Elitest groups related to the church


#1

I am just wondering what people's opinions are on such things as SSPX, Opus Dei, and the whole tiff people get on Latin Mass vs Lingua Franca Mass.

From my readings (please tell me if I am wrong)
SSPX broke off from the church because they said Vatican II corrupt the church (thought I have never got such claims if you believe the church referenced in the bible is Catholic then the sayings that Satan won't ever destroy it are applicable)

Opus Dei is a institution that is similar to the Jesuits (they seem to rather not like each other that) and from my readings I get they are not well liked because they are secretive and elitist, though they (Opus Dei) claim they are just victims of lies (seems they like to see themselves as victims(

Latin vs Lingua Franca why do people have to get so pricky about this it seems those who support it don't like Vatican II and those who don't care about it are fine with Vatican II

Thoughts?


Note I originally intended to post this in the Non Catholic forum because some of these groups seem to have broken away but I also felt it belong here as it was a discussion in relation to catholcism.


#2

I don't understand Vatican II on a systematic level. I tend to think that I am incapable of understanding it.


#3

[quote="Zimm3r, post:1, topic:303482"]
I am just wondering what people's opinions are on such things as SSPX, Opus Dei, and the whole tiff people get on Latin Mass vs Lingua Franca Mass.

From my readings (please tell me if I am wrong)
SSPX broke off from the church because they said Vatican II corrupt the church (thought I have never got such claims if you believe the church referenced in the bible is Catholic then the sayings that Satan won't ever destroy it are applicable)

Opus Dei is a institution that is similar to the Jesuits (they seem to rather not like each other that) and from my readings I get they are not well liked because they are secretive and elitist, though they (Opus Dei) claim they are just victims of lies (seems they like to see themselves as victims(

Latin vs Lingua Franca why do people have to get so pricky about this it seems those who support it don't like Vatican II and those who don't care about it are fine with Vatican II

Thoughts?


Note I originally intended to post this in the Non Catholic forum because some of these groups seem to have broken away but I also felt it belong here as it was a discussion in relation to catholcism.

[/quote]

He said Satan would never destroy the Church. He said the Church would never be destroyed. He said nothing about corrupted.


#4

The SSPX are treading close to schism, like the orthodox, but talks are still going on. They have not broken off from the Church,and while there's a range of opinions, I don't think they believe the Church has been corrupted so much as it has thrown out so many beautiful old traditions and loosened healthy disciplines to a dangerous extent. The problem is, they refuse to accept Vatican 2.

Traditionalist Catholics, they of the latin Mass, do accept V2, and the Church's authority to change the Mass, they just like the old one better, prefering the rich symbolism and tradition, not to mention the lower probability of abuses, like sitting through the gospel, the priest making stuff up as he goes along, or the practical absence of confession. I heard a priest at a latin Mass preach on V2 once, and he fully supported it, - while decrying the false spirit of V2 that has led some to abandon the rosary, confession, to accept birth control, etc. They certainly can be elitist, but that doesn't define them. You won't hear any socializing in the Church proper, but they will whisper to help you figure out where you are in the missal.


#5

I know several Opus Dei members. I would certainly not say that they are elitist. Very much to the contrary, they are humble working people. They often seem secretive because they are quiet about their activities, never seeking publicity. However, if you happen to meet an Opus Dei member, and they know that you are a Catholic, they will readily invite you to their classes.


#6

Furthermore, Opus Dei is not like the Jesuits. The Opus Dei is a personal prelature with it's own bishop, and is made up of secular priests and laity, while the Society of Jesus is a religious order of clerks regular with coadjutor brothers led by a superior general.


#7

[quote="Zimm3r, post:1, topic:303482"]

Latin vs Lingua Franca why do people have to get so pricky about this it seems those who support it don't like Vatican II and those who don't care about it are fine with Vatican II

Thoughts?


Note I originally intended to post this in the Non Catholic forum because some of these groups seem to have broken away but I also felt it belong here as it was a discussion in relation to catholcism.

[/quote]

The issue is not solely founded on a disagreement about the use of Latin or the vernacular for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The issue is that of the actual form. Those who "get so picky", as you describe it, do so because they see many liturgical abuses that have stemmed from having a vernacular and theologically simplified form of the Mass. Some (definitely not all) blame the Second Vatican Council for these abuses and may even go as far as to say that the ecumenical council was not valid and is not binding on Catholics. It is important to realize that not all people who "support" the Traditional Latin Mass dislike the Ordinary Form.

The Traditional Latin Mass is completely different, in exterior appearance, from the Ordinary form of the Mass. Both forms confer the exact same effect though. One more piece of information, Latin is still SUPPOSED to be used in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but this has been neglected by parishes throughout the world. It is a shame that we do not love our liturgical language as we should.


#8

Right on Moserklj. I would love to go to an Ordinary Form Mass as Vatican 2 envisioned it.


#9

I am the oldest of 12. When people see me walk by they know who I am and what family I come from because of how I look and walk down the street. But when we get together as afamily we are really very different. So it is with the Catholic Church. we have the Mass, creed, etc... but we are in other respects very different people. Some people like one thing and others like something else. We just need to learn to respect each other when those differences don't impinge on some essential doctrine of the Church.
:):):)


#10

[quote="Moserklj, post:7, topic:303482"]
. . . The issue is that of the actual form. Those who "get so picky", as you describe it, do so because they see many liturgical abuses that have stemmed from having a vernacular and theologically simplified form of the Mass.

[/quote]

I do not think the OF can be said to be theologically simpler than the EF; in fact, if anything, I think it would be more sensible to say that the OF is more theologically complex.

Aspects of the Mass such as its banquet character do not seem emphasized or even acknowledged (it perhaps being taken for granted) in the EF tradition (including traditional commentary or instruction about it); however, in the OF, it is included and made manifest. The EF emphasizes the altar while the OF includes (and is certainly supposed to) both the aspect of altar (sacrifice) and banquet-table (feast): it is (and alway has been) both altar and table, as the Scriptures make plain (especially in the table * aspect). Consequently we might call it the altar-table: the CCC does give the altar aspect generally priority of place or position in this regard.

The Mass as banquet manifests the eschatological character of the Mass as a sort of anticipation of the heavenly banquet or feast of the Lamb in heaven; it is related to the parables of Our Lord that speak of the wedding feast or banquet. It can seem contradictoy that the altar also be a table or the table also an altar, but like so much in Catholicism, this is only a paradox at most: the two aspects hardly necessitate a mutual annihilation (the one reality does not require the denial of the other). As time goes on, I think we can expect a clearer systematic reconciliation of these two elements or aspects of the Mass.

Therefore I would not say that the OF is theologically simpler. Indeed, it would seem rather that exactly because of the OF's complexity in this regard we find the reason why it is so controversial and a source of so much misunderstanding, whether in circles that resist the OF or promote it, either by over-emphasizing one asect of it or another, which results in a degradation of its wholeness (e.g., over-emphasizing its banquet-table-feast aspect to the point where its reality as a sacrifice is effectively suppressed or denied or, on the other hand, denying this aspect and over-emphasizing its sacrificial nature/character with the respective consequence of a denial of a legitimate aspect).*


#11

[quote="1AugustSon7, post:10, topic:303482"]
I do not think the OF can be said to be theologically simpler than the EF; in fact, if anything, I think it would be more sensible to say that the OF is more theologically complex.

etc...

[/quote]

My own view on this is that "meal aspect" is fairly obvious as part of the Sacrifice itself. To me, it is quite clear that, to have a Sacrifice, the one offering It must eat That which was sacrificed. This seems more an anthropological/cultural/Biblical issue than theological (not that Biblical studies and theological studies are opposed to each other =) ). I have always considered the "meal aspect" just, that, an aspect of the larger and more multidimensional thing that is the Sacrifice itself.

So it is silly to me to see people bickering about meal vs. sacrifice. And at the same time, I cannot consider it to be a "both/and" kind of thing, because the meal and sacrifice are not on the same level. The meal is an aspect of, a characteristic of, a natural consequence of, the larger, all encompassing Sacrifice.

The meal means nothing without the Sacrifice, and, it must be said, the Sacrifice is not consummated without at least he who offers It eating It. The meal can have no specific meaning without that which it is dependent on, the Sacrifice. After all, it could be just as well we are talking about having a McDonalds in church or something. The meal is an aspect of the Sacrifice, not the other way around.

This is why it absolutely puzzles me to no end when people talk about Mass being a meal. Yes, it is, but... The story isn't finished there. The concept of Mass as meal is 100% dependent on it being a natural part of the larger Sacrifice. It's like my kid looking at a tree and asking, "What is that?" and I respond, "It is green." Well... yes, but... not really. Silly comparison, but this is how I see it.

Isn't it fairly self-evident that, by eating the Eucharist, meal is an aspect of the Sacrifice? This, to me, is a case of over-exaggerating bits and parts--important bits and parts, yes--to the detriment of the larger picture, with the confusion of the faithful being the natural outcome in such situations. In this sense, I am not sure how the assertion that one can over-emphasize the concept of Sacrifice holds any water; I wonder if it is only legitimate to think, instead, of over-emphasizing the concept of meal.


#12

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:11, topic:303482"]
My own view on this is that "meal aspect" is fairly obvious as part of the Sacrifice itself. To me, it is quite clear that, to have a Sacrifice, the one offering It must eat That which was sacrificed. This seems more an anthropological/cultural/Biblical issue than theological (not that Biblical studies and theological studies are opposed to each other =) ). I have always considered the "meal aspect" just, that, an aspect of the larger and more multidimensional thing that is the Sacrifice itself.

So it is silly to me to see people bickering about meal vs. sacrifice. And at the same time, I cannot consider it to be a "both/and" kind of thing, because the meal and sacrifice are not on the same level. The meal is an aspect of, a characteristic of, a natural consequence of, the larger, all encompassing Sacrifice.

The meal means nothing without the Sacrifice, and, it must be said, the Sacrifice is not consummated without at least he who offers It eating It. The meal can have no specific meaning without that which it is dependent on, the Sacrifice. After all, it could be just as well we are talking about having a McDonalds in church or something. The meal is an aspect of the Sacrifice, not the other way around.

This is why it absolutely puzzles me to no end when people talk about Mass being a meal. Yes, it is, but... The story isn't finished there. The concept of Mass as meal is 100% dependent on it being a natural part of the larger Sacrifice. It's like my kid looking at a tree and asking, "What is that?" and I respond, "It is green." Well... yes, but... not really. Silly comparison, but this is how I see it.

Isn't it fairly self-evident that, by eating the Eucharist, meal is an aspect of the Sacrifice? This, to me, is a case of over-exaggerating bits and parts--important bits and parts, yes--to the detriment of the larger picture, with the confusion of the faithful being the natural outcome in such situations. In this sense, I am not sure how the assertion that one can over-emphasize the concept of Sacrifice holds any water; I wonder if it is only legitimate to think, instead, of over-emphasizing the concept of meal.

[/quote]

From my experince, there can certainly be an over-emphasizing of the strictly Sacrificial aspect even to the detriment of Catholic truth; for instance, when people claim that it is I) only the priest offering a sacrifice at the Mass (false) or II) that the Mass is not also a sacred banquet (false).

I. Firstly, the faithful themselves participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass because they themselves are offered in it:

This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.

  • Saint Augustine, City of God, Bk. X, Ch. 6.

II. Secondly, the Mass was instituted within the context of a (sacred) meal: i.e., the eating of the Pasch. Therefore, the Mass also appropriately has a festal character to it that is in keeping with the idea of a sacred feast. It's festal character seems oriented to the final eschatological glory that is pledged to us in the Mass (more on this later).

Moreover, the faithful also offer a sacrifice of their own: i.e., their sacrifice of praise, as the Psalmist says:

50: [14] Offer to God the sacrifice of praise: and pay thy vows to the most High. . . . [23] The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: and there is the way by which I will shew him the salvation of God.

And as Saint Paul says to the Hebrews,

*[15] By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. *

Again, the scriptures make rather plain that the nature of the Mass as a sacred banquet was normative: hence its constant reference to the Lord's table, as also Saint Paul's associating it with food though, to be sure, it was a sacred meal and they erred who treated it as ordinary food or an ordinary meal. The Angelic Doctor, in one of his typically beautiful prayers about the Eucharist, writes (and the Church uses this):

O Sacred Banquet (O Sacrum Convivium):
* O Sacred Banquet,
in which Christ is received,
the memory of His Passion is recalled,
the soul is filled with grace,
and the pledge of future glory is given to us*

None of this, of course, was or is meant to deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass as the image or representation of Calvary and Christ's own Passion and Sacrifice, as the above prayer makes plain.

Finally, there is a certain celebratory character appropriate to the Mass, insomuch as we recall that by this His Sacrifice for us on the Altar of His Cross, the Lord definitively defeated and triumphed over the devil and death and, moreover, with His Ressurection afterward, opened to us a truly new and eternal life; He making this plain by showing Himself Risen to those who believed in Him (Our Lord seems to have restricted Himself to showing Himself Glorified only to His disciples. Saint Paul might be an exception but this occured after the Lord's Ascension into Heaven). So Christ's Cross triumphed over the devil and defeated death but also opened for us new and eternal life and the gates of Heaven.


#13

Every friend of SSPX I've met has held a slightly different opinion than what seems to be presented here. From what I'm constantly told, the SSPX hold that Rome, not the Church, is in a state of apostasy and corruption. Clearly, while Rome may has supremacy, corruption of Rome does not constitute corruption of the Church itself.


#14

[quote="1AugustSon7, post:10, topic:303482"]
I do not think the OF can be said to be theologically simpler than the EF; in fact, if anything, I think it would be more sensible to say that the OF is more theologically complex.

Aspects of the Mass such as its banquet character do not seem emphasized or even acknowledged (it perhaps being taken for granted) in the EF tradition (including traditional commentary or instruction about it); however, in the OF, it is included and made manifest. The EF emphasizes the altar while the OF includes (and is certainly supposed to) both the aspect of altar (sacrifice) and banquet-table (feast): it is (and alway has been) both altar and table, as the Scriptures make plain (especially in the table * aspect). Consequently we might call it the altar-table: the CCC does give the altar aspect generally priority of place or position in this regard.

The Mass as banquet manifests the eschatological character of the Mass as a sort of anticipation of the heavenly banquet or feast of the Lamb in heaven; it is related to the parables of Our Lord that speak of the wedding feast or banquet. It can seem contradictoy that the altar also be a table or the table also an altar, but like so much in Catholicism, this is only a paradox at most: the two aspects hardly necessitate a mutual annihilation (the one reality does not require the denial of the other). As time goes on, I think we can expect a clearer systematic reconciliation of these two elements or aspects of the Mass.

Therefore I would not say that the OF is theologically simpler. Indeed, it would seem rather that exactly because of the OF's complexity* in this regard we find the reason why it is so controversial and a source of so much misunderstanding, whether in circles that resist the OF or promote it, either by over-emphasizing one asect of it or another, which results in a degradation of its wholeness.....

I respectfully disagree, objectively speaking. The OF tends to downplay the sacrificial aspect of the Mass through the removal of many prayers that specifically mention sacrifice. The resurrection and ascension are part of the Paschal Mystery which the Mass is supposed to manifest, but there is no Easter without Good Friday, that is, without Christ's passion and death on the cross which merits our salvation there would be no resurrection and glorious ascension to celebrate. The summit of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Christ's Sacrifice. While all aspects of the Paschal Mystery are important and interdependent, Christ died for our sins, which preceded the Resurrection. If we focus almost entirely on the Resurrection and Ascension we run the risk of forgetting what exactly we are celebrating, which is the victory over sin and death merited by Christ through his Passion and Death on the Cross. IMHO this has played a primary role in the near elimination of the concept of sin and its consequences in the minds of many of the faithful. The Mass of Paul VI omitted many of the prayers and much of the symbolism that contained a great deal of the theology of the full Paschal Mystery. The focus on the "meal" does not directly imply a sacrifice in my view. The consecration is effected in a much more ordinary, narrative format which has, again in my opinion, affected the concept of the majesty and significance of the Holy Eucharist in the minds of some of the faithful. Without better catchesis at the Parish level, people might outwardly participate more, but many don't really understand what the significance and meaning of that participation is, even if you follw a Missal. I will say it is definitely more complex in terms of the multi-year readings cycle and four Eucharistic Prayers (which are somewhat randomly selected). It is a challenge to follow along with a daily Roman Missal. I think confusing might be a better word than complex.


#15

[quote="xzereus, post:13, topic:303482"]
Every friend of SSPX I've met has held a slightly different opinion than what seems to be presented here. From what I'm constantly told, the SSPX hold that Rome, not the Church, is in a state of apostasy and corruption. Clearly, while Rome may has supremacy, corruption of Rome does not constitute corruption of the Church itself.

[/quote]

Your friend's statement sounds quite dumb. Pretending to play with words and using Rome as an entity separated from the Churh is just silly.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.