The division in the Catholic Church (Churches)

discombobulated1 · Apr 29, 2024

I say Churches (whereas I once said Church, singular) because the CC is divided into 3 parts at this time in history. You have the novus ordo Church, which is the one you see in your local area, the one most people attend. Then you have the SSPX (Society of St Pius X) Churches who agree with the late archbishop Lefebvre who defied the NO Church (novus ordo) because it was beginning to teach heresy, beginning at Vatican II (one was the heresy of: All religions can lead you to God/Heaven, but that's not what Jesus said).

I have always had a lot of respect for Archbishp Lefebvre, have read a few books on him. I think I liked the one called Horn of the Unicorn best.

So anyway, then you have the Sedevacantists who say that we haven't had a valid pope since Pius XII, which I say is true (it means the Seat [of St Peter, first pope] is Vacant). Their position explains why we have an alleged pope who teaches un-Christian, un-Catholic things, who blesses same sex marriages, so called, and etc.

But there are few Sedevacantist Churches in the US or anywhere else. Most people cannot afford to drive to one every Sunday. Then there's this:

I may not be able to put my finger on this and articulate about it so tht everyone understands (catholic or otherwise) but there just seems to be something missing in the Sede Churches, something that the NO Churches (some anyway) do have. It has to do with the Real Presence of Christ, apparently. I just FEEL that something is lacking in the Sede Churches. On top of that, people are required to dress a certain way. Women have to have veils on and that kind of thing. I wouldn't mind if it were not mandatory but it kind of is or appears to be. What if someone just came in from a labor job and doesn't have time to dress up or whatever? I just think the Church should be welcoming to all. Anyway, I wonder what other Catholics have to say about all this. It is bewildering.... on some level. Jesus prayed for UNITY (John 17?)

discombobulated1 · Apr 29, 2024

Wow, 21 people viewed this but there are no comments? Are people afraid of speaking out against the wrongs in the Church?

If so, that is VERY telling...................

jas3 · Apr 30, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
On top of that, people are required to dress a certain way. Women have to have veils on and that kind of thing. I wouldn't mind if it were not mandatory but it kind of is or appears to be.

“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.” (1917 Code of Canon Law)

“The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.” (Raymond Cardinal Burke, 2011)

The 1917 Code was in force after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo and Cdl. Burke gave his statement well after that, so it can't even be said that the mainstream Catholic Church is against expectations of dress. My local SSPX chapel has a dress code too. It's more of a sad sign of the times that people have to be told to dress reverently for being in the presence of God in the Eucharist than a reflection on how "rigid" (to use one of Pope Francis' favorite terms) a church is. I have seen enough hoodies, jeans, and spaghetti straps in church that I now agree it has to be said.

discombobulated1 said:
What if someone just came in from a labor job and doesn't have time to dress up or whatever?

First, he should not be working on Sunday if at all possible, but barring that, that's obviously a far cry from the much more common cases of immodest and irreverent dress that come from women wanting to wear revealing clothes or men who can't be bothered to wear something more formal than shorts and a Hawaiian shirt.

tz620q · May 1, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I say Churches (whereas I once said Church, singular) because the CC is divided into 3 parts at this time in history. You have the novus ordo Church, which is the one you see in your local area, the one most people attend. Then you have the SSPX (Society of St Pius X) Churches who agree with the late archbishop Lefebvre who defied the NO Church (novus ordo) because it was beginning to teach heresy, beginning at Vatican II (one was the heresy of: All religions can lead you to God/Heaven, but that's not what Jesus said).

I have always had a lot of respect for Archbishp Lefebvre, have read a few books on him. I think I liked the one called Horn of the Unicorn best.

So anyway, then you have the Sedevacantists who say that we haven't had a valid pope since Pius XII, which I say is true (it means the Seat [of St Peter, first pope] is Vacant). Their position explains why we have an alleged pope who teaches un-Christian, un-Catholic things, who blesses same sex marriages, so called, and etc.

But there are few Sedevacantist Churches in the US or anywhere else. Most people cannot afford to drive to one every Sunday. Then there's this:

I may not be able to put my finger on this and articulate about it so tht everyone understands (catholic or otherwise) but there just seems to be something missing in the Sede Churches, something that the NO Churches (some anyway) do have. It has to do with the Real Presence of Christ, apparently. I just FEEL that something is lacking in the Sede Churches. On top of that, people are required to dress a certain way. Women have to have veils on and that kind of thing. I wouldn't mind if it were not mandatory but it kind of is or appears to be. What if someone just came in from a labor job and doesn't have time to dress up or whatever? I just think the Church should be welcoming to all. Anyway, I wonder what other Catholics have to say about all this. It is bewildering.... on some level. Jesus prayed for UNITY (John 17?)

There is an old joke about an elderly couple driving along and the woman says, "You never sit close to me and hold my hand anymore". The man says, "I never moved." I suppose one could make this case about the SSPX; but in truth, as you have found, they are a group that puts ritual above unity. Liturgy is important; but it is the means of worship, not the end of it. I think there are aspects of the Tridentine mass that are beautiful and better symbolically. Some of those, like striking the chest during the Confiteor, have been incorporated into the NO. All of this shows that liturgy needs to be organic. It needs to flow from the will of the people towards the will of God. As people change, liturgy should adapt. The moment we start putting form above function is when our church starts losing focus and becoming too ritualistic.

jas3 · May 1, 2024

tz620q said:
in truth, as you have found, they are a group that puts ritual above unity

Unity with the temporal church of the last four decades, maybe. Unity with the eternal Church, no. The Latin Mass is highly important to them, but what they preserve is not just a ritual, it's traditional Catholic theology in general. Between a group that says blessings of same-sex couples are always immoral and one that says they aren't, it's clear that the former is the one using a "hermeneutic of continuity," while the latter has embraced a "hermeneutic of rupture."

tz620q said:
Liturgy is important; but it is the means of worship, not the end of it.

It is more than that, it is the primary means of expressing the orthodox faith and a meeting between the particular church and the eternal Church.

tz620q said:
I think there are aspects of the Tridentine mass that are beautiful and better symbolically. Some of those, like striking the chest during the Confiteor, have been incorporated into the NO. All of this shows that liturgy needs to be organic.

What? What is "all of this"? How does it show that liturgy needs to be "organic"? This statement makes no sense. It also ignores that the Eastern Catholic Churches have apparently not gotten the memo that their liturgies need to be "updated."

tz620q said:
It needs to flow from the will of the people towards the will of God.

That is never how the liturgy, any liturgy, has developed in the past, especially not in the Roman Church.

tz620q said:
As people change, liturgy should adapt.

If so, then the liturgy can never be expected to transform the people and call them to something higher than themselves.

The Liturgist · May 1, 2024

tz620q said:
It needs to flow from the will of the people towards the will of God. As people change, liturgy should adapt.

On the contrary, liturgy flows from God to the people and as society changes liturgy must remain as stalwart as possible. I am exceedingly pleased by the fact that the average age of the hymns sung in the Orthodox liturgy is over a thousand years.

discombobulated1 · May 1, 2024

jas3 said:
“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.” (1917 Code of Canon Law)

“The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.” (Raymond Cardinal Burke, 2011)

The 1917 Code was in force after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo and Cdl. Burke gave his statement well after that, so it can't even be said that the mainstream Catholic Church is against expectations of dress. My local SSPX chapel has a dress code too. It's more of a sad sign of the times that people have to be told to dress reverently for being in the presence of God in the Eucharist than a reflection on how "rigid" (to use one of Pope Francis' favorite terms) a church is. I have seen enough hoodies, jeans, and spaghetti straps in church that I now agree it has to be said.

First, he should not be working on Sunday if at all possible, but barring that, that's obviously a far cry from the much more common cases of immodest and irreverent dress that come from women wanting to wear revealing clothes or men who can't be bothered to wear something more formal than shorts and a Hawaiian shirt.

I did not bring up the topic of suggestive clothing or irreverent dress. You did. I brought up the fact that, for one there is the Saturday vigil and many people work on Saturday. Then I know of a situation where someone was homeless due to domestic abuse and basically had to wear certain clothing because she never knew when she would have to run from the abuser. But she liked the trad Mass. I'm just saying that people in the Church should not push the dress code on everyone, although they should encourage people to follow it. As you mention, it is not a sin for a woman to go into a Church with head uncovered.

discombobulated1 · May 1, 2024

tz620q said:
There is an old joke about an elderly couple driving along and the woman says, "You never sit close to me and hold my hand anymore". The man says, "I never moved." I suppose one could make this case about the SSPX; but in truth, as you have found, they are a group that puts ritual above unity. Liturgy is important; but it is the means of worship, not the end of it. I think there are aspects of the Tridentine mass that are beautiful and better symbolically. Some of those, like striking the chest during the Confiteor, have been incorporated into the NO. All of this shows that liturgy needs to be organic. It needs to flow from the will of the people towards the will of God. As people change, liturgy should adapt. The moment we start putting form above function is when our church starts losing focus and becoming too ritualistic.

Well, I can't help but think that your thoughts on the topic are at least party due to thefact that you live in modern times. Maybe you never went to a traditional Mass or it's been a long time but in any case, people have gotten used to the informality of the new Mass. I don't really want to say anymore about it than I already have. I just wish the 3 "sects" or whatever u call them would COME TOGETHER for crying out loud.

Jesus prayed for UNITY. Doesn't what Jesus want matter? Human beings always want to do things as THEY choose.

No wonder Jesus said that FEW find the Narrow Way to Heaven. You can't get there doing your own thing 24/7/365

jas3 · May 1, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I'm just saying that people in the Church should not push the dress code on everyone, although they should encourage people to follow it.

I think this is a good attitude toward the idea of a dress code. The priest should treat it as a pastoral guideline and make exceptions in cases where someone is homeless, for example, while promoting modest and proper dress as the norm otherwise.

tz620q · May 2, 2024

jas3 said:
Unity with the temporal church of the last four decades, maybe. Unity with the eternal Church, no. The Latin Mass is highly important to them, but what they preserve is not just a ritual, it's traditional Catholic theology in general. Between a group that says blessings of same-sex couples are always immoral and one that says they aren't, it's clear that the former is the one using a "hermeneutic of continuity," while the latter has embraced a "hermeneutic of rupture."

It is more than that, it is the primary means of expressing the orthodox faith and a meeting between the particular church and the eternal Church.

What? What is "all of this"? How does it show that liturgy needs to be "organic"? This statement makes no sense. It also ignores that the Eastern Catholic Churches have apparently not gotten the memo that their liturgies need to be "updated."

That is never how the liturgy, any liturgy, has developed in the past, especially not in the Roman Church.

If so, then the liturgy can never be expected to transform the people and call them to something higher than themselves.

This may not be your position and if not I apologize; but I have had SSPX people argue that the Tridentine mass is the only valid Catholic liturgy. That of course begs the question on whether the Eastern Churches have valid liturgy and whether the Catholic Church was performing invalid liturgy prior to Trent.

Of course, I agree with your thought that liturgy is a link between the Church Suffering and the Church Eternal; but there is an implied but in your statement that only the Tridentine Mass can accomplish this. To me it is a matter of degree and focus. I feel that the Tridentine Mass focused the worshipers more inward and upward, while the NO focuses the worship more outward and horizontally linked.

Your statement about same sex marriages is merely throwing flak at the argument, since this is not a formal part of the liturgy.

I appreciate your desire to maintain the Tridentine Mass and I feel it should be maintained, as part of our Catholic heritage; but the Tridentine Mass was not given to the Catholic Church by God. It was created and approved by man and formalized within the Church. That is the same process that created the NO mass.

tz620q · May 2, 2024

The Liturgist said:
On the contrary, liturgy flows from God to the people and as society changes liturgy must remain as stalwart as possible. I am exceedingly pleased by the fact that the average age of the hymns sung in the Orthodox liturgy is over a thousand years.

This surprises me that you said this since liturgy literally means "work of the people". Believe me, I see your point and appreciate your deep love of ancient liturgies; but you must admit that each culture and to a lesser degree each time had their own ways of worship and formed their own liturgies. To say that any one liturgy is the only valid form or is the one given to us by God is divisive. Of course, it can be argued that some liturgy is better than others. That is a valid discussion and I think one that is ripe for cross pollination.

discombobulated1 · May 2, 2024

jas3 said:
Unity with the temporal church of the last four decades, maybe. Unity with the eternal Church, no. The Latin Mass is highly important to them, but what they preserve is not just a ritual, it's traditional Catholic theology in general. Between a group that says blessings of same-sex couples are always immoral and one that says they aren't, it's clear that the former is the one using a "hermeneutic of continuity," while the latter has embraced a "hermeneutic of rupture."

It is more than that, it is the primary means of expressing the orthodox faith and a meeting between the particular church and the eternal Church.

What? What is "all of this"? How does it show that liturgy needs to be "organic"? This statement makes no sense. It also ignores that the Eastern Catholic Churches have apparently not gotten the memo that their liturgies need to be "updated."

That is never how the liturgy, any liturgy, has developed in the past, especially not in the Roman Church.

If so, then the liturgy can never be expected to transform the people and call them to something higher than themselves.

Thanks for this response. A lot of non Catholics focus on the ritual as though that were the primary "thing" to focus on.

The scary thing is.. What happened to Dathan and Co. when they defied Moses and his focus on doing things God's way?

It wasn't pretty, in case anyone doesn't recall or know about that.

discombobulated1 · May 2, 2024

As people change, liturgy should adapt.

Some poster said that, can't recall whom

But thestatement makes no sense because human nature NEVER changes from one generation to the next.

God also does not change.

So there need not be any changes... esp to that which is already established in historical Tradition as being the w ay God wants us to do things. In other words: Long live the Traditional Catholic Mass (as Lefebvre called it "the Mass of All Times")

I'd be VERY careful, all you who want to change such things!

discombobulated1 · May 2, 2024

tz620q said:
This surprises me that you said this since liturgy literally means "work of the people". Believe me, I see your point and appreciate your deep love of ancient liturgies; but you must admit that each culture and to a lesser degree each time had their own ways of worship and formed their own liturgies. To say that any one liturgy is the only valid form or is the one given to us by God is divisive. Of course, it can be argued that some liturgy is better than others. That is a valid discussion and I think one that is ripe for cross pollination.

You must not be a traditional Catholic (haVEN'T read a lot of your posts...)

But yes, one liturgy IS better because, again, it is in compliance with the way GOD wants things done. As you may know it is human nature to want to do things "your own way," which often means doing things the devil's way. He is far more cunning than you or I. We should not so much fear him as fear OUR weaknesses in dealing with him. He nearly always wins against us because he is more intelligent and doesn't have the handicap of having a human body.

So where was I? I'll be back when I remember..

chevyontheriver · May 2, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
Wow, 21 people viewed this but there are no comments? Are people afraid of speaking out against the wrongs in the Church?

If so, that is VERY telling...................

I just discovered this thread Thursday evening. Looking for a way of entering into the conversation.

There is of course one Church and different levels of fidelity to the Lord who is head of that one Church.

You mentioned NO and SSPX and Sedevacantist as three Churches. I don’t see it that way. I see the numerous rites as liturgical families for worship. Within the Latin rite we have the NO and TLM and Ordinariates. Pope Francis is at war with the TLM but that has guaranteed its survival. Now those who prefer the TLM can align themselves with the FSSP or the SSPX or even consider themselves sedevacantist. The Sedevacantists are rare, the SSPX are uncommon, but the FSSP or other traditional groups in union with the rest of the Church are not so rare. A bit more common than the Ordinariate folks.

I can occasionally participate in a TLM but more frequently an Ordinariate liturgy. Otherwise the novus ordo most of the time. All one Church. Different liturgies. Unequal values even if all are valid. Ymmv.

There are crazy differences among people who call themselves Catholic. Some of them I cannot fathom. Like how can cardinals McElroy and Hollerich and Tobin and Fernandez can coexist with cardinals Muller and Sarah and Burke and Brandmuller. At least Our Lady of Akita warned us of such things.

chevyontheriver · May 2, 2024

tz620q said:
I appreciate your desire to maintain the Tridentine Mass and I feel it should be maintained, as part of our Catholic heritage; but the Tridentine Mass was not given to the Catholic Church by God. It was created and approved by man and formalized within the Church. That is the same process that created the NO mass.

The ‘Tridentine’ Mass was an organic development of the Roman Rite. The novus ordo was a quickly thrown together invention of a handful of people. So not similar in development.

The TLM isn’t just a heritage thing. It is, among other things, there for us to reclaim good elements of it to enrich the somewhat impoverished novus ordo. At least that was the opinion of pope Benedict when he allowed a freer use of the TLM. His goal was reform of the reform, an attempt to actually realize what Vatican II intended rather than what the bureaucrats invented for us.

jas3 · May 2, 2024

tz620q said:
This may not be your position and if not I apologize; but I have had SSPX people argue that the Tridentine mass is the only valid Catholic liturgy.

That's not my position, nor was it the position of Abp. Lefebvre, although I don't doubt that there are some people who go to the extreme belief that the NO is invalid (at which point I would say they are effectively sedes). My own position is that while it is valid, the NO is inferior to the TLM both theologically and aesthetically, and it is most often celebrated with egregious, scandalous, and even sacrilegious abuses, which have become so common that most Catholics don't think twice about a half dozen "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion being present every Sunday.

tz620q said:
That of course begs the question on whether the Eastern Churches have valid liturgy and whether the Catholic Church was performing invalid liturgy prior to Trent.

I think you would be hard pressed to find even the most rabidly pro-Latin rad-trad claiming that the Eastern rites or the more obscure historic Western rites are invalid.

tz620q said:
Of course, I agree with your thought that liturgy is a link between the Church Suffering and the Church Eternal; but there is an implied but in your statement that only the Tridentine Mass can accomplish this.

I only meant to say that the Mass is more than an aesthetic aid to worship, which is an argument I've heard for the NO many times.

tz620q said:
I feel that ththatidentine Mass focused the worshipers more inward and upward, while the NO focuses the worship more outward and horizontally linked.

If by that you mean that the NO is meant to place a greater focus on the congregation, I agree. I think that is the opposite of what the liturgy should be.

tz620q said:
Your statement about same sex marriages is merely throwing flak at the argument, since this is not a formal part of the liturgy.

As I said, the SSPX and traditionalists more broadly aren't just focused on preserving the liturgy, they're focused on preserving the faith in general. So yes, my statement pertains to the faith in general, not the liturgy specifically.

tz620q said:
the Tridentine Mass was not given to the Catholic Church by God. It was created and approved by man and formalized within the Church. That is the same process that created the NO mass.

Let's not equivocate what were obviously two very different processes. The TLM, like the Eastern and other Western rites, developed organically over many centuries. While it was not a static thing during that time, it underwent changes only gradually, with each change affecting a small part of the liturgy. The NO, in contrast, was designed by committee in a very short span of time with a distinctly unorthodox motivation: to turn the focus from God to man.

JSRG · May 2, 2024

jas3 said:
That's not my position, nor was it the position of Abp. Lefebvre, although I don't doubt that there are some people who go to the extreme belief that the NO is invalid (at which point I would say they are effectively sedes). My own position is that while it is valid, the NO is inferior to the TLM both theologically and aesthetically, and it is most often celebrated with egregious, scandalous, and even sacrilegious abuses, which have become so common that most Catholics don't think twice about a half dozen "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion being present every Sunday.

I'm a bit confused here. You say your position is that it is valid. However, your denomination is listed as Methodist. To a Methodist, aren't all Catholic masses "invalid" insofar as a Methodist doesn't believe in transubstantiation to begin with? Or are you simply opining that, even if you don't agree with the Catholic theology, you think it would be valid under said theology?

jas3 · May 3, 2024

JSRG said:
I'm a bit confused here. You say your position is that it is valid. However, your denomination is listed as Methodist.

I am in an unfortunate in-between state right now due to the UMC going down the drain and the GMC making a firm commitment to reject the liberalizations of the 21st century by clinging to the liberalizations of the 20th. In the process of searching for a denomination that had not compromised with secular social pressure, I came to be largely convinced of the Catholic position on many subjects. At the same time, I discovered Orthodoxy and have been attending Orthodox and Catholic churches while attempting to work through what has turned out to be a much bigger alteration of my faith than I expected it to be. When I made my CF account, I was earlier on in that process and Methodist seemed to be the most accurate option to pick. A lot of the theology modern Methodists think of as "Catholic" was actually held by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, so it was not necessarily inaccurate. Now, I think the best thing to do with the denomination tag is to wait until I actually convert to change it.

JSRG said:
To a Methodist, aren't all Catholic masses "invalid" insofar as a Methodist doesn't believe in transubstantiation to begin with?

Officially and traditionally, Methodists do believe in the Real Presence, although they don't explain it with transubstantiation specifically. I would guess based on my experience growing up Methodist though that probably over 99% of Methodists "in the pews" are unaware of that and hold a memorialist position (which ironically is also likely due to laxity in handling communion: replacing the wine with grape juice, allowing the use of any bread, and having open communion). I wouldn't fault anyone for failing to see what is sacred in a cup of Welch's with a King's Hawaiian roll, which is what was used at youth events in my hometown church.

JSRG said:
Or are you simply opining that, even if you don't agree with the Catholic theology, you think it would be valid under said theology?

Basically, yes, although I'm in agreement with Catholic theology on the liturgy and the sacraments. A sacrament is valid if there is proper form, matter, and intent, and in the NO those are still there.

tz620q · May 3, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
As people change, liturgy should adapt.

Some poster said that, can't recall whom

But thestatement makes no sense because human nature NEVER changes from one generation to the next.

God also does not change.

So there need not be any changes... esp to that which is already established in historical Tradition as being the w ay God wants us to do things. In other words: Long live the Traditional Catholic Mass (as Lefebvre called it "the Mass of All Times")

I'd be VERY careful, all you who want to change such things!

That was me. I don't mean this as a change every year; but the TLM was 400 years old when VII happened. How long do you stick with a dead language that only a small fraction of the people at mass can understand before change is on the table? Let me ask you one question, "Is Latin the official language of God?".

The division in the Catholic Church (Churches)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads