US Catholic Faith in Real Life

Primary tabs


I don't understand the claim that it "undermines the unity" of the Catholic Church. There is nothing wrong with having more than one mass. If you went by that card, we would have to get rid of all the Eastern rites. In fact we would have a problem within your own special Spirit of Vatican II community - imagine this. There are two different kinds of the OF mass available to celebrate! The daily mass is a different from the Sunday mass, you know.

Of course, these are not problems because "creating disunity" is simply a yell against people who are finally getting things that they have deserved for 40 years. I don't understand why certain "progressives" are so against this. You have your choice of mass; we have our choice of mass. That doesn't "undermine the unity" any more than it undermines the unity for people to sit on the Gospel side of the church rather than the Epistle side.

Is it a simple case of "I don't like that these people think differently from me"? Note that, as you evidently proclaim, the Catholic Church is the UNIVERSAL church. It is for everyone. It's not for just the people who like guitar music at mass, and not for just the people who like "active participation" and other cliches that have all but diminished in meaning. It is for you and me, all of us, and, if we want to say our mass in Latin and the Pope agrees? Not your problem.

Submitted by TNCath (not verified) on

First of all, even using the term "Latin Mass" already shows that the person conducting this poll for U.S. Catholic does not fully understand that the term "Latin Mass" is a misnomer for the Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII or Mass in the Extradinary Form. A "Latin Mass" may be said in this form or in the "Novus Ordo" or "Ordinary Form" of the Mass according the Missal of Paul VI.

Regardless, Pope Benedict XVI, in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, made it perfectly clear that the use of the Extraordinary Form does NOT undermine the unity of the Catholic Church. Therefore, since Church policy does not rely on public opinion polls, this poll is essentially useless and not supportive of the Church. So, why is U.S.Catholic even bothering to conduct it? Because it is obvious that U.S. Catholic (another misnomer) obviously doesn't support the position o the Church in this matter.

Submitted by Jaybird (not verified) on

How can the writer of this article think that the Extraordinary Form is in any way contributing to some sort of disunity? Has he never been aware of the Maronite Rite, the Greek Melkite Rite, the Syro-Malabar rite, etc? There have always been variations in the Roman Mass, so how is encouraging the E.F. going to suddenly create some crisis of disunity? Absurd! People should do their homework before embarrassing themselves by writing an ignorant and biased article.

Submitted by Jennifer Lewis (not verified) on

The fact this poll even exists proves that the writer knows nothing about church unity. Simply ridiculous. The only undermining comes from people like the writer who want to cling to their idea of what the liturgy should be like. The only thing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass undermines is the "all about us" mentality.

Submitted by Ben (not verified) on

Diversity, choice, freedom, openess, no fear!

Let the old Mass live amongst the new!

Survival of the fittest!

Long live Pope Benedict

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

To agree with this statement is to be ignorant of the Holy Father's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and of the Second Vatican Council, which NEVER abrogated what we now call the extraordinary form.

Submitted by Jonathan (not verified) on

The Church has survived for two thousand years with many different forms of the Sacred Liturgy (the various Eastern Rites, the various forms of the Roman Rite, including the Roman Rite at Rome, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, etc.). What was good for centuries (and tweaked a few times over those centuries) will be good in the future. The Ordinary Form will also be good (and probably similarly improved over the next few centuries, unless the Lord deigns to bring heaven to earth in his parousia within the next few centuries).

Submitted by Fr. Jim (not verified) on

The mavins of tolerance are so often intolerant. This is why they lost the liturgy wars. Their brutal behavior towards more traditional Catholics set the stage for a backlash. There is room in the Church for both forms of the Roman Mass. I look forward to the new translations that are coming out for the ordinary form. US Catholic needs to read the signs of the times. And progressives need to do some soul searching and penance for their actions over the last 40 years.

Submitted by Amy P. (not verified) on

Explain this to me:

I was raised Lutheran, but my mother is a lifelong Catholic. I sometimes went to Mass with her and eventually converted to Catholicism.

In the years I grew up attending Mass, I saw all sorts of different languages at liturgies - Spanish, French, German, Korean, etc. My husband (also a lifelong Catholic) knew of a Mass said partially in Ocanto (I don't know if that's spelled correctly), a very obscure language.

I speak English. Period. So I feel a little excluded when Masses have all sorts of different languages thrown in for inclusiveness.

How is it DIS-unifying to have the universal (that's what "catholic" means) Church perform Masses in Latin so that I can attend Mass in LA, New York, Berlin, Cairo, Hong Kong and Tokyo and we are all, literally, speaking the same language?

Submitted by Brian Mershon (not verified) on

The hippies and charispastics of the 1960s and 70s have lost the battle and the war.

It is over. Every single young priest I know, diocesan or for a traditional order, desires to use the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments frequently--if not exclusively.

Game. Set. Match.

There are NO vocations for the hippies and charispastics.

The Church will be smaller--but more Catholic--as the Pope said in his book when he was Cardinal.