Why in the world are progressive Catholics fearful, phobic, of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the possible normalization with the full communion of the Church of the SSPX?
1. Do they fear the priest turning his back to the congregation?
2. Are they horrified by communicants kneeling for Holy Communion?
3. Does Latin totally baffle them?
4. Is uniformity of celebration and formal rubrics anathema?
5. Is the lack of guitars and other contemporary elements of music insulting?
6. Are they narrow minded?
7. Are they self-loathing? Do they hate their family of origin, meaning the Catholics of the Pre-Vatican II Church?
I always thought that the term "progressive Catholic" meant that a Catholic was an open person to that which is new and that which is old and there is a live and let live philosophy of life.
But it turns out that progressive Catholic share a common feature with retro-Catholics, fear of change and rigidity. How odd!
37 comments:
Thank you for this post and the new acronym. I have wondered a long time about the antipathy towards the TLM. I can understand preferring the NO, but not hatred. I have had even demure looking ladies stand in front of me and scream "I hate the Latin Mass". I cannot understand this.
My guess has been that those who hate the Latin Mass, including at least one bishop I know, really do not understand nor have they experienced the spirituality of the TLM. Still, this is a worthy discussion. Keep up the good work. Your blog is great!
May I add that I think there is a connection between rejection of the TLM and rejection of Humanae Vitae.
In my humble opinion, I think they don't want to be taken down a notch. They currently see Jesus as brother, friend, and equal. They don't like the idea of having to humble themselves and bow down before their King.
I also think they don't like the fact that sins will be called sins, and that their lifestyle choices will eventually lead them to hell. They prefer to worship the god of I'm-okay-you're-okay than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Most people don't enjoy change that puls them out of their comfort zone.
The main reason is not precisely any of the 7 reasons you cite--though some apply in part. Rather, because the TLM so fully embodies the Catholic faith, it arouses their suppressed guilt for having abandoned it. In short, they hate being so forcefully reminded of what they should believe and what they should do.
Of course, tomorrow is the Faith and Freedom Mass at 10:30 a.m. in Forsyth Park in Savannah. I understand that many parishes within driving distance are cancelling their Sunday Masses (while asking parishioners to make up the collection loss the following week) and parishioners are being encouraged to attend the Faith and Freedom Mass as a sign of solidarity for religious freedom. I understand the importance of the religious freedom issue in our country at this time and I support this plan.
That being said, I have been told by a very reliable source from Savannah that tomorrow all of the regularly scheduled Sunday Masses at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (including the one at 10 a.m. even though Forsyth Park is only about 5 blocks from the Cathedral) are still scheduled for tomorrow and the ONLY regular Mass there which is being cancelled for tomorrow is the 1:00 p.m. Extraordinary Form Latin Mass!
What does this say about the status and priority of the Extraordinary Form in the Diocese of Savannah? It would seem that either all the Masses should have been cancelled there as well or ALL the Masses should have proceeded as scheduled (and my information is that the unavailability of a celebrant is not the reason for the EF cancellation). As it stands now it looks like, when it comes down to it, the EF just isn't seen as essential in our Diocese. As my source of this information said, "We still have a long way to go."
Supertradmum, no kidding. I attend both the NO and the TLM. I can understand preferring the NO. I can understand feeling flummoxed by the Latin. But not hatred. I also do not understand enthusiasm for "diversity" that "respects other cultures" which curiously never gets to include Latin and the Traditional Latin Mass (admittedly, as an ethnic minority, that one well and truly grates on my nerves, due to the hypocrisy and the condescension).
I prefer the TLM to the NO, but the NO is still a valid form of the Mass, which is given to us by the Church. So I can't hate it as such, and don't think that anybody's in any position to hate either form of the Mass. What some folks have done to the NO in the way that they celebrate it is plain awful, but Jesus is still present. But what a pity and blessing, both, that it took the TLM for me to see that more clearly, precisely because the TLM simply presents the spiritual reality of what we believe more clearly.
And yes, I have also suspected that there's a connection between rejection of the TLM and rejection of Humanae Vitae: the TLM really does foreground the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian life, and emphasizes that love is self-giving and involves sacrifice. HV teaches something similar and related when it comes to human life and sexuality, and the consequences when that's rejected. It's likely not an exaggeration that if you dissent on HV, you will dissent on everything else, too, for the reason that HV cuts to the core of what it means to be human and the reverence due human life (and that if we get that wrong, we stand to get every else wrong, too). And unfortunately, persisting in receiving Holy Communion with grave (and in some case mortal) sins on your soul will tend to have adverse effects-- namely, a loss of faith.
Both the TLM and HV actively challenge everything that progressive Catholics stand for, even including the notion and foregrounding of "progress," itself: "hermeneutic of continuity," anyone? Furthermore, the TLM emphasizes the fact that orientation matters-- the question "Quo Vadis?" couldn't be any clearer by the ad orientem position, and "progress" without direction is ultimately meaningless. Any reform that happens in the Church must put who Christ truly is first. Any reform that does, such as Summorum Pontificum, is always a step forward. Any reform that does not is always a step backward.
Furthermore, as Carol H. points out, seeing Jesus as brother, friend, and equal, and seeing the Mass as a "meal between friends" means that nobody gets to hear much about the Mass-- and life itself-- as involving sacrifice, and a hippy-dippy, happy-clappy Jesus can't demand anything of them.
I'm sorry, but if you hate, as in refuse to attend, acknowledge or accept The TLM you simply are not Catholic. It's that simple. The TLM is who we are in a nutshell.
You might prefer the NO for a variety of reasons, but to deny the TLM, to turn your back on it, to suppress it, hide it or work against it in any way, is to deny your Faith. And anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves.
Speaking of tht eold timers: Many of them equate the TLM with other things that they didn't like at that time.
In their mind, it is a whole package...they cannot separate the different parts of pre-V2 times.
Regarding the post-V2 generation...well it's a mixed bag.
Some would grow to appreciate it if they were simply exposed to it. some would grow to love it if they were exposed to it. some people just resist change, and some are too busy raising families and living life to spend time pondering these things.
~SL
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
However they may justify their position, if they hate, they are guilty of sin. And are not practicing their faith, however pious they may believe themselves.
Father asks: “Why in the world are progressive Catholics fearful, phobic, of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the possible normalization with the full communion of the Church of the SSPX?” He then lists seven possible reasons and concludes:
“I always thought that the term ‘progressive Catholic’ meant that a Catholic was an open person to that which is new and that which is old and there is a live and let live philosophy of life.
But it turns out that progressive Catholics share a common feature with retro-Catholics, fear of change and rigidity. How odd!”
I will be going over some old ground again here but, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me repeat that I am a post-Vatican II Catholic (I became Catholic at the age of 25 over thirty years ago) who fully supports re-introduction of the TLM and the concept of “reform in continuity.” I support these things because, in my view (1) It was a mistake to “revolutionize” the liturgy through a radical discontinuity that led to the complete elimination of the TLM, which upset many Catholics who had become familiar with the old forms, and (2) Seen in the grand sweep of history, such adjustments are part of an historical dialectic that has always occurred in the Church, as indeed elsewhere (the “pendulum swing” image is just one mode, and to some extent a caricature, of that phenomenon).
Now that is out of the way, I have a few questions and concerns that are raised by Father’s post and some of the comments, but which also echo and elaborate on some of what has already been said
First, I am not sure how meaningful the labels “progressive” and “conservative” are. As Father suggests, many post-Vatican II Catholics are resisting the current reform process in the Church. From the perspective of a timeframe spanning the last few decades, arguably they are the “conservatives” who are seeking to “conserve” what they have come to know, and the current reformers are the “progressives.” Of course, we understand that the term is being used on this Blog from the perspective of a much longer timeframe, in which the current reformers are the “conservatives” who are seeking to conserve, by recapturing, what was lost in the post-Vatican II era. My basic point, however, is that these labels are inherently ambiguous and fail, without more, to recognize that most people (I believe) are “conservative” in the sense that they prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar and the “new.” So, I am not sure the resistance to change is that odd at all. It may be just typically human.
Second, because we humans naturally become attached to the familiar, we do tend to feel “threatened” when we see that someone is trying to take it away from us. That feeling among some (many?) post Vatican II Catholics is just as understandable as was were the feelings (anger, sense of betrayal, fear, etc) of pre-Vatican II Catholics when their beloved TLM was taken away (and much else changed too). Speaking for myself, for example, I have already said in earlier comments that I did not dislike the monthly “folk mass” we had at St. Josephs for so many years. Nor do I dislike the use of guitars, flutes, etc, used each week in my parish in England (assuming they still have them since last I was there in 2007). To my sensibility at least, the music stayed within the proper bounds of reverence and sacredness, being nothing like the extreme caricatures that have appeared in postings on this Blog. Of course, I understand the “theological” objections made on this Blog to such masses and have tried to keep an open mind in a learning mode as I experience the loss of a form I had grown to appreciate and love. To many, however, the loss of this form is an example of “live” (the TLM and revised OF) and “let die” (the folk mass form), to echo Father’s phrase about “progressives.”
(continued)
Third, some of the resistance may be due to the perception that at least some of the reformers are not so much “conservatives” seeking to recapture the best of pre-Vatican II but “reactionaries” who also want to eliminate the best of post-Vatican II. This perception is not diminished by such positions as the SSPX rejection of certain of the Vatican II documents, by an extreme emphasis in some quarters on “pelvic issues” to the almost complete exclusion of the Church’s “social teaching” as “socialism” instead of a natural law-based “consistent ethic of life,” or even by certain comments made on this very Blog. Nor is it diminished when a group of priests come into a parish and, perhaps unwisely, completely overhaul the liturgy with little or no consultation. Such priests are likely to be regarded as little more than a reactionary “hit squad.” And these kinds of “horror stories” just feed the emotions underlying the resistance to change.
In sum, I wonder if there may be more going on psychologically than Father’s seven pejorative speculations might suggest. As I have also said before, it must be very difficult to be a priest at this time, let alone the Holy Father, as they try to guide the Church through the necessary adjustments in a time of turmoil. It will take much wisdom, empathy, and caritas on the part of everyone, clergy and laity alike. However, I certainly hope that, however long it takes, we can come through this with as much of Holy Mother Church intact as possible. So, I hope we will not alienate anyone any more than is absolutely necessary consistent with the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Speaking for myself...
1. No,I do not fear ad orientam - I do not think it is necessary or helpful.
2. I am not horrified by communicants kneeling. (In fact, I don't know anyone who is.)
3. Latin doesn't baffle me, but it also doesn't help me to understand better the mysteries of the Faith. Nor does praying in Latin make me "more" Catholic or, for that matter, more Traditional.
4. Uniformity is not anathema; neither is it a guaranteed source of unity.
5. I am not insulted by the absence of a guitar or organ.
6. No, I am reasonable.
7. No, I am not self-loathing.
Now, Good Father, aren't you gald you asked?
PI, the topic isn't any of these things you list in the OF for the post isn't OFaphobia but E.F. Aphobia, which you seem to have such a great phobia that you couldn't even deal with it. Interesting!
I have pondered this question many times over the years and keep coming back to the same conclusion.They just dont want to admit that they have made a monumental error.
P.S. I hope it was clear that in my point (3) above I was referring to the priests Father mentioned a few weeks ago (Was it in Wisconsin? I don’t recall exactly now). From what I recall, they came into the parish and, with no consultation, changed everything overnight. Have I remembered correctly?
Summing up, I suspect the difficulty for many or most individual "progressives" is akin to that of the Church as a whole. The Church is coming to the realization that among the worst pastoral errors in its history were made during the decade or two immediately following Vatican II, resulting in an unfathomable collapse of faith and morality and the disintegration of its liturgy.
The difficulty is how to come to grips with this realization, how to admit it and how to go about correcting it. Those of a certain age bear the burden of knowing now that they bought into a dream that turned into disaster, and I doubt that anyone at any level can describe a simple solution, certainly not a quick one. Likely only time can heal the wound in the Body of Christ, through the process of revitalization that the Church as a whole has begun, though there both are parishes like St. Joseph's where it apparently is well underway, and likely many more that it has not yet touched.
Templar is right.
-
Catholics carry the world; and TLM carries the Catholic Church.
~SL
Anonymous at 8:24am
You're right about this Diocese...regardless of the status of this weekend's Mass schedules.
Sigh.
Sometimes it's good to just focus on the Eucharist, and think about these things too much...IMHO.
~SL
Henry Edwards nailed it: It arouses the guilt they feel for having abandoned the faith. But there are a couple of other reasons why "progressive" Catholics despise this Mass:
1) "Progressive" Catholics like to think that they have triumphed in completely re-orienting the Church. This Mass is a harsh rebuke to their vision of a "New Church" that arose during Vatican II. They also believe that they had triumphed in completely killing the Old Rite of the Mass. It's mere existence threatens their "victory".
2) "Progressive" priests especially hate this Mass because they do not want young people to experience this or get any inkling of their true liturgical heritage. As has been observed so often on this blog, the majority of Mass-goers at TLM (or EF) parishes are young people. They want this Mass suppressed because they are terrified that Catholics, especially young Catholics, will vote with their feet and attend the older rite.
Father, as much as I hate to say it, I am still incredulous when I see the knee-jerk opposition that "progressive" Catholics show to this Mass. I want to believe that they are open-minded people and the sheer outrage they often display seems to suggest that there is a demonic element in their overreactions against this Mass.
There are some important questions that need to be asked I think. I am just as guilty as any of us who have posted comments in this respect. We have been_speculating_ about possible reasons “progressive” Catholics might have for their “opposition” to re-introduction of the TLM.
But what do “progressive” Catholics themselves say? How opposed are they to the TLM? What reasons do _they_ give for that opposition? Are “progressive” Catholics in fact a monolithic group in this respect or indeed other respects? Do we have any relevant “polling” data, or anecdotal data?
PI’s response may be a very small insight, always assuming it_is_a “progressive” response, but it is a sample of one person.
These are not rhetorical questions. I genuinely do not know the answers and would like to.
Can anyone help with this? Thanks.
I know one progressive Catholic who sees ALL pre-V2 things as repressive, anti-women, and constraining.
This person views ANY returning of ANY pre-V2 things as though the Church wants to revert totally to pre-V2. This person throws a tantrum when the topic comes up of righting the excesses that occured. "You gave it to me, so you can't take it away.", is this person's mantra...without thought to maybe too much was given more nor that some Catholics proved themselves irresponsible with what was given.
The viewpoint struck me as rather narrow minded, since this person refuses to relook at the past with a new more objective perspective.
These 'progressives' are part of a collective mindset. For their individual reasons they surround themselves with like minded individuals, like we do too, and they support each other in their narrow viewpoint and won't have real discussions amongst themselves about what was good about the "bad ol' days" and perhaps worth reclaiming even if it doesn't personally please one's self.
Some of us are guilty of the same sometimes.
I my opinion, a poll would be only marginally useful in practicality.
Although it would be a fun academic exercise, and perhaps provide some further understanding with less speculation.
Yet, in the end, the Church isn't trying to mold herself to various audience segments like the protestants do.
Most Catholics are neither progressive nor traditionalists. They just go with the flow. What is placed before them they accept. They are the silent majority. They are the quiet sheep that trust their pastor to guide them right.
~SL
Anonymous 2, my stated conclusion is based on quite a lot of observation of "TLM haters"--as opposed to Catholics for whom the TLM is just not their thing (e.g., because the Latin itself puts them off)--over a period of years. In any event, what I perceive among actual "TLM haters" is a reaction that's visceral rather than rational. Whereas ordinary pew sitters may have rational (or, at least, sensible) reasons for preferring the Novus Ordo.
The immediately preceding comment is from me, not intending to be anonymous but hitting the Submit button prematurely.
Progressive Catholics, at least the loudest and molst educated ones, do not like the TLM because they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. The Church, to them, is a huge financial and personnel resource for social action and progressive causes. The TLM represents the belief that human works and social justice is subjugated to God's sovreignty and His eschatological justice which has to do with salvation history and things like the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and his actual return as the Righteous Judge at the end of historical time. The OF, stupid protestant Masses, dumbed down liturgy, idiot songs, and humanistic theology are all tools to gradually accomodate the flock to a cleaned-up, non-transcendant, social action Church, the only hope it offers being the improved humanity that collectivist causes and self-realization "theology" are sure to bring about. Get it? It ain't about aesthetics, it ain't about Latin, it ain't about personal preference. It is about unbelief. Don't complicate by trying to impute some kind of theological rationality to these people. They are enemies of the Faith and simply apostate. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. Now, see, wasn't that easy...
Thanks Anon S.L. and Henry, your two responses are already helpful. Two things struck me in particular:
(1) You identify a third group of “ordinary pew sitters” or “the silent majority” between “traditionalists” at one end and “progressives” at the other. That is a very helpful reminder I think. I assume that the “battle for the soul of the Church” is being waged by the “traditionalists” and the “progressives,” both of which groups are more “activist.” That raises some additional questions in my mind: Can the same be said of the clergy? In other words, is there a “silent majority” of priests, bishops, and cardinals, with two activist groups of “traditionalists” and “progressives”? And are there significant variations, among laity and/or clergy, by nationality or even sub-national region in the universal Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps Father McDonald is in the best position to enlighten us on these points.
(2) Anon. S.L., You note that both progressives and traditionalists may sometimes (often?) fail to have “real discussions” among themselves. So that leads me to ask: What about “real discussions” _between_ members of these two groups or indeed among all three groups? It seems to be another natural human tendency to seek out like-minded people and to “divide” and “sub-divide” (Tower of Babel and all that I suppose, and perhaps this is something that has become deeply rooted in our DNA). But I assume this is part of our fallen nature, not the way God intends us to be.
So, from a practical standpoint, once again I wonder if mutually respectful dialogue among those with different opinions may help to bring people together. Even if we do not end up agreeing with one another, might we understand one another better and find common ground? Moreover, perhaps such conversations could promote better acceptance of the current changes, including better acceptance of the TLM. Maintaining distance from “the other” so often just exacerbates mutual suspicions and animosities. If the post-Vatican II changes were handled badly, why was that and are there any lessons to be learned from that experience?
Could we envisage such conversations at the parish level (intra-parish and inter-parish)? (I am not sure the Lenten Faith groups provide the appropriate structure intra-parish, because they may be too small and also because they may themselves attract like-minded people.) Is this another hopelessly quixotic idea again, or a bad idea for other reasons? Alternatively, is there already a forum for such dialogue and I just don't know about it?
Personally, I find I grow in understanding, faith, and empathy when challenged to reflect upon my beliefs and defend them in dialogue with those who have different opinions.
So, just some further thoughts.
I have only just read your comment, Gene.
Well, of course, regarding that sub-group of “progressive Catholics” who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, they are not really “Catholic” and matters really are much easier as you suggest. With those people we could certainly have an “inter-faith” dialogue but not an “in-faith” dialogue.
P.S. Well, that’s embarrassing. I may not be good at math and I understand the Trinity is a mystery but I know better than that! Of course, I meant to say the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Please be charitable and put it down to the heat and a good lesson in humility!
Pater,
I'm curious as to the first item on your list.
"No,I do not fear ad orientam - I do not think it is necessary or helpful." Helpful (or rather, not) in what way?
Anonymous 2.
I do not think there's anything to be gained by "dialogue" between Catholics who are faithful to traditional Catholic beliefs and progressives who are not. There's not enough common ground. For instance, I know many traditionals who also attend the OF devotedly, but no progressives who would ever attend the EF at all.
I speak as one who straddles the fence uncommonly, ordinarily attending only the EF on Sundays, but continuing to attend the OF on weekdays much of my recent adult life. Equally interested in my EF and OF missals, following them both equally, seven days a week. I am just as interested (or more) in OF papal Masses as special EF Masses on EWTN.
From my viewpoint, having devoted much of my time, talent, and fortune to the EF, I still feel that much good can come from Vatican II and the reform of the reform. From this perspective, the principal fault of the 70s and 80s was the disastrous implementation of the Council's recommendations. But from the perspective of the extreme progressives, what happened was just what they wanted, and they lament only that it didn't go far enough.
I still don't know what is allowed. Maybe anything is allowed if a priest wants it. Our Mass yesterday was a farewell for our RE director of 30 years. Carol knows this woman. She got to use the Homily to deliver her farewell speech full of cute pop psychology and feel-good drivel. Then before the Dismissal she and the priest walked down the center of the Nave and everyone present gathered in close and put out there hands to bless her en mass. I told my wife that this reminded me of the first act of Julius Caesar.
What are the limits?
rcg: I can tell you that no one but a Priest or a deacon shouldbe delivering the Homily. Not even with the little subterfuge if having the Priest talk for 2 minutes and then ask someone to come up and make an "announcement". Your Priest should be drawn up before the Inquisition as far as I'm concerned.
First, I should admit that this question is probably not directed at me. At least, I don’t consider myself a “progressive” in the church. On the other hand, I was born after Vatican II, and have never attended a Mass other than the NO. I will readily admit that when I was a child our choir had guitars, flute, piano, and if we were very lucky a violin, and I loved the fact that much of the music we sang was based on verses from the Bible (which I figured out when I was old enough to realize that I should read the footnotes.)
I certainly cannot “hate” the TLM as I have never attended one. I never even knew it existed until I happened across a reference the web and got curious. I actually do enjoy experiencing new things, and so that is not a problem. However, in keeping with the title of this post, I actually am “scared” to attend one.
Why? Not for any of the reasons that Father has suggested. Rather, it is because of the comments I saw across several blogs when I started reading about it. In particular, the absolute disdain of some commenters toward anyone who attends and (horror of horrors) LIKES attending the NO (and please do not be offended as this is certainly not intended to be criticism of anyone specific here—I have seen this on many of the sites I read when I was trying to figure out what the TLM was. In fact, the posters here appear to be much more understanding, which is the only reason I had the courage to post). Less common, but still present, were comments from people who had attended a TLM and had been met with criticism/unfriendly behavior when they made a mistake. There were even heated arguments about what type of TLM should be used and disdain to those who liked another version. I am almost certain to make a mistake if I go, and so, out of fear, I don’t go.
My advice, if you’d like more people to attend the TLM, is to invite people to go with you. I’m sure it’s much easier if you are with someone who can guide you through it. Also, you need to understand that most Catholics in the pews probably don’t even know it exists. They won’t attend what they don’t know about. And please don’t denigrate the NO. After all, it is the Mass that millions of Catholics attend each week, it is approved by the Church, and sincere prayer and worship of God happens even in the folk Masses that many attendants of the TLM seem to dislike so much.
Jen, I do think that, among some people, a certain TLM hauteur and scrupulosity has developed...a sort of looking down the nose at those who are trying to learn about it and make mistakes, or those who do not understand it. This is bad. Surely, the TLM should humble us before God and remove all self-righteousness in relation to others.
Now, with regard to sloppy Priests who pray the TLM (or the Of) poorly or who are lackadaisical, I do not have the same charity. They know better...
Jen,
Blogdom tends to be dominated by exremists, and the bitter TLM types you describe are much more prevalent on line than in real life.
In my own TLM community, quite a few who attend the TLM on Sunday also attend the NO on weekdays. And newcomers to our Sunday TLM have frequently mentioned that they found our community more "welcome" than the typical parish. I cannot even conceive of anyone mentioning an alleged "mistake". Indeed, unlike with the NO, there are no norms or rubrics whatever for congregational behavior at the TLM.
So why not give it a try when you can?
There is a division in our town between the TLM and OF folks. There was an article in the local paper about the TLM parish and someone in article is supposed to have said their mass was better or some such thing. Of course rather than check out if the statement was actually in the paper, or better yet, ignore that statement altogether, the Reform crowd have seized the alleged statement as an excuse to ostracize the TLM parish members. (You know how THEY are. Wink) Here is the article
In essence my view of the Reformed OF is not negative in general, as much as I am disgusted with sloppiness, as Pin put it. It would be just as upsetting, actually more so, if an EF priest basically did a walk through of the Mass like he didn't care. I can tell Fr. Wojdelski cares and has a conversation with God on our behalf. It really, really shows.
rcg: There was an article in the local paper about the TLM parish and someone in article is supposed to have said their mass was better or some such thing..
I was unable to find any such statement in the article you linked. Though perhaps it goes unsaid that any enthusiastic to the TLM they attend prefers it over the OF they don't? And vice versa.
Henry, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the TLM people here are FAR better catechized to the Faith and informed about what is going on than the OF parishes. I think this is the sore point with OF supporters. For example I walked blindly into a fight about taking communion in both species where one of the persons responsible to educate people about the New Translation was scandalised that he might not receive wine. A lot of the appeal of the New Translation for me was the realignment with the primary texts of Latin and what is actually being prayed. There is a sort of sneaky re-education going on with the parishioners when something that is allowed is presented as the 'new way' without telling them it is only an option and might only be intended for special circumstances. The TLM folks generally know it is an option and won't do it unless the special circumstances are present.
Post a Comment