After reading many threads here, I've noticed somethng disturbing

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Graffiacane

Guest
Namely, the idea that one cannot criticize John Paul II or the Novus Ordo Mass without being a Traditionalist (i.e., one who denies the validity of John Paul’s papacy and the validity of the “new” Mass).
I for instance, am a so-called conservative Catholic. I vastly prefer the traditional Mass; I believe that changes (not in dogma but in practice and attitudinal changes) in the Church after Vatican II have been greatly detrimental to the Faithful, and I believe that certain elements of John Paul II’s papacy have been comical at best and terribly harmful at worst (which isn’t to say the man hasn’t done a lot of good as well, but he is hardly beyond reproach).
Does this mean I hate the man or deny the validity of the Mass and the Sacraments under the new guidelines? Of course not. Would I like to see the restoration of a more traditional Church? Yes. That doesn’t mean that any criticism I levy against Church leaders or current practices is born out of some sort of lemming “intolerance,” or that I’m going to start following the self-proclaimed Pius XIII down in Texas. I myself go to a Novus Ordo service; but just because I am unwilling to drive 2 hours every Holy Day to the nearest indult parish when I have a valid if less solemn Mass 10 minutes from my house doesn’t mean I can’t call a spade a spade when I see one.
 
Molly, my sister, and I fell out,
And what do you think it was all about?
She loved coffee, and I loved tea;
And that was the reason we couldn’t agree.
 
40.png
Graffiacane:
Namely, the idea that one cannot criticize John Paul II or the Novus Ordo Mass without being a Traditionalist (i.e., one who denies the validity of John Paul’s papacy and the validity of the “new” Mass)… I myself go to a Novus Ordo service; but just because I am unwilling to drive 2 hours every Holy Day to the nearest indult parish when I have a valid if less solemn Mass 10 minutes from my house doesn’t mean I can’t call a spade a spade when I see one.
Why are you offended when called a Traditionalist? Your very words describe you as such.

I too love tradition. My view on the church is quite orthodox. I thoroughly enjoy the Mass in Latin, but I would never even imply that the Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular is invalid. This simply would not be true.

We can hold on to tradition without withering and dying. The Church is both the keeper of tradition and also dynamic (sounds like a contradiction, but you know the truth). Maybe there is another connotation (a negative one that I am not aware of) that upsets you about this word. If this is so, please let me know, because I would never be offended to be called a keeper of tradition.
 
A helpful passage from Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical, AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM, nos. 23-24:
As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
 
No one said the Church HAD to go to the vernacular, therefore if you can somehow coerce your Bishop to change it back to the Novus Ordo, then great.
It is still the Mass, and I find it wonderful to be able to have guests there at our Church and have them actually understand some of what is being said.

We went to my Aunt’s funeral in the Latin and the rest of my family that is not Catholic thought it was the most mindless, ritualistic, and unfelt service they had ever been to in their lives. So much for evangelizing them through the Mass.
 
Thanks Vincent. I now see how Graffiancane might be offended. If applying a descriptor to someone is an attempt to marginionalize (sic) that person, then I too would take offence. When I read that Graffiancane was called a traditionalist, I understood that to be someone who values tradition. I also value tradition. Tradition is one part of the whole truth that the Church offers the world. I am not playing a semantics games here, I understood that Graffiancane was referring to tradition with a small “t”, I just don’t think we can divorce the two. We should hold onto the things that make us unique. We should not strive to look and act as just a denomination of Christianity. We are The Church of Christ.
 
The proble is that many So called traditionalist dany the validity of Vatican II (the proble is in the application of Vatican II not its teachings as it did not teach anything new) and will sometimes say that JPII is not a valid pope and that the seat of peter is really vacant, so you can understand whe we see something that smacks of this kind of thinking…:tiphat:
 
I was not so much offended by it as desirous to delineate in fact the difference; because whether or not we ought to call ourselves by different appelations, the reality of the situation delineates major groups as such:

Traditionalist Catholics- Reject Novus Ordo and Vatican II entirely; see: Traditio.com

Conservative Catholics- Critical of Novus Ordo and Vatican II; criticized heavily by Traditionalists

Liberal Catholics- Generally neutral or left-leaning

Ultraliberal Catholics- The sort of people who want women priests and abortion yet still claim to be Catholic

It is in fact out of defference to Traditionalists that I take exception to being called one; since whatever they think of my stance in the Church, I respect theirs and ultimately agree with their aims, even if they are a little extreme about things.

Addendum: I’m not talking about schismatic crazies like the “True Catholic Church” in the South who follow the Antipope, Pius XIII, and believe John XXIII was the Antichrist because the date and time of his coronation read in the register VI VI VI (which doesn’t add up to 666 last I checked; maybe the True Catholic Church should learn Latin numerals if they’re going to defend Romanism?)
 
Oh my. I hadn’t heard of the “True Catholic Church” previously (though I knew that there were anti-Vatican II schismatics). Anyone know how many schismatic ‘catholic’ churches are out there? Hundreds perhaps…

I haven’t yet attended a Latin Mass (I’m a convert, not yet confirmed even!), but I look forward to having the opportunity to do so sometime in the future. I am in favour of vernacular masses though, because a) full active participation is a lot easier, especially for neophytes and former schismatics/heretics and b) I would imagine many Evangelicals (potential converts 👍 ) would be turned off by a Mass that they have trouble following.

I think the principle of this verse can be applied (don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there should not be Masses said in Latin, but vernacular Masses should be available as well):
6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?
7 Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?
9 So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification.
11 If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me.

18 I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all:
19 howbeit in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

(1 Cor. 14)
(Yes, in this particular case, Paul is speaking of the gift of tongues, but I think the basic principle could apply in some cases).
Again, I’m not saying that I am against Latin Masses.
 
I recognize the argument for vernacular comprehension, but what I like most about the Latin Mass is the solemnity and authority of ritual with which the rite is conducted and by which it is informed. I have not seen a vernacular Mass that has approached it; not only because of the sense of tradition given by the language, but also the position and posture of the priest, the offices of the altar boys, and the general solemnity surrounding the Mass, what might be derided as “smells and bells” by those unsympathetic to their charms but which I find dramatically beneficial when compared to the laid-back come-as-you-are approach to many Catholic Masses we see today.

The solution of course: they should teach people Latin in the schools. And not just for Ecclesiastical purposes–I learned more practical grammar and vocabulary in the four years of Latin I took than in the twelve of English.Wonderful language, Latin.
 
Why should everyone in the world learn Latin, which is essentially a dead language? Remember, the Church is present worldwide. Learning Latin for an Asian or African is even more remotely useful than it is for us. I’m not saying that Latin shouldn’t be a part of a good classical education, but suggesting that all Catholics ought to learn it is a poor solution, IMO.

The perfect solution is to have Mass in the vernacular. I like having it in English! I like English, it’s a rich language and I understand it and can meditate on what is being said during Mass.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
Why should everyone in the world learn Latin, which is essentially a dead language? Remember, the Church is present worldwide. Learning Latin for an Asian or African is even more remotely useful than it is for us. I’m not saying that Latin shouldn’t be a part of a good classical education, but suggesting that all Catholics ought to learn it is a poor solution, IMO.
It’s a Vatican II thing:
“…teps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”
 
40.png
Graffiacane:
I recognize the argument for vernacular comprehension, but what I like most about the Latin Mass is the solemnity and authority of ritual with which the rite is conducted and by which it is informed. I have not seen a vernacular Mass that has approached it; not only because of the sense of tradition given by the language, but also the position and posture of the priest, the offices of the altar boys, and the general solemnity surrounding the Mass, what might be derided as “smells and bells” …

The solution of course: they should teach people Latin in the schools…
I think a very good solution would be to reintroduce, if they indeed have left, some of the reverence and tradition from the Latin Mass into the “vernacular Mass”. I think that we need not lose our traditions to make the Mass more "user friendly”. The Sacrifice of The Mass should be accorded all the reverence it deserves. No Mass is “ordinary”, not when we re-celebrate Christ’s sacrifice.

This would be a very good solution indeed! 🙂
 
WhiteDove-Plus, Latin is the parent of so many languages, and the intellectual ancestor of so many writers, that its influence on not only the Romance languages (which should be obvious enough) but even a pseudoGermanic tongue like English cannot be neglected.
Saying, “Why study Latin? It’s a dead language” is like saying “Why study the Ottomans? They’re a dead Empire.”
 
40.png
Graffiacane:
I recognize the argument for vernacular comprehension, but what I like most about the Latin Mass is the solemnity and authority of ritual with which the rite is conducted and by which it is informed. I have not seen a vernacular Mass that has approached it; not only because of the sense of tradition given by the language, but also the position and posture of the priest, the offices of the altar boys, and the general solemnity surrounding the Mass, what might be derided as “smells and bells” by those unsympathetic to their charms but which I find dramatically beneficial when compared to the laid-back come-as-you-are approach to many Catholic Masses we see today.

The solution of course: they should teach people Latin in the schools. And not just for Ecclesiastical purposes–I learned more practical grammar and vocabulary in the four years of Latin I took than in the twelve of English.Wonderful language, Latin.
I was blessed to be granted the ability to option into taking two years of Latin in high school (circa the Summer of Love). Couldn’t have had a better way to learn English grammar than learning Latin!

Unfortunately, or not… I dont’ see there ever being a way that the public schools can afford to teach kids Latin when they can’t afford current textbooks for history.

I grew up with the Mass being in Latin… the priest’s back to the altar… and only the choir in the choir loft above the back row of pews making the responses of the people on our behalf.

One thing’s for sure – I was MUCH less likely to be fidgety at Mass, even though I hadn’t yet learned what was going on at Mass until I grew to be older, like 6 years old (I could read at 5 years old – about a couple dozen years before Sesame Street). I just loved to turn the pages forward and back, comparing what I was hearing in Latin and reading the Latin – and reading the English translation to the Latin on the opposite page of my missal.

Still have my St. Joseph’s missal. (digression – nowhere does the missal for the Tridentine Mass have people holding hands!)

Anyhow… I’ve noticed that since there was a movement in the Church to insist that Masses in the Novus Ordo (new order of the Mass) be ONLY in the vernacular language, somehow the solemnity of the Mass slowly but surely went almost totally away.

When did we lose sight that it was NEVER REQUIRED that a Mass be celebrated in only the vernacular language?

Latin is STILL the official language of the Church.

I miss the solemnity so!!

I totally understand how the posture of the priest was good to be changed from his back to us to his face to us – that’s because among other things the Mass is a Meal… and no family meal is eaten with the head of the table’s back to the family sitting around the table.

That kind of thing.

I tend to call myself a “devout, orthodox, joyful Catholic.”

Hmm… I wonder if there’s such a sub-group of the Catholic church that is called the “Orthodox Catholics?!?”

Yikes!

:banghead:
 
Ya know…

I’ve been called alot of things since I started walking with Jesus. But He knows me and my heart and what I mean when I say certain things. According to Jesus, I’m blessed when I’m cussed or called names on His account. If I’m sincerely trying to be a better person, than I’ll take whatever criticism is offered to heart and see if the shoe fits so to speak. If it don’t, then I chalk it up to opening myself up to criticism to other faulty human beings who have opinions of their own. It is not easy talking about religion without stepping on a few toes these days. I’m not really good at walking on eggshells around folks so sometimes I say something that will offend someone else. I don’t mean to, but it happens. Criticising the critics of those who don’t happen to agree with me really isn’t the point of open discussions like the ones here. I’m under the impression that we are all here to get to know God and each other a little better, to speak and be heard, to try and understand other’s points of view and defend what we hold dearest. It takes a little bit of thickened skin and lots of charity. I’m not the one to talk about being the most considerate person around. It takes a few broken eggs to make an omelet. In fact, the closer I get to being like Jesus, the fewer folks I’m gonna be pleasing to - that is one of the facts we face when we follow Him. Like my grandma said, if you can’t take the heat in the kitchen… 😉

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
 
When I hear the term Orthodox Catholic I think of the Eastern Churches such as Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. These churches are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

As Vincent pointed out, again I thank you Vincent, we must not give ourselves, and others, descriptive terms when we are referring to Catholics. Terms such as traditionalist, orthodox, conservative and liberal confuse others and give the appearance that we are not unified.

Let us be very careful. We don’t want to be misunderstood. More importantly, non-Catholics will thoroughly enjoy and even co-opt these terms to deride us. You know the strategy…divide and conquer.
 
and give the appearance that we are no unified.

Can you look at the priestess movement, the traditionalist movement, and the spectrum between and truly say we are so unified?
THIS is the Crisis in the Church, not the abuse scandal. Horrible though that is, it is merely symptomatic of the broilings within the vitals of our Body, and these must be adressed. Simply pretending it doesn’t exist will not solve the problem.
Of course, we could always sever the gangrenous limbs before they seperate of their own accord.
 
There are indeed schismatic groups out there. I hope my attempt to agree with you about being called a Traditionalist Catholic did not give you the wrong impression. You are correct; we must not deny the fact that these groups exist. The point I was trying to make is that when we label ourselves we may give the appearance that we are is schism when in fact we are not. Again, I agree with you. Your first post was about feeling uncomfortable being labeled a Traditionalist Catholic. If you don’t want to be labeled I now understand why. If you chose to label yourself that is up to you, not others.

This discussion has been very interesting. Thanks.

God Bless You.
:angel1:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top