Schism in the church

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

I just looked up stats on this - about 4% of US Catholic churches offer the Tridentine mass. I get that you have found this thread and are now going to present a decidedly minoritarian practice that most US Catholics have never been exposed to or participated in as some kind of movement, but it's simply not true and is blatant propaganda.

I'm sure the white Christian nationalists will make great bedfellows until they aren't.

DP but this is a fast growing group and they are young. The younger generation priests are also more orthodox than previous generations. So no, you cannot just ignore this group because they are the future of the church. And no, I don't think there is much correlation between attending latin mass and whether more likely to vote a certain way in Americans politics, because neither party is a good fit for Orthodox Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

I just looked up stats on this - about 4% of US Catholic churches offer the Tridentine mass. I get that you have found this thread and are now going to present a decidedly minoritarian practice that most US Catholics have never been exposed to or participated in as some kind of movement, but it's simply not true and is blatant propaganda.

I'm sure the white Christian nationalists will make great bedfellows until they aren't.

The percentage would be higher were it not for the impediments Pope Francis instituted. I understand the traditional masses attract a large number of attendees, although I personally have never been to one. In addition, converts have been increasing in parishes where the traditional masses are offered.

But as you said, given this is a minority practice, why suppress it as Francis did? Your white nationalist comment is misplaced, however. The traditional Latin mass has attracted followers all over the world, especially Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

I just looked up stats on this - about 4% of US Catholic churches offer the Tridentine mass. I get that you have found this thread and are now going to present a decidedly minoritarian practice that most US Catholics have never been exposed to or participated in as some kind of movement, but it's simply not true and is blatant propaganda.

I'm sure the white Christian nationalists will make great bedfellows until they aren't.

DP but this is a fast growing group and they are young. The younger generation priests are also more orthodox than previous generations. So no, you cannot just ignore this group because they are the future of the church. And no, I don't think there is much correlation between attending latin mass and whether more likely to vote a certain way in Americans politics, because neither party is a good fit for Orthodox Catholics.

You're talking about a shrinking share of the population in general. There isn't going to be a large scale successful revival of conservatism in the Catholic Church because there aren't enough people joining and staying, much less passing it on to their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

Are these Latin services uniquely inspirational? What exactly is the appeal? I doubt most people have more than a basic understanding of junior high Latin, which is not even liturgical.

There are Latin missals (some with English on the opposite page), and it is not that hard to develop a working understanding of mass Latin if one is a familiar with a romance language.

As for inspirational, yes, many people tend to find that these services inspire a greater sense of the sacred. They also tend to have much better music. (The quality of music at Catholic services is a whole other topic.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

I just looked up stats on this - about 4% of US Catholic churches offer the Tridentine mass. I get that you have found this thread and are now going to present a decidedly minoritarian practice that most US Catholics have never been exposed to or participated in as some kind of movement, but it's simply not true and is blatant propaganda.

I'm sure the white Christian nationalists will make great bedfellows until they aren't.

The percentage would be higher were it not for the impediments Pope Francis instituted. I understand the traditional masses attract a large number of attendees, although I personally have never been to one. In addition, converts have been increasing in parishes where the traditional masses are offered.

But as you said, given this is a minority practice, why suppress it as Francis did? Your white nationalist comment is misplaced, however. The traditional Latin mass has attracted followers all over the world, especially Africa.

Because of Vatican II and the potential for divisiveness, which we are now seeing the effects of.

As far as white Christian nationalism - that's largely the topic of the thread, not church practices in Africa. In the US, the energy put into promoting "traditional" Catholic practices is part of a larger white Christian nationalism promoted by Trump, Bannon, Vance, et al. I realize people deny this for various reasons, but you don't have to look very far to find well-sourced books and commentary on it.

[Anonymous]

When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

Are these Latin services uniquely inspirational? What exactly is the appeal? I doubt most people have more than a basic understanding of junior high Latin, which is not even liturgical.

There are Latin missals (some with English on the opposite page), and it is not that hard to develop a working understanding of mass Latin if one is a familiar with a romance language.

As for inspirational, yes, many people tend to find that these services inspire a greater sense of the sacred. They also tend to have much better music. (The quality of music at Catholic services is a whole other topic.)

I suppose the direct connection to the ancient church is also an interesting, if less important aspect. The Latin service must be a post Constantine construct when basilicas were constructed by the Roman state, and worship became more or less standardized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

Are these Latin services uniquely inspirational? What exactly is the appeal? I doubt most people have more than a basic understanding of junior high Latin, which is not even liturgical.

There are Latin missals (some with English on the opposite page), and it is not that hard to develop a working understanding of mass Latin if one is a familiar with a romance language.

As for inspirational, yes, many people tend to find that these services inspire a greater sense of the sacred. They also tend to have much better music. (The quality of music at Catholic services is a whole other topic.)

I suppose the direct connection to the ancient church is also an interesting, if less important aspect. The Latin service must be a post Constantine construct when basilicas were constructed by the Roman state, and worship became more or less standardized.

PP here. That is a good point. I agree the direct connection with the ancient church going back to St. Peter and the church fathers is also a major point of appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Loving your neighbor never seemed divisive to me when I was in Sunday school. My parents treated this as the bedrock of our upbringing.

You have not been following Francis closely if you think that is all he said in his whole pontificate. You can agree with his stances but still recognize that he very much had a my way or the high way attitude, which did not play well with many in a church as diverse as the Catholic church. Unity was never a focus for him, but Leo has indicated very early on that it will be a main focus for him.

Pope Leo advocates for respecting migrants. He said,
"JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others". Let's unify around that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Vance is an Opus Dei kook groomed by the Dark Enlightenment kooks. Add one part Trump cult and you’ve got the recipe for global disaster.

Is he really Opus Dei? I know Sam Brownback is (worked out well for KS but have been wondering about Vance.

In order for him to be recruited into Opus Dei, would not he be required to raise and educate his children in Catholiscm. I thought I read somewhere that Usha and the children do not practice the religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Vance is an Opus Dei kook groomed by the Dark Enlightenment kooks. Add one part Trump cult and you’ve got the recipe for global disaster.

Is he really Opus Dei? I know Sam Brownback is (worked out well for KS but have been wondering about Vance.

In order for him to be recruited into Opus Dei, would not he be required to raise and educate his children in Catholiscm. I thought I read somewhere that Usha and the children do not practice the religion.

His eldest son recently “chose” to be baptized. Of course, this kid is also attending a conservative Catholic private school and surrounded by cradle Catholics. Lots of peer pressure for a 7 year-old.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jd-vance-my-sons-decision-to-be-baptized-was-more-exciting-than-winning-2024-election/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Loving your neighbor never seemed divisive to me when I was in Sunday school. My parents treated this as the bedrock of our upbringing.

You have not been following Francis closely if you think that is all he said in his whole pontificate. You can agree with his stances but still recognize that he very much had a my way or the high way attitude, which did not play well with many in a church as diverse as the Catholic church. Unity was never a focus for him, but Leo has indicated very early on that it will be a main focus for him.

Pope Leo advocates for respecting migrants. He said,
"JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others". Let's unify around that.

I think he will keep advocating for migrants but his statement about Vance was not made as Pope Leo. I don't think he will be as direct as Pope but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

I just looked up stats on this - about 4% of US Catholic churches offer the Tridentine mass. I get that you have found this thread and are now going to present a decidedly minoritarian practice that most US Catholics have never been exposed to or participated in as some kind of movement, but it's simply not true and is blatant propaganda.

I'm sure the white Christian nationalists will make great bedfellows until they aren't.

DP but this is a fast growing group and they are young. The younger generation priests are also more orthodox than previous generations. So no, you cannot just ignore this group because they are the future of the church. And no, I don't think there is much correlation between attending latin mass and whether more likely to vote a certain way in Americans politics, because neither party is a good fit for Orthodox Catholics.

You're talking about a shrinking share of the population in general. There isn't going to be a large scale successful revival of conservatism in the Catholic Church because there aren't enough people joining and staying, much less passing it on to their children.

I think you are underestimating the traditionalist revival of the church. They are the ones having lots of kids, they are the one becoming priests. Once the boomer priests are gone, you will feel the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Vance is an Opus Dei kook groomed by the Dark Enlightenment kooks. Add one part Trump cult and you’ve got the recipe for global disaster.

Is he really Opus Dei? I know Sam Brownback is (worked out well for KS but have been wondering about Vance.

In order for him to be recruited into Opus Dei, would not he be required to raise and educate his children in Catholiscm. I thought I read somewhere that Usha and the children do not practice the religion.

He said publicly that he attends mass with Usha and the children, and they send the children to Catholic schools. However, when it comes to baptism, Usha apparently wants the children to choose for themselves whether they become Catholic or not.

In Vance's situation, a non-Catholic married to a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic ceremony who later converts, the Church subjects all of these choices to strict agreement of the non-Catholic spouse in order to not disrupt the bonds of marriage. It would find it odd if Opus Dei did not go along with traditional Church teaching on this matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pope Leo is not going to be as "liberal" as Francis, and most importantly, he's not going to be as intentionally divisive.

Not sure how or why anyone things Francis was divisive. You have to be a pretty rigid conservative to think that.

Pope Francis established many impediments to celebrating the traditional Latin mass. If Pope Leo removes those, he will be good with the vast majority of the more religiously conservative wing of Catholics who simply want the liturgy they prefer back.

IT'S BEEN 60 YEARS - what are you even talking about? The only people that could truly prefer that liturgy are in their 70's and 80's, and 90's. The rest have been brought along by these sticks in the mud.

Unbelievable.

Actually, it's the boomers brought up post-Vatican II who tend to be anti-traditional liturgy.

It's the younger people who are attracted to it. Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013) loosened the strictures put in earlier on the Tridentine mass, exposing it to newer generations, who have become attached. Pope Francis re-instated the strictures and more, alienating this group.

Pope Leo will have the support of this group if the only thing he does is dial back the policy on the traditional mass to the days of Benedict.

I just looked up stats on this - about 4% of US Catholic churches offer the Tridentine mass. I get that you have found this thread and are now going to present a decidedly minoritarian practice that most US Catholics have never been exposed to or participated in as some kind of movement, but it's simply not true and is blatant propaganda.

I'm sure the white Christian nationalists will make great bedfellows until they aren't.

DP but this is a fast growing group and they are young. The younger generation priests are also more orthodox than previous generations. So no, you cannot just ignore this group because they are the future of the church. And no, I don't think there is much correlation between attending latin mass and whether more likely to vote a certain way in Americans politics, because neither party is a good fit for Orthodox Catholics.

You're talking about a shrinking share of the population in general. There isn't going to be a large scale successful revival of conservatism in the Catholic Church because there aren't enough people joining and staying, much less passing it on to their children.

I think you are underestimating the traditionalist revival of the church. They are the ones having lots of kids, they are the one becoming priests. Once the boomer priests are gone, you will feel the difference.

Religion is just another way of distracting people. That is why the Evangelicals pray to Trump as if he were Jesus himself.