, who will?

God bless you.

[DianJo]

I'll probably get in trouble with ICXCNIKA because I'll probably misunderstand the point of the post but I feel like the reason you left the Roman rite was on a "feeling" rather than any real perceived problem. I'm probably assuming too much just from what you posted - sorry no offense intended. People who leave the Catholic Church (the one in communion with the See of Peter) seem to carry a small amount of animosity and then inject problems where there isn't one.

As a child pre and post Vatican II, I can tell you that prior to VII, I never fully understood what was going on at Mass. I felt excluded. Oh, I knew there was a great amount of reverence where the Eucharist was concerned but it was only for the priest to be privy to the consecration - it was like the rest of us were somehow, left out until the reception of the Eucharist.

After VII, however, I was fully incorporated into the Mass! How wonderful! Now I could actually see Our Lord and know and understand and even participate in some tiny degree in the consecration! I was a witness to it now! I now understood what went on up there in front of the priest where he once had his back to us. It always seemed he was shielding something from us. People don't give reverence to something they don't understand. I think there is more reverence now that people actually understand what's happening. It has afforded me an opportunity to teach my son, as young as 3 years old, to understand what was happening on the altar. Because of that he now has a great reverence to the Eucharist!

I do understand your point about the Tridentine Mass, though. I do miss the Communion rails. I do wish sometimes we would go back to that. It does seem that some of the reverence has been lost by receiving the Eucharist in our hands and with it being given to us by lay people. I do remember when that first changed and I received Communion from a lay person - it didn't feel right! It just means that there must be greater emphasis in teaching our young about that reverence.

I don't think I would chunk the "new" Mass, though. The people of God are more involved in His Sacrifice, afterall, it's on our behalf that the Sacrifice is offered. It has brought our young people closer than ever to Our Lord. Because I do hold to the authority of the Magesterium, I trust that they made the best decision on how to bring us back to the Table. I think the spirit of VII is being lived out in our Mass. The point was to get the lay people more involved in the Sacrifice, to participate more in our salvation - to show us how God loves us and not sheild it from us any longer.

Just my thoughts, though.

Edited April 15, 2005 by DianJo

[ICXCNIKA]

First, yes my decision to leave the Rome was a feeling. It was a stirring in my conscience which told me, "Hey, something's not right here, bud." Quite similar to your feeling concerning the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo, Jo. So if you wish to base the change on pathos but yet claim that I am in error because of a feeling, I just don't see the logic in that.

Second, If you claim that your tradition merely comes from Christ himself, then you are making the same claim that many other Christian denominations do (let us forego the quotation of Matthew 16:18 and the ecclesiological fist fight. It's beating a dead horse.). How can I, let alone an apostate as you would probably rightfully claim me to be, problems into an organization which has existed for over a millennia, and is mammoth compared to little old me? The problem exists with liberal Bishops and a Curia which turns a blind eye to these issues.

I did not say that I rejected the Canon Missae of the Novus Ordo. I think the Novus Ordo is a fine Mass, when done correctly. However, by comparison I feel (I feel...i.e. my opinion) that the Novus Ordo places the divine sacrifice in a casual atmosphere, where it feels more like a meal, than 'celestial liturgy.' Do we honor Christ by dragging him into our rub-a-dub normal world? Or should we welcome him duly proper...with incense, sweet praise, and humility?

If the Novus Ordo Missae makes you a better practicing Catholic, then good. I am proud that you have found a liturgical rite that suits your taste. You have issues about not being able to "participate" at the Mass. A Pope (who's name escapes me) said to 'pray the Mass!' not just say it and sing it. I prefer the Tridentine Mass due to its silence and reverence. Now with liturgical reconstruction and "reform" you have everything from liturgical dance to speaking in tongues like charismatic churches do.

Though, I cannot honestly say that the Tridentine is an inferior mass by comparison to the Novus Ordo. The Tridentine has nurtured the souls of countless billions not to mention some of the greatest saints. If it was good enough for St. Thomas More, St. Joan d'Arc, St. Thomas a' Beckett, then it is good enough for me. I'm certain they felt the love of Christ even if they didn't understand Latin (Come now, we have Joan d'Arc..a simple peasant girl who couldn't even read her own mother tongue).

The problem of this issue is that Traditional Catholics are treated like second class citizens by their bishops. Rome has set up the provision of Ecclesia Dei for the indult Mass, yet many bishops throughout the United States refuse to give this provision to parishes. Even here in my city, the indult is fused with nuance from the Novus Ordo in order to wean parishioners off the Tridentine and put them in with the rank and file Catholics. Not to mention that it is performed in this architecturally minimalistic chapel complete with felt banners and altar lace and trappings replaced with whatever the pre-kinders have tacked up there. There have been requests to move the Mass to the Cathedral, which has a Pre-Vatican II altar set up behind the Novus ordo one - so far these petitions to the bishopric have gone ignored.

As much as I yearn to return to the Church that my grandparents grew up in durign the fifties and the sixties, I know that Rome will not change. To totally reverse what they consider to be an ecumenical council would be problematic, and display a gap in their ability of discernment and their monopoly on truth. But I think Catholics today really have to look at the state of the Church and compare it to past generations. So what is it? Is the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church? Or has it joined the ranks of the liturgically liberal protestant churches such as the United Church of Christ?

Edited April 15, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[DianJo]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 15 2005, 12:18 PM'] Is the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church? Or has it joined the ranks of the liturgically liberal protestant churches such as the United Church of Christ? [/quote]
I will not comment on most of your post because you seem to be more of a conspiracy theorist, quite like my husband who is Baptist, and those discussions produce nothing but hurt feelings.

This last comment of yours was, I think, uncalled for. I get your point but that was rather extreme. In no way have we gone overboard to be all inclusive as to give away the truth or water it down! I think you purposefully misunderstand in order to make your break more palatable! Instead of studying and praying about the issues and trying to come to terms with them, you just break away and go somewhere else?! Sounds a little like the Church of Christ you were talking about!

Anyway, I'm done because nothing anyone can say will make a difference when someone's mind is dead set against it! As I said before, you seem to be making problems where there are none.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='DianJo' date='Apr 15 2005, 01:58 PM'] Instead of studying and praying about the issues and trying to come to terms with them, you just break away and go somewhere else?! Sounds a little like the Church of Christ you were talking about!
[/quote]
Ah, I knew this was coming. "You left because of modernism. That's modernistic in itself!"

Nope. I simply found a Church which contains the Faith of Our Holy Fathers, unchanged and preserved...not one that is willing to conform to this world for the sake of pleasing people who can't stay awake in Mass. If an organization claims to have the fullness of faith and tradition - practice what you preach, I say.

How can one come to terms with this?

[url="http://www.neworleanschurches.com/baystrose/strosebay3.jpg"]http://www.neworleanschurches.com/baystrose/strosebay3.jpg[/url]

Compared to this?

[url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Unchurch.jpg"]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Unchurch.jpg[/url]

If you call yourself traditionalist but don't practice the traditional form of your faith, isn't that in itself, contradicting? Call yourself what you are - a reformed Church, not one traditional by nomenclature.

Edited April 15, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[DianJo]

No, I wouldn't say I am calling you a modernist at all. I sounds like that's what you are calling anyone who choses to celebrate the Novus Ordus and holds to the teachings of VII.

Personally, I like the art in the N.O. Church that you posted but I, like you, prefer the other church's set up where the Blessed Sacrament is presented as the center of our worship. But at the same time, you cannot say that the focus or the faith professed in that N.O Church is any different than what you profess where you attend Mass. You're making assumptions unless of course you've experienced the Masses at that N.O. Church.

I'm not try to get into a pissing match here. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I was brought up in traditional Catholic Cathedral in South Louisiana before VII so I treasure all of that but I also think that incorporating all the faith community has to offer in the way of cultrure, etc. can be quite profound and bring much needed spirituality to places that once had none - as long as those things don't detract from the ultimate purpose of worship. Some may go overboard and, from what I've experienced in my moves, most don't.

I just think you are being a bit too broad with your brush, that's all.

Edited April 18, 2005 by DianJo

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]ICXCNIKA Posted on Apr 15 2005, 10:04 AM

Do not get me wrong. I love the Roman Church and my roots. The phrase "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," does have a bit of truth to it. Even though Greek Orthodox now, I tend to fall into the trap of "legalizing" canon law, rationalizing faith, and becoming beathless when looking at pictures of a traditional Latin Mass. Though, I think that if the Church kept the true spirit of Vatican II and merely translated the Tridentine into the vernacular, I probably would have remained a faithful Papist.

However, I think that if the Roman Church is going to continuously profess traditionalism, they cannot do so with a forked tongue. Liberalizing the Liturgy de-emphasizes the beauty of the theology and in my humble opinion, does not offer the Eucharist the reverence in which it is due.[b] Perhaps in time (and maybe with this new Pope, keep fingers crossed), the Roman Church will offer provisions to those who wish to incorporate a more traditional spiritual exercise.[/b][/quote]

My question to you is what is wrong with what JPII has done in his time. He did great things for the Holy Eucharist and Mary. He has brought back reverance to the Eucharist which is due, since it is Christ Himself.

So are you saying the Roman Catholic Church is not traditional enough? We have The Tradition. Yeah there are some corks along the way but take note that His One Church that He founded works them out and gets things straight. We don't have to start another Church to do that! Because there is only ONE CHURCH the Catholic Church. Look at history.

Pax
Jason

[Donna]

OK, so some who attended the old Mass felt left out, or prefer the vernacular. And some others (ahem) attend their first old Mass as an adult, straight off the street, and couldn't imagine such mysterious things, and feel like they struck gold.

Who's experience is right? Does it matter what we think?

The first [i]some[/i] above, maybe feels like the New Order Mass is like "coming home." The second [i]some[/i] above, feels like the New Order Mass is going back to the Protestent services they just repudiated.

It matters not what I think...In a certain way, I hated the Church even when I was converting. That truth itself would lead anywhere else but Rome (please God). Har har.

That being said, I'm sure if all was traditional, I'd be found out for the closet liberal that I really am - and would still say:

The real question is: what is best to safeguard and foster the Faith?

The Faith, the liturgy belongs to no one man; to no one curia, to no single generation. It is Christ's, and woe be to any who try to hoodwink the Christ's Bride. The gospels say it can happen; St. Paul said to their faces he will not be guilty for the apostacy of they whom he knows will become ravening wolves upon his departure.
What the hell would he say to Bishop Lynch, who actually fled from Florida when they murdered his little lamb, Terri? "The hireling hath not care of the sheep, and when the wolf cometh, he flieth." LYNCH VISITS TSUNAMI DAMAGED LANDS. Such a charitable bishop. Why didn't the Vatican reign him in? Who is going to answer for that lady's thirst?

(Sorry for that veer-off. I will never forget nor be the same since March 31, 2005, when she died).

[Donna]

Oh dear, I just remembered the point of this thread.

Bad donna, bad donna!

Jason, it's just you bringing out the best in me. :freak: