Fr. Ripperger: NeoCatholicism vs. Traditionalism

[BG45]

And...

I saw this version the other day and thought it was fun:

 

 

Anyhow, reading the article, I couldn't help but notice Father made a rather glaring omission.  Part of any set of belief, no matter how one "factionalizes" as many in this thread have pointed to, begins in the home.  The Church holds that the first people to teach one's children the faith are the parents.  From what I've seen, based online and from going to the TLM in person, most people who identify as Traditionalist tend to have been raised that way.  Whereas I'm not sure the other group that Father tries to delineate necessarily has been to the same extent.  I could be wrong of course, it would hardly be the first time.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Nihil can defend himself, but I will say as someone in favor- and who actually practices- reaching out to people where they are, that's not what he's saying. Or at least not what I'm reading- experimenting with the liturgy isn't reaching out to people, unfortunately usually the opposite. Could you explain how you're getting that from his posts? Maybe we're just disagreeing on what methods should be used. 

Maybe the response was to me... But I also agree with reaching to people where they are just not changing the liturgy  

I saw this version the other day and thought it was fun:

 

 

Anyhow, reading the article, I couldn't help but notice Father made a rather glaring omission.  Part of any set of belief, no matter how one "factionalizes" as many in this thread have pointed to, begins in the home.  The Church holds that the first people to teach one's children the faith are the parents.  From what I've seen, based online and from going to the TLM in person, most people who identify as Traditionalist tend to have been raised that way.  Whereas I'm not sure the other group that Father tries to delineate necessarily has been to the same extent.  I could be wrong of course, it would hardly be the first time.

 i attend a TLM parish and many were raised there but there is also a good number of people who came from other parishes and also converts  

[Gabriela]

But in all serious I don't know how useful this article is. What the hell are people to do but listen to the current Magisterium? Not all the Church's 1.something billion Catholics can be scholars and plow through ancient church documents and current documents and then weigh one against the other. They're too busy starving or feeding their family or just trying to survive for the most part. And for those of us in the developed world we're just too beaver dam distracted anyway.

If this author's thesis is correct then, and most Catholics (even those who are not heterodox) have eschewed tradition in one's daily deliberations (not entirely sure what he meant by this) what does he propose to fix it? Without any solution it's just a lot of theorizing to me that has no practical application and is therefore useless to most people besides the small handful of people who have the luxury to philosophize and the fortitude to "plow through" massive amounts of literature.

You're making his point for him. He said that the VII generation threw off extrinsic tradition, and so there was a "gap" in the passing on of that tradition. The generation after the VII generation never even learned it. Which is why now, if you want to learn it, you have to go out and do it on your own, because chances are your parents didn't give it to you. His solution seems to be to hope that the young people, and especially young priests, who are taking this upon themselves will fix our catechesis so that the tradition will again be lived and passed from generation to generation with no more "gaps".

 

Yeah, I read that line and it confused me too- but since I didn't really understand the whole article I thought maybe it was just me. Are we supposed to not listen to the magisterium? Ignore what our Bishop is saying? ignore our priest's homilies? For what? 

You're supposed to think critically about what the current Magisterium (and bishops, and priests) teaches, comparing it to what you know about Church tradition. You must above all know which teachings are fallible and which infallible, so that you can make your own judgments where that is possible and where contradictions between current and past teachings make it necessary. The more you can learn about past traditions, the better. If you don't know much, do your best.

 

I think his argument would have been stronger if he just focused on the notion that ecclesial tradition represents centuries of accumulated wisdom from the Church and hence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, instead of getting bogged down in philosophical analysis (I do think there's a sense in which modern philosophy has impacted the Church, but not in the way he diagnoses, and I've got other things I want to get done this evening so I'm not gonna go into detail about that).

I think that showing where the ideas come from helps people to understand why they're wrong and foreign to Christian teaching, which is an important thing to understand. Though it does definitely make the article harder to read.

 

I think with many things its up to the priests to teach us cause I wouldn't be able to understand so much anyway 

Yeah, but priests aren't really in a position to teach us, because of the VII "gap". Which means you have to do what you can yourself.

It's getting better with the priests, though, according to him (and in my own experience).

 

I'm not sure that you understood the point I was trying to make… if the catechism is a magisterial document, then these words of Father Chad's apply to the catechism: "The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching." But the catechism, while it may ignore previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching (whatever that means), doesn't exactly ignore previous documents altogether. The catechism quotes previous documents extensively.

To simplify what Father Chad was saying, as I understood it, VII documents AND "neo-conservatives" tend to ignore previous Church documents PERIOD.

He didn't say that all post-VII magisterial documents ignore all pre-VII teaching. He simply said that there's a tendency, especially on certain issues, to not cite previous documents when they conflict with what the Church feels needs to be taught now, and that there's a general sloppiness in the wording of theological explanations post-VII. Both are bad, but especially the former, because it leaves those people who know previous teachings wondering why the change. If no argument is given for it, then it just looks like the Church is saying "Hey, we changed our (modernist-philosophy-infected) minds, now obey this." Which critically thinking people (as all Christians should be) aren't likely to do.

I read the article but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was missing the point. All this navel-gazing, labeling etc. When there are only 2 Catholics left because we spent all our energy on this stuff, will they divide themselves into "factions"? 

When you're living in a divided Church, how are you supposed to talk about it if you don't "label" the "sides"? Are we supposed to just ignore the state of the Church at present and not talk about the division? Will that make it better?

 

I doubt Father became a priest in order to spend tons of time defining the relative conservativism of 2 virtually identical groups of Catholics.  There is an extremely urgent situation developing in the Western world which needs everyone's full efforts. Fathers commentary will only be read by Catholics. If he would like to still have readers 50 years from now I think he should refocus.

Note all the times Jesus uses the word magisterium. This isn't to say the magisterium and its interpretation are not important. But it's not the point. Jesus is the point of all that. If we are spending our energy trying to find differences between 2 extremely similar groups eventually there will not be anyone left to care. The unchurched and unbaptized are often scandalized and confused by efforts like Fathers's. The two groups he defines have the same creed, baptism, hierarchy, sacraments, devotions etc. We look silly to the pagans when we twist ourselves in knots balkanizing they Church, not just into liberals and conservatives but finer gradations of the two.

Not to mention the word "neoconservative" is not a Catholic term, it is imported from a 20th century American political movement. In context, the opposite of "neoconservative" is not "traditionalist," it's "paleo-conservative." since the church is not an American political movement it's inappropriate to try to apply these meaningless labels to her.  

How is this not just a really stinky red herring? You're thinking exactly like the neoconservatives he talks about: "We must respond to the present world. Present circumstances must dictate all we do and speak of. If it isn't relevant to the present world, it's pointless."

[Gabriela]

reclaim our authentic Catholic culture

This sums it all up. Amen.

 

As they say,

"If the parish priest is a Saint, his people will be holy; 
If the priest is holy, but not yet a Saint, his people will be good; 
If he is good, his people will be lukewarm, 
and if he is lukewarm, his parishioners will be bad. 
And if the priest himself is bad, his people will go to Hell."

 

I had never heard that. What a great saying!

 

Just to add, personally I got the most from the Mass not when it was structured to explicitly instruct me but when it was primarily structured as worship towards God. The 'mystery' involved instructed me more because I was able to go deeper into prayer.

That is why I appreciate the TLM. The first time I came to one, I got there late, had no clue what's going on, everything was in Latin and I didn't have a missal, I didn't know what all the times of silence are for and what the priest was praying quietly... It was not done in a way to instruct a new person on what it is. Yet around Communion time I found myself crying and was overwhelmed with the realisation that THIS is the Catholicism I became Catholic for. The beauty, mystery and transcendence of the Mass taught me the most about what the Mass is, which formed how I ought to relate to the Mass and ultimately to God.

There was nothing casual, nothing of trying to relate it to our culture. The music was not like in any other place for instance. The times of silence, uncomfortable at first, eventually drew me into mental prayer, which completely changed my experience of the Mass. I'm not saying Novus Or do can't be done with reverence but the typical parish doesn't do it like the EWTN Mass. Its not liturgical abuse or some horrible clown liturgy we hear about.

But there's a horizontal emphasis... Gathering with others, all understanding everything in the same way... But I've found it hard to go above that unless I brought recollection with me and prepared with mental prayer. There's rarely time to do mental prayer during the Mass because everything needs to be done quickly.

Of course its valid... The Eucharist is there... I still received grace from the Eucharist... After all I became Catholic in a NO parish. God acts there too of course. But I found it harder - note not impossible, just harder - to go deeper and concentrate. Its not because of the NO itself perhaps but the way its done and the 'culture' in the church... The type of music, the horizontal element emphasised so much, people speaking after Mass in the church, the way theres less silence and everything is quicker...

At the TLM I found more of a sense that we are here to worship and adore God who comes to us - more of a vertical approach, which eventually drew me deeper into the Mass and I found I received more graces. The intrinsic merit of the two forms of the Mass is the same. And I'm not a sedevacantist who rejects post V2 everything or thinks it's all invalid. I just mean this is an example of a reverent liturgy helping one person to go deeper into spiritual things and prayer. I did before too it just took more effort though I still received graces through the Sacraments.

This is just my experience and perhaps its kind of a controversial post, but I'm not arguing against the validity of the NO... And I think this reverence could be integrated into the OF Mass which I believe Pope Benedict wanted to do. But the Summorum Pontificum was a huge blessing for this exact reason - souls can see examples of great reverence while the OF is still goingthrough transitions and varies in reverence depending on the parish. Some parishes have more reverence than others.

We'll see what happens in the future but I think the TLM movement is showing much good fruit and I hope the TLM would continue and become more known, and that it would help the OF. Of course that's not up to me at all. I'm just a layperson but this has been my experience..    

This is my experience of the TLM exactly. Beautiful post, MLF!

 

Do you think any of that might sound a tad cultish? Just complete control of a persons religion governing all these educational and family aspects in their life? And you speak of the experimentation with a negative attitude but do you think that we should retain the ways and customs of centuries long past and try to continue applying them now? Social structure has changed and the purpose of these experiments would be to reconnect with people who exist in modern times. I feel like trying to appeal to modern society with very very old ways would work for some, but not all and that number is shrinking.

And if you would brush that off by saying the old ways is how it should be and everyone needs to conform to that or too bad for you, is that really in the spirit of Catholic outreach? If we are to be missionaries and fishers of men we need to know how to catch the fish with different bait or else all youll is one species of fish and neglect the others.

Again, you, too, are thinking like the neoconservative who wants only to adapt the past to the present, rather than let the past guide the present. The former is fine for a non-Catholic who has no tradition to speak of. But for Catholics, it's not okay. We believe that our tradition—which is always being added to, btw—is sufficient to deal with the present. We can and should of course adapt to people where they are, but we must do so under the guidance of our tradition, or else we're not who we are.

You seem also to assume that the Catholic Faith isn't "palatable" to all people. So much talk of what would work for some but won't for others. Give people Christ, unadulterated. He works for everyone!

 

I disagree with equating reaching out to someone wherever they are at in their faith journey to modernism. I dont think that using methods to connect with people on all the different stages and paths they are at has to be coupled with a loss or degradation of the authenticity of the faith.

I feel like that is more along the lines of a certain superiority of person experience or preference rather than to realistic attempts to bring people to jesus.

It's not adapting evangelization methods to individuals or cultures that's being contested. It's adapting the liturgy and Church teaching. You're talking about something much more "surface-level" than we are, I think.

 

Anyhow, reading the article, I couldn't help but notice Father made a rather glaring omission.  Part of any set of belief, no matter how one "factionalizes" as many in this thread have pointed to, begins in the home.  The Church holds that the first people to teach one's children the faith are the parents.  From what I've seen, based online and from going to the TLM in person, most people who identify as Traditionalist tend to have been raised that way.  Whereas I'm not sure the other group that Father tries to delineate necessarily has been to the same extent.  I could be wrong of course, it would hardly be the first time.

In my experience, TLM parishes are pretty equally "mixed" between those raised with the TLM and "converts" to the TLM. But I'm sure that differs by parish and the general Catholic population of a city/town.

[Not The Philosopher]

 

I think that showing where the ideas come from helps people to understand why they're wrong and foreign to Christian teaching, which is an important thing to understand. Though it does definitely make the article harder to read.

Fair enough. I'm not against people philosophizin' about these things. It's just that one of the first things I was taught in my philosophy major was that if you try to argue too much in too short a space, you'll trip over yourself. If he was writing, say, a 30-70 page paper I think his argument would have come across more clearly and rigorously. But I don't think it worked in the limited space he had, hence my other post here.

[Gabriela]

Fair enough. I'm not against people philosophizin' about these things. It's just that one of the first things I was taught in my philosophy major was that if you try to argue too much in too short a space, you'll trip over yourself. If he was writing, say, a 30-70 page paper I think his argument would have come across more clearly and rigorously. But I don't think it worked in the limited space he had, hence my other post here.

Well, it was certainly dense enough to require intense focus. But if one believes strongly that one's readers are dedicated, why not? 

I've read much harder, much denser philosophy than this. And though I hated it, other people rave about it. So, to each his audience!  

[MarysLittleFlower]

I just had a thought... Some seem to be saying like the traditional ways are methods that work for some souls and not others. But the traditional ways became traditional because they are better at disposing us to grace and to Christ Himself. They are the product of organic growth of liturgy over many different ages. For example kneeling disposes to reverence better than sitting. If someone were to say that its a matter of preference here, most would agree that this argument doesn't hold because certain postures really do dispose better to reverence. Same with music. Same with art. Etc.

These things raise the mind above the earth and that's why they dispose better to grace. Just because people today like other music doesn't mean they would pray better with that music. We are not talking about what would please their senses more but what would help them leave earthly things. some may say that different times have different needs, that's true but the Mass always needs the same dispositions. Aspects can change but *without loss of reverence*.

And while the liturgy does change over time, many changes we see today didn't even come from V2 documents. Not all these things improve disposition. Many were put in not by Rome even if admitted as an indult after. An indult doesn't mean the new way is better. The ordinary way is still the preferred traditional way.  The traditional ways help to come to Christ as He is by giving good dispositions. 'Experimental' ways are the methods that try to accomplish something through aesthetics etc.

People accuse Latin Mass goers for seeking the externals. But the only reason we like them is the reverence and how they help to pray. The experimental ways are not products of an organic development - they are methods that are artificial and don't work as well if at all because they don't improve openness to grace. Any openness to grace there comes from the legitimate or helpful aspects of the Mass, and of course the Mass and Holy Eucharist itself.

Anything that lessens reverence or adoration to God is not helpful even if its popular. Any change in liturgy needs to uphold the reverence that developed over millennia. Many changes we see today that trads take issue with were put in after V2 through something like popular vote. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Socrates]

I saw this version the other day and thought it was fun:

 

 

Anyhow, reading the article, I couldn't help but notice Father made a rather glaring omission.  Part of any set of belief, no matter how one "factionalizes" as many in this thread have pointed to, begins in the home.  The Church holds that the first people to teach one's children the faith are the parents.  From what I've seen, based online and from going to the TLM in person, most people who identify as Traditionalist tend to have been raised that way.  Whereas I'm not sure the other group that Father tries to delineate necessarily has been to the same extent.  I could be wrong of course, it would hardly be the first time.

I don't know what the overall stats are, but most people I know who attend the old Latin Mass were not raised Traditionalist.  This includes myself and my wife (though my father [himself a convert] has some leanings that direction, but I didn't attend the old mass on any regular basis until well into adulthood.  I don't really consider myself a full-fledged "Trad," though.)  Someone at the FSSP parish I attend told me most of the parishioners were either converts or reverts to the Faith.

I liked a play on the "Co-exist" bumper sticker I saw in the parking lot; the symbols of the different religions instead spelled out "CONVERT" followed by "to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church."

[Nihil Obstat]

"There must be no innovations [in the Liturgy] unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them."

[Maggyie]

the thing is, we don't live in a divided church. We really, really don't. why on earth would anyone want to join a "divided church"? Do you think that is the True Church that Jesus founded? If I want to join a divided organization I can join a political party. Realize that at your particular judgment Jesus will not be asking about whether you were a neo con, a paleo con, a Whig, a monarchist etc. He will ask about the commandments and what you did for the least.

The era after the Council did not birth Modernism. Modernism was born from the heart of the pre-conciliar church. How did that happen, in a time of orthodox teaching, high Mass attendance, and Tridentine liturgy? No one is ever able to explain that. There is not one theological monster that didn't come to us courtesy of this mythical "golden era."

the truth is that beautiful liturgy, pretty churches, and carefully pruning your library will not protect you. Those older documents? Those are the same ones studied by those who became heretics. The extraordinary form? The same Mass attended by the WORST Modernist heretics of the time! Think about that.

what saves souls is Jesus. Period. What happened after the council was only possible because the church was rotting from the core for many, many years. People weren't authentically converted and in love with Jesus, they were living on externals or habit or culture. When the culture surrounding them changed, the non existent faith collapsed. 

Save the liturgy, save the world, is based off the nerdilicious sci fi slogan save the cheerleader, save the world. There's no evidence this is the case. I attended Latin Mass for years mind you. Repeating the same mantra to yourself does not make it true. Look around you. How many adult baptisms per year? That  is the true test of a community. Not how many people who are already Catholic are cycling through your group. Not how many infant baptisms in the extremely fecund homeschoolers group. By the way if you're honest you'll admit there are some true diehards but a lot of the people and families are just cycling through.

Which is fine. And I would be more than glad if the liturgy was replaced by the extraordinary form and we went back to ultra trad interpretations of everything. That's great but that is not going to save the world any more than it saved the world in the 1950s. The world went to heck directly afterward and it's clear they were already well on their way there. The Mass didn't stop the disaster from happening and it won't stop the current unfolding disaster either. The only thing that will stop it is if we wake up and understand the reality bearing down on us and embrace the mission we've been given. 

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

 

 

You said the magesterium is infallible. Glad you decided you where wrong, you had me worried.

My computer is screwin up, that quote wasn't meant to be ice nine it was meant to be what nihil obstat said

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

the thing is, we don't live in a divided church. We really, really don't. why on earth would anyone want to join a "divided church"? Do you think that is the True Church that Jesus founded? If I want to join a divided organization I can join a political party. Realize that at your particular judgment Jesus will not be asking about whether you were a neo con, a paleo con, a Whig, a monarchist etc. He will ask about the commandments and what you did for the least.

The era after the Council did not birth Modernism. Modernism was born from the heart of the pre-conciliar church. How did that happen, in a time of orthodox teaching, high Mass attendance, and Tridentine liturgy? No one is ever able to explain that. There is not one theological monster that didn't come to us courtesy of this mythical "golden era."

the truth is that beautiful liturgy, pretty churches, and carefully pruning your library will not protect you. Those older documents? Those are the same ones studied by those who became heretics. The extraordinary form? The same Mass attended by the WORST Modernist heretics of the time! Think about that.

what saves souls is Jesus. Period. What happened after the council was only possible because the church was rotting from the core for many, many years. People weren't authentically converted and in love with Jesus, they were living on externals or habit or culture. When the culture surrounding them changed, the non existent faith collapsed. 

Save the liturgy, save the world, is based off the nerdilicious sci fi slogan save the cheerleader, save the world. There's no evidence this is the case. I attended Latin Mass for years mind you. Repeating the same mantra to yourself does not make it true. Look around you. How many adult baptisms per year? That  is the true test of a community. Not how many people who are already Catholic are cycling through your group. Not how many infant baptisms in the extremely fecund homeschoolers group. By the way if you're honest you'll admit there are some true diehards but a lot of the people and families are just cycling through.

Which is fine. And I would be more than glad if the liturgy was replaced by the extraordinary form and we went back to ultra trad interpretations of everything. That's great but that is not going to save the world any more than it saved the world in the 1950s. The world went to heck directly afterward and it's clear they were already well on their way there. The Mass didn't stop the disaster from happening and it won't stop the current unfolding disaster either. The only thing that will stop it is if we wake up and understand the reality bearing down on us and embrace the mission we've been given. 

 

The times soon before pre V2 were already not as traditional in outlook. There were great Popes but there was a liberal movement trying to take control. It was slowly gaining ground in theological circles. 

Later they used V2 documents for their advantage. They pushed for more and more liturgical reforms not ever being content. . this push started before V2 but didn't immediately have an effect. They are still pushing today because wanted even more changes thatwerent allowed. The Mass the way they want would probably not even be valid anymore or be grave liturgical abuse. 

Yes things weren't perfect then either but there was a battle of sorts between the traditional side with the Mass and the modernists. Now we see the Church wounded by this battle. As a Body it is one but the modernists are the ones who are trying to divide it - they are already in error and drawing others there too. The topic is not just the Mass but many things as I'm sure you know. 

The quality of instructions matters not just the number. Many children go through the Catholic school system and with what result? The way the faith is presented there atleast in Canada is filled with problems especially as the teachers are not formed themselves. I've met children in Catholic school who don't know that Jesus is God, that God is in three Persons or what the Holy Eucharist is. 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Nihil Obstat]

You said the magesterium is infallible. Glad you decided you where wrong, you had me worried.

My computer is screwin up, that quote wasn't meant to be ice nine it was meant to be what nihil obstat said

 

The Magisterium is infallible.

[Gabriela]

I just had a thought... Some seem to be saying like the traditional ways are methods that work for some souls and not others. But the traditional ways became traditional because they are better at disposing us to grace and to Christ Himself. They are the product of organic growth of liturgy over many different ages. For example kneeling disposes to reverence better than sitting. If someone were to say that its a matter of preference here, most would agree that this argument doesn't hold because certain postures really do dispose better to reverence. Same with music. Same with art. Etc.

These things raise the mind above the earth and that's why they dispose better to grace. Just because people today like other music doesn't mean they would pray better with that music. We are not talking about what would please their senses more but what would help them leave earthly things. some may say that different times have different needs, that's true but the Mass always needs the same dispositions. Aspects can change but *without loss of reverence*.

And while the liturgy does change over time, many changes we see today didn't even come from V2 documents. Not all these things improve disposition. Many were put in not by Rome even if admitted as an indult after. An indult doesn't mean the new way is better. The ordinary way is still the preferred traditional way.  The traditional ways help to come to Christ as He is by giving good dispositions. 'Experimental' ways are the methods that try to accomplish something through aesthetics etc.

People accuse Latin Mass goers for seeking the externals. But the only reason we like them is the reverence and how they help to pray. The experimental ways are not products of an organic development - they are methods that are artificial and don't work as well if at all because they don't improve openness to grace. Any openness to grace there comes from the legitimate or helpful aspects of the Mass, and of course the Mass and Holy Eucharist itself.

Anything that lessens reverence or adoration to God is not helpful even if its popular. Any change in liturgy needs to uphold the reverence that developed over millennia. Many changes we see today that trads take issue with were put in after V2 through something like popular vote. 

Absolutely. And again, well said. Argumentation of the sort you're referencing assumes that the Mass ought to be conformed to individuals, rather than individuals to the Mass.

I liked a play on the "Co-exist" bumper sticker I saw in the parking lot; the symbols of the different religions instead spelled out "CONVERT" followed by "to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church."

Dude, you should totally post a picture of this.

 

the thing is, we don't live in a divided church. We really, really don't. why on earth would anyone want to join a "divided church"? Do you think that is the True Church that Jesus founded? If I want to join a divided organization I can join a political party. Realize that at your particular judgment Jesus will not be asking about whether you were a neo con, a paleo con, a Whig, a monarchist etc. He will ask about the commandments and what you did for the least.

The era after the Council did not birth Modernism. Modernism was born from the heart of the pre-conciliar church. How did that happen, in a time of orthodox teaching, high Mass attendance, and Tridentine liturgy? No one is ever able to explain that. There is not one theological monster that didn't come to us courtesy of this mythical "golden era."

the truth is that beautiful liturgy, pretty churches, and carefully pruning your library will not protect you. Those older documents? Those are the same ones studied by those who became heretics. The extraordinary form? The same Mass attended by the WORST Modernist heretics of the time! Think about that.

what saves souls is Jesus. Period. What happened after the council was only possible because the church was rotting from the core for many, many years. People weren't authentically converted and in love with Jesus, they were living on externals or habit or culture. When the culture surrounding them changed, the non existent faith collapsed. 

Save the liturgy, save the world, is based off the nerdilicious sci fi slogan save the cheerleader, save the world. There's no evidence this is the case. I attended Latin Mass for years mind you. Repeating the same mantra to yourself does not make it true. Look around you. How many adult baptisms per year? That  is the true test of a community. Not how many people who are already Catholic are cycling through your group. Not how many infant baptisms in the extremely fecund homeschoolers group. By the way if you're honest you'll admit there are some true diehards but a lot of the people and families are just cycling through.

Which is fine. And I would be more than glad if the liturgy was replaced by the extraordinary form and we went back to ultra trad interpretations of everything. That's great but that is not going to save the world any more than it saved the world in the 1950s. The world went to heck directly afterward and it's clear they were already well on their way there. The Mass didn't stop the disaster from happening and it won't stop the current unfolding disaster either. The only thing that will stop it is if we wake up and understand the reality bearing down on us and embrace the mission we've been given. 

In a spiritual sense, yes, the Church is one. But in a practical or earthly or whatever you want to call it sense, the Church is divided. And no, Christ will not ask whether you were on this side or that side, but He will ask whether you were faithful to the Truth, so it's worth asking yourself which of the mutually exclusive claims various "factions" in the Church make are actually the Truth.

No one said the Council birthed the Modernist heresy. In fact Ripperger shows clearly how it did not. Did you read the article in the OP?

If you read the article, you'll find one explanation for the problems you raise: It is totally possible—and actually happened—that people attended the TLM pre-VII and also were infected by secular, extra ecclesiam heresies in philosophical thinking. They then brought these into the Church.

You seem to think that "externals" like the liturgy and real, deep faith in Christ are mutually exclusive. One can have both. In fact, the former can lead to the latter, and often does. That's why trads fight so hard for it.

Using your own reasoning analogically: Look at how adult baptisms per year there are in the reign of the post-VII, not-at-all-in-accord-with-VII-documents Novus Ordo. Maybe there's a connection there?

I agree the Mass alone won't save the world. But you're not going to save the world without it. And bringing back the Mass in reverent form will certainly help. It's not enough. But it would help both directly and indirectly by helping to re-form an authentic Catholic culture.

[Guest]

What about all the adult baptisms that are people who don't claim to be Catholic? Those don't matter? I understand that the Catholic Church is the full truth but just because one is Catholic doesn't mean they're a better Christian. The exclusive attitude from a lot of Catholics seems like nothing more then pride to me.