The Growing Scourge Of Catholic Tribalism

[dells_of_bittersweet]

I would like to begin this thread by stating that this is not a frontal attack on traditional, eastern, or any other style of Catholic spirituality. We have a diversity of styles as Catholics, and I am not saying that your style should not be practiced. 

 

I am however very concerned about growing tribalism in the Catholic Church, resulting in each group thinking the other side to be less than fully Catholic. 

 

Here is an article by John Allen on the issue. While I do not agree with the liberal stances of his employer and would encourage you to avoid the rest of this website, I think a majority of this article is dead on:  http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/thoughts-post-tribal-catholicism

 

As I said, I have no problem with people practicing their own style. I do, however, take issue with people exalting their own style to being above any other style, and take issue with style being a factor that isolates other Catholics from each other. 

 

To give some examples:

-In many dioceses in the United States, such as mine, there is 1 EF parish and all the other parishes are OF. This results in an either/or mentality where people view the other style as being less than legitimate. This is by no means a problem exclusive to the EF. There are all kinds of other stylized liturgies that result in self-isolation and I believe this is a problem. http://www.uscatholic.org/node/2115

 

The EF should be integrated into regular parish life. It should not be a sideshow or a destination mass or a designer mass. Parishes need to be be able to handle diverse styles of worship. 

 

-It seems that is has become acceptable within conservative circles to tolerate circulation of opinions that denigrate the OF to being intrinsically below the EF. Again, I do not take issue with one person preferring one form over the other. But, I think a line has been crossed when one of the forms is being criticized as being evil and this criticism is accepted as a mainstream opinion. Opinions such as this should not be tolerated, but are: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/50-years-of-sacrosanctum-concilium-and.html

 

-Identification of Catholic movements with American politics. The leftover 60s Catholics are really Catholic Democrats. There is also a growing dangerous trend to attempt a marriage between Republican and Libertarian economics and Catholic Social Teaching. Go to any conservative Catholic website and you will see Republicans being praised and Republican issues talked about. Go to the left over National Catholic Reporter for all you can eat peace and justice. We are pro-life, and we are pro-justice, but it is scary to see how there appears to be no center of Catholic dialogue where both catholic social teaching and catholic moral teaching are consistently upheld. 

 

These are only a few examples. Tribalism in the Catholic Church is a huge issue and seems to be getting worse. I hope Pope Francis can unite us. 

 

[NotreDame]

Oh goody, this is going to be fun :popcorn:

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Don't talk about politics at the pub, perhaps the politics is not the problem but the amount of alcohol being consumed overall. A catholic christian just needs to vote with an honest conscience whether wrong or right 30,60,100 %, to the best of there understanding of which politician will be a greater benefit to society as a whole in good will.

 

And of course this is my personal understanding and i don't know the church doctrine on politics if there is any.

 

Onward christian souls.

 

Jesus is LORD!

 

Proverbs 31:1-9. " The sayings of King Lamuel- an inspired utterance his mother taught him. Listen, my son! Listen, son of my womb! Listen,my son, the answer to my prayers! Do not spend your strength on [a] women, your vigor on those who ruin kings. It is not for kings, Lemuel- it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed, and deprive all the oppressed of there rights. Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish. Let them drink and forget there anguish. Let them drink and forget there poverty and remember there misery no more. Speak up for those whom cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and Judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. 

 

P.S. WE ARE CALLED TO BE PRIESTS, PROPHETS AND KINGS I'M TOLD. YOUNG MEN OF GOD RISE UP! PERHAPS THEY ALL THINK THERE PROPHETS OR PRIESTS, AND THAT IS SAD TO ME? ST PAUL SAYS WE ARE CALLED TO BE PRIESTLY, NOT ALL ARE CALLED TO ACT OR BE A PRIEST. WE ARE BELOVED SONS OF GOD THOUGH, KINGS I ASSUME. NO ALCOHOL FOR ME ANYWAY, IF I AM TO BE A KING.

[CrossCuT]

I would like to begin this thread by stating that this is not a frontal attack on traditional, eastern, or any other style of Catholic spirituality. We have a diversity of styles as Catholics, and I am not saying that your style should not be practiced. 

 

I am however very concerned about growing tribalism in the Catholic Church, resulting in each group thinking the other side to be less than fully Catholic. 

 

Here is an article by John Allen on the issue. While I do not agree with the liberal stances of his employer and would encourage you to avoid the rest of this website, I think a majority of this article is dead on:  http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/thoughts-post-tribal-catholicism

 

As I said, I have no problem with people practicing their own style. I do, however, take issue with people exalting their own style to being above any other style, and take issue with style being a factor that isolates other Catholics from each other. 

 

To give some examples:

-In many dioceses in the United States, such as mine, there is 1 EF parish and all the other parishes are OF. This results in an either/or mentality where people view the other style as being less than legitimate. This is by no means a problem exclusive to the EF. There are all kinds of other stylized liturgies that result in self-isolation and I believe this is a problem. http://www.uscatholic.org/node/2115

 

The EF should be integrated into regular parish life. It should not be a sideshow or a destination mass or a designer mass. Parishes need to be be able to handle diverse styles of worship. 

 

-It seems that is has become acceptable within conservative circles to tolerate circulation of opinions that denigrate the OF to being intrinsically below the EF. Again, I do not take issue with one person preferring one form over the other. But, I think a line has been crossed when one of the forms is being criticized as being evil and this criticism is accepted as a mainstream opinion. Opinions such as this should not be tolerated, but are: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/50-years-of-sacrosanctum-concilium-and.html

 

-Identification of Catholic movements with American politics. The leftover 60s Catholics are really Catholic Democrats. There is also a growing dangerous trend to attempt a marriage between Republican and Libertarian economics and Catholic Social Teaching. Go to any conservative Catholic website and you will see Republicans being praised and Republican issues talked about. Go to the left over National Catholic Reporter for all you can eat peace and justice. We are pro-life, and we are pro-justice, but it is scary to see how there appears to be no center of Catholic dialogue where both catholic social teaching and catholic moral teaching are consistently upheld. 

 

These are only a few examples. Tribalism in the Catholic Church is a huge issue and seems to be getting worse. I hope Pope Francis can unite us. 

 

I havent noticed it to an extreme extent, but I do understand your concern. The main place I have noticed it is the same as your example; the EF vs OF debate. 

I have also noticed it less so in smaller things like receiving on the hand vs tongue or similar little things.

 

But overall, I do get the same sense of "better than thou" sort of mentality in those regards, but also in just from a very conservative Catholic perspective as well. I dont know how much that is related to this topic, but the "holier than thou" mentality has always been around IMO.

I have known families from my parish where all the girls wore dresses/skirts 24/7 because pantaloons were not feminine. They also judged my mother for having a full time job because they felt she should have been a better homemaker/caretaker. 

 

A lot of people are used to what they grew up with so they will naturally find that better for them, but we have to remember that its not always better for everyone. Its also hard to argue it from a spiritual perspective in my opinion because you dont know where someone is at in their spiritual life so you still cant say that ONE way is ALWAYS better than another. 

 

If someone enjoys the EF over the OF, then great! But you shouldnt call peoples faith into question for preferring a "lesser" mass or whatever. Both are great in their own ways, I have no preference for either. There just doesnt happen to be a lot of EF parishes around where I live so I generally dont go to it.

Edited December 20, 2013 by CrossCuT

[NotreDame]

So, it's hard to get anything sensible from your last portion on politics.  That's a very confused paragraph that you should post separately, so I'll set it aside for the moment.

 

For now, I'm curious as to what you see wrong with the post on rorate?   The novus ordo (NO) does allow "subjectivism" as the article says.  That's why, for example, there are some NO Masses (like the one I got to every weekend) that are beautiful and reverent and others (the ones I avoid like a plague) that I can't even sit through, because they are so very protestant and "anthropocentric" (human-centered) in everything from the sermon, to the songs, to the way the Eucharist is delivered (and many things in between.)  Catholicism is so lost that it nearly brings me to tears.

 

Speaking objectively, this subjectivism is a problem.  I don't have a problem with someone calling it evil.  Since you don't get this subjectivism in the Eastern Rites or the EF, I'd say the latter were objectively superior if only in that sense.

 

The author is also correct that there has certainly been a correlation between the spread of the NO and the drop in vocations, the drop in church attendance, poor catechization in sunday school and in the seminaries.  The latter don't necessarily follow from the NO, but the correlation isn't on accident.  The subjectivity in the NO along with the rest of these all spring from the same source. 

 

Frankly, given the massive amount of modernism and heresy springing from the NCR and the Nuns on the bus types, wouldn't you expect orthodox catholics of all rites to wall themselves off?  We aren't all supermen.  Most good catholics have kids, jobs, marriages they have to maintain.  They can't fight these battles even at their own parish (and trust me, these are idealogical battles in many cases whether you realize it or not.) The world is messed up enough, they don't want to have to worry about their kids being corrupted even at Mass or sunday school or at the local parochial school. 

 

In this light, being responsible for their own salvation and the proper catechization of their children, separating themselves from the subjectivism and relativism (<-- correct use of the word FP?) of the modernists makes perfect sense.  It's not tribal in any sense at all. 

 

 

[CrossCuT]

-Identification of Catholic movements with American politics. The leftover 60s Catholics are really Catholic Democrats. There is also a growing dangerous trend to attempt a marriage between Republican and Libertarian economics and Catholic Social Teaching. Go to any conservative Catholic website and you will see Republicans being praised and Republican issues talked about. Go to the left over National Catholic Reporter for all you can eat peace and justice. We are pro-life, and we are pro-justice, but it is scary to see how there appears to be no center of Catholic dialogue where both catholic social teaching and catholic moral teaching are consistently upheld. 

 

These are only a few examples. Tribalism in the Catholic Church is a huge issue and seems to be getting worse. I hope Pope Francis can unite us. 

 

I didnt really touch on this as much as I wanted to, but I think this is a much bigger thing than we realize. I see it on PM often...and Im sure it wouldnt surprise people to know that I hold a lot of liberal ideals on economic things. But what drives me bananas is when fellow Catholics start questioning my faith and calling me petty liberal names.

 

I am a Catholic first...I do not identify with either party but there are pieces I like from both. I think the growing identity of Catholicism and the Republican party/Conservatism is a marriage that shouldnt be happening. Catholics are Catholics; Catholics are not Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, or Conservatives. If you want to identify with that on your OWN thats fine, but we are not obligated to be a Republican just because we are Catholic. The two are not related. 

[blazeingstar]

I completely agree on the separation and isolationism of some of the TLM parishes, becuase, indeed, it's a TLM parish.  I have been badly mistreated by said parishes to the point that even though I have found "less bad" ones I've never found one that tried for real inclusion.

 

I don't wear dresses, especially in winter, but at 2 different TLM parishes I was denied entrance due to my "sin" of being a female in pants, and worse, in jeans.  I have been told by TLM people that my allergies (which can affect Mass attendance) are due to my sin of not being faithful to God.  They also seem quick to jump in and correct for not doing things properly....for instance, I wore a veil from my great-great grandmother that slipped off since it was very old.  I was told I was being extremely disrespectful for this happening.  It was a total accident it fell--and none of their business, quite frankly, as it's a personal devotion and not required.

 

Talking to them after Mass reviews my ever-sinful nature including being told that, at 25, it was my fault that I was not yet married because I did not take my faith seriously and go to TLM full time.  I was judged for having short hair and for attending mass with a group of unmarried men who I was not attached to romantically. The parish also had a OF mass and it was referred to as the "NO mass" and treated as if it was almost worse than not going at all. It was ludicrous.

 

In the same respect, I found that at my Bible study with Jesuits, they were rabidly against TLM in any form and were angry that the Bishop prayed in Latin.  However, this parish doesn't even bother to follow the regular rubrics. 

 

 

[CrossCuT]

I don't wear dresses, especially in winter, but at 2 different Traditional Latin Mass parishes I was denied entrance due to my "sin" of being a female in pantaloons, and worse, in jeans.  I have been told by Traditional Latin Mass people that my allergies (which can affect Mass attendance) are due to my sin of not being faithful to God.  They also seem quick to jump in and correct for not doing things properly....for instance, I wore a veil from my great-great grandmother that slipped off since it was very old.  I was told I was being extremely disrespectful for this happening.  It was a total accident it fell--and none of their business, quite frankly, as it's a personal devotion and not required.

 

Yeeeeep! Ive had some very conservative families gossip about my family because the girls dont always wear skirts or dresses. 

 

I think my favorite crazy church story is when an old woman smacked me with her cane. It was after mass and I was standing in one of the pews talking to a friend I hadnt seen in a while and all of a sudden I felt a smack on my leg. I turn to my side and there is this tiny, hunched over old lady hitting me with her cane because she wanted to walk through the pew I was standing in. There were plenty of other pews open but for some reason she wanted to walk through the one I was standing in specifically. So I moved. 

[Ice_nine]

I completely agree on the separation and isolationism of some of the Traditional Latin Mass parishes, becuase, indeed, it's a Traditional Latin Mass parish.  I have been badly mistreated by said parishes to the point that even though I have found "less bad" ones I've never found one that tried for real inclusion.

 

I don't wear dresses, especially in winter, but at 2 different Traditional Latin Mass parishes I was denied entrance due to my "sin" of being a female in pantaloons, and worse, in jeans.  I have been told by Traditional Latin Mass people that my allergies (which can affect Mass attendance) are due to my sin of not being faithful to God.  They also seem quick to jump in and correct for not doing things properly....for instance, I wore a veil from my great-great grandmother that slipped off since it was very old.  I was told I was being extremely disrespectful for this happening.  It was a total accident it fell--and none of their business, quite frankly, as it's a personal devotion and not required.

 

Talking to them after Mass reviews my ever-sinful nature including being told that, at 25, it was my fault that I was not yet married because I did not take my faith seriously and go to Traditional Latin Mass full time.  I was judged for having short hair and for attending mass with a group of unmarried men who I was not attached to romantically. The parish also had a OF mass and it was referred to as the "NO mass" and treated as if it was almost worse than not going at all. It was ludicrous.

 

 

what the hell? People are crazy. This is more exclusionary bourgeois Catholicism than Traditional Catholicism imo.

 

But what does I know?

[mortify ii]

I am however very concerned about growing tribalism in the Catholic Church, resulting in each group thinking the other side to be less than fully Catholic. 

 

  I somewhat see your concern, as there are many groups nowadays calling themselves Catholic and yet holding varying beliefs and claiming themselves to have it right. I don't see it as serious a problem as you make it out though, personally I would say the major issue we face as a Church is apathy and lack of faith, but that is my personal observation. I read the John Allen article and it seems like he is promoting something akin to an internal ecumenism within the Church. "Yes, there are diverse groups but why should we argue and isolate ourselves form each other? Let's look past these differences and come together as friends for a common end." That is the gist of what he seems to be getting at and I agree with tolerating each other and being friendly, but we can't overlook the vast differences between some groups. Point of fact is that some groups do hold belief that are explicitly contrary to Catholic doctrine, they may teach or endorse morals explicitly in contradiction with Catholic social teaching. I really don't think the solution is to come together and overlook differences, rather some serious discussion is necessary, maybe even heated discussion.

  If we are Roman Catholics there is an identify we are to bear, certainly within the last century there has been a lot of confusion and this image has been virtually destroyed, but it is there. We have our particular liturgy, our particular traditions, disciplines, etc. I think if anything we need to foster a love and appreciation for our Roman Catholic patrimony and culture. We need to value what the Fathers, Saints, and Holy Doctors of our Holy Religion have revered and believed, and be apt to defend them rather than pick them apart and offer alternatives. I am not of the opinion that all things are relative, the fact is inequality is natural and inequalities are bound to exist, and that proves so even between liturgies even though they both be valid and possess the Eucharist. Some excel in certain areas over the other, and admitting this does not diminish the validity of one form over the other. I think it's particularly significant to recognize that Catholicism has a hierarchical worldview rather than one that is egalitarian. We are all equal in dignity before God, but other than that the wise stroke of God has fashioned us different in virtually every other way, and some traits are more valued than others. And this proves true for practices, ideologies, etc.
 

[Norseman82]

I completely agree on the separation and isolationism of some of the Traditional Latin Mass parishes, becuase, indeed, it's a Traditional Latin Mass parish.  I have been badly mistreated by said parishes to the point that even though I have found "less bad" ones I've never found one that tried for real inclusion.

 

I don't wear dresses, especially in winter, but at 2 different Traditional Latin Mass parishes I was denied entrance due to my "sin" of being a female in pantaloons, and worse, in jeans.  I have been told by Traditional Latin Mass people that my allergies (which can affect Mass attendance) are due to my sin of not being faithful to God.  They also seem quick to jump in and correct for not doing things properly....for instance, I wore a veil from my great-great grandmother that slipped off since it was very old.  I was told I was being extremely disrespectful for this happening.  It was a total accident it fell--and none of their business, quite frankly, as it's a personal devotion and not required.

 

Talking to them after Mass reviews my ever-sinful nature including being told that, at 25, it was my fault that I was not yet married because I did not take my faith seriously and go to Traditional Latin Mass full time.  I was judged for having short hair and for attending mass with a group of unmarried men who I was not attached to romantically. The parish also had a OF mass and it was referred to as the "NO mass" and treated as if it was almost worse than not going at all. It was ludicrous.

 

In the same respect, I found that at my Bible study with Jesuits, they were rabidly against Traditional Latin Mass in any form and were angry that the Bishop prayed in Latin.  However, this parish doesn't even bother to follow the regular rubrics. 

 

 

 People are crazy. This is more exclusionary bourgeois Catholicism than Traditional Catholicism imo.

 

But what does I know?

 

I would call what blazeingstar encountered "ignorant Catholicism" (actually, I have another name - think of Massengill - but some may object to it as being uncharitable).

[NotreDame]

I read the John Allen article and it seems like he is promoting something akin to an internal ecumenism within the Church. "Yes, there are diverse groups but why should we argue and isolate ourselves form each other? Let's look past these differences and come together as friends for a common end." That is the gist of what he seems to be getting at and I agree with tolerating each other and being friendly, but we can't overlook the vast differences between some groups. Point of fact is that some groups do hold belief that are explicitly contrary to Catholic doctrine, they may teach or endorse morals explicitly in contradiction with Catholic social teaching.

 

I really like what mortify said and I'm not sure yet whether I'd think that this thing we are seeing, which you have called tribalism, is really that important, or even that new.

 

I'd have trouble discussing "tribalism" because I'm not really sure what it is supposed to mean.  We come from a tradition with many different spiritualities, many different communities, with many different charisms.  If I saw saw a group of trappists in the country eeking out a living by hand and then saw a group of dominicans, studying and preaching in a large city, while outside barefoot franciscans served the poor in the street... well, I think it would be fair to describe these as tribes, yet it's obvious that tribalism in this sense is a consequence of the fullness of the Church, not an impediment to it.

 

That's why I'd look to a different framework to describe what we are seeing:

 

On one side (let's just call it the left) you have groups that hold heterodox ideas (as mortify points out) and have internalized these ideas.  I'd say the LCWR, and NCReporter crowd are easy examples of this.

 

On the other side, you have groups that hold orthodox ideas, but like the pharisees, have not internalized them (this could include the ladies that Blazingstar ran into.)   The least controversial of these groups would be the Legion of Christ, but there are many other groups, and to some extent this may describe some "traditionalists", but the vast majority in this group are no traddies.

 

In the middle are the orthodox that have (or at least try to) internalize their beliefs.  As St Thomas taught, virtue lies in the middle, and it is to this middle we are called.  Though tactics from each side may differ, those on the right and left will both try to recruit, tug at, and upset this third group genuinely pursuing virtue.

 

I really think this is a better framework with which to evaluate the church today.  I'm not sure if this phenomena would be new (I'd imagine it's not since few things are), but I think it's influence is certainly more prominent now than in the past (when the heresies and temptations were manifested differently, through manichaenism or schism, for example.)

[dells_of_bittersweet]

So, it's hard to get anything sensible from your last portion on politics.  That's a very confused paragraph that you should post separately, so I'll set it aside for the moment.

 

For now, I'm curious as to what you see wrong with the post on rorate?   The novus ordo (NO) does allow "subjectivism" as the article says.  That's why, for example, there are some NO Masses (like the one I got to every weekend) that are beautiful and reverent and others (the ones I avoid like a plague) that I can't even sit through, because they are so very protestant and "anthropocentric" (human-centered) in everything from the sermon, to the songs, to the way the Eucharist is delivered (and many things in between.)  Catholicism is so lost that it nearly brings me to tears.

 

Speaking objectively, this subjectivism is a problem.  I don't have a problem with someone calling it evil.  Since you don't get this subjectivism in the Eastern Rites or the EF, I'd say the latter were objectively superior if only in that sense.

 

The author is also correct that there has certainly been a correlation between the spread of the NO and the drop in vocations, the drop in church attendance, poor catechization in sunday school and in the seminaries.  The latter don't necessarily follow from the NO, but the correlation isn't on accident.  The subjectivity in the NO along with the rest of these all spring from the same source. 

 

I'm not sure I agree that the NO is inherently subjective. The subjectivity occurs when people are allowed to choose to make their own choices in certain regards, and sometimes they choose badly. These regards as far as I can think of would be church architecture, music choice, sermons, and the attitude of the people (as you mostly pointed out already). I am not convinced that bad choices in these areas are unique to the NO. 

 

I am not aware of any regulation that prohibits the EF from being said in ugly churches. Likewise, you can give a fluffy feel good sermon in English regardless of the form. 

 

In terms of music choice, the EF allows you to choose your own music to a lesser degree, but there is still a way to abuse it. Where I occasionally go they end with a hymn in English. There's no one to stop them from playing Haugen/Haas. And, there is nothing to stop from from picking all completely unsingable polyphony pieces, which if done regularly and exclusively I think we could all agree would violated Vatican II's call for "active, conscious participation." Finally, you could pick a good chant piece, but stink at playing it. So, its definitely possible to abuse EF music, even if the abuses are different in nature than would be found in the OF. 

 

I will grant that in the case of the music alone, the OF is more subjective than the EF. But I think that is a good thing. The Vatican II fathers decided that local people should be in charge of choosing songs. Local people can be much more attentive to the local culture and needs of the local community than someone in Rome can be. One size does not fit all. Ultimately, I think there will be great fruits from giving local musicians decision making ability. When you let people make their own decisions, there is a chance that they will make bad decisions, and the Church decided that they were willing to take that risk. I like that. The goal of liturgy is not to avoid all risk, its to get the best result, and its the job of the local bishop and the national bishops conferences to see to it that the selections available to choose from are appropriate. I think the USCCB rubber stamping anything that OCP prints is a much bigger issue here than subjectivity in the OF. 

 

In terms of the attitude of the people, I'm not convinced that the form used plays a primary role in creating this, and to the extent that it does, the recent history of the church is not much better from back when we had the Latin Mass. People going through the motions at Mass, not singing, leaving after communion, chewing gum, and otherwise not being mentally present I would think would stem from bad catechesis rather than from use of the "wrong" form of the Mass. And in terms of the past performance of the Latin Mass, I'm sure you've heard the stories from the 60s where no one was paying attention because they didn't understand what was happening. Or people saying a rosary during Mass because they didn't understand what was happening. Vatican II wouldn't have happened if everything was fine and dandy. 

 

You seem to have alluded to communion in the hand being an abuse. I do not agree with this. In the United States, the church allows it, and there is plenty of evidence that the early church may have done it this way. Communion in the hand is a completely different debate, but I do not believe that it taints the OF. And for people who don't like it, on the tongue is still allowed. Basically, this is a point good Catholics can legitimately disagree on so I don't see this as being an example that definitively shows the OF to be defective. 

 

Finally, you used the label Protestant against the OF. This seems to be a very vague and tenuous comparison, but to the degree that is may be true, I do not see a problem with it. We do not believe that other faith traditions are completely devoid of value. Part of ecumenism is seeing the value in these and to the extent that they are not mixed up in errors there is no problem in incorporating them into what we do. For the sake of argument, If we took a few ideas from Martin Luther when we made the OF, maybe that makes us more outwardly focused. If a protestant comes up with something better than we can think of, we should use it.

 

Also, you think the OF is self-centered. I think the OF when abused is self centered. But I do not think that abuses of the OF show that it is bad. And in line with my previous comments, I don't think that the OF is substantially more abusable than the EF. I think the twenty minute masses from the 60s that the priests sped through since no one could understand it anyway were just as bad as an OF mass said by a priest whose heart isnt in it either.

 

To a certain degree, as the ordinary form of the Roman Rite proposed to us by the church I think the OF should be above criticism. Calling it evil or inherently flawed I believe to be crossing the line. There are radical traditionalists who will call the OF the work of the devil. We have a problem when that level of criticism can be made and no one takes issue with it. 

 

I don't have a problem with minor corrective comments such as what you made. There is a big difference between saying "the OF could get better at this aspect" and saying that they OF is evil. I also think that exalting one form over another as objectively superior is out of line when the church has proposed both to us as equals. 

[dells_of_bittersweet]

Frankly, given the massive amount of modernism and heresy springing from the NCR and the Nuns on the bus types, wouldn't you expect orthodox catholics of all rites to wall themselves off?  We aren't all supermen.  Most good catholics have kids, jobs, marriages they have to maintain.  They can't fight these battles even at their own parish (and trust me, these are idealogical battles in many cases whether you realize it or not.) The world is messed up enough, they don't want to have to worry about their kids being corrupted even at Mass or sunday school or at the local parochial school. 

 

In this light, being responsible for their own salvation and the proper catechization of their children, separating themselves from the subjectivism and relativism (<-- correct use of the word FP?) of the modernists makes perfect sense.  It's not tribal in any sense at all. 

 

Its the job of the bishops to condemn and remove people who are truly heretics. Its a problem when we start playing bishop and choose to separate ourselves from other people who aren't perfect. Practically every Catholic has trouble accepting some form of church teaching. The liberals are notoriously bad on social issues. Many conservative groups aren't much better on economic ones-just take one look at all the Pope Francis haters on the right. Our job is not to avoid these people, but to evangelize these people. When we form little groups composed of only those we deem to be perfect our at least "to our standards" we've gone too far. 

 

ETA: if your kid ends up with a legitimately unothodox teacher, I'm not calling it tribal if you choose to change the circumstances. There's a difference between not teaching your kid heresy and purposely avoiding sinners your own age. Everyone is a sinner of some kind-we need to be one body in Christ and help each other improve. The growing trend to isolate yourself does not do this. 

Edited December 22, 2013 by dells_of_bittersweet

[dells_of_bittersweet]

  I somewhat see your concern, as there are many groups nowadays calling themselves Catholic and yet holding varying beliefs and claiming themselves to have it right. I don't see it as serious a problem as you make it out though, personally I would say the major issue we face as a Church is apathy and lack of faith, but that is my personal observation. I read the John Allen article and it seems like he is promoting something akin to an internal ecumenism within the Church. "Yes, there are diverse groups but why should we argue and isolate ourselves form each other? Let's look past these differences and come together as friends for a common end." That is the gist of what he seems to be getting at and I agree with tolerating each other and being friendly, but we can't overlook the vast differences between some groups. Point of fact is that some groups do hold belief that are explicitly contrary to Catholic doctrine, they may teach or endorse morals explicitly in contradiction with Catholic social teaching. I really don't think the solution is to come together and overlook differences, rather some serious discussion is necessary, maybe even heated discussion.

  If we are Roman Catholics there is an identify we are to bear, certainly within the last century there has been a lot of confusion and this image has been virtually destroyed, but it is there. We have our particular liturgy, our particular traditions, disciplines, etc. I think if anything we need to foster a love and appreciation for our Roman Catholic patrimony and culture. We need to value what the Fathers, Saints, and Holy Doctors of our Holy Religion have revered and believed, and be apt to defend them rather than pick them apart and offer alternatives. I am not of the opinion that all things are relative, the fact is inequality is natural and inequalities are bound to exist, and that proves so even between liturgies even though they both be valid and possess the Eucharist. Some excel in certain areas over the other, and admitting this does not diminish the validity of one form over the other. I think it's particularly significant to recognize that Catholicism has a hierarchical worldview rather than one that is egalitarian. We are all equal in dignity before God, but other than that the wise stroke of God has fashioned us different in virtually every other way, and some traits are more valued than others. And this proves true for practices, ideologies, etc.
 

 

I think internal ecumenism is needed. We're all mixed up in some form of error or sin. As one body in Christ, we can help each other improve. We need to at least be talking to each other for this to happen though. 

 

My criticism of John Allen would be that his call for one big tent means being tolerant of absolutely everyone, even if they are a heritic. So, I think he has something is important to say, but has perhaps said too much. 

 

Like I said in a previous post though, we're not bishops (unless some of the users here are secretly bishops haha). Its their job to cut off the edges that have drifted from Catholic teaching. Those who are still in good standing with the church, but have embraced errors or sins of some kind, its our job to draw them towards Christ rather than avoiding them. 

 

And I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post. A great appreciation of our Catholic heritage is needed.