Am I a non-traditional Catholic because I do not prefer the EF of the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwinch2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jwinch2

Guest
I am asking this in all seriousness and I ask you to please read this in its entirety before responding.

In addition, I am not putting this out there to puff myself up or to cause controversy or conflict between those who might disagree with some of my positions on certain things. That is not what this thread is about and it is not my intent to be arrogant or to bother anyone. I am simply trying to be open about who I am so that I can get an honest response. In doing so, I run the risk of offending others or coming across as “holier than thou”, which is not my intent. Unfortunately, that is a risk I feel I must take to ensure that I elicit an honest opinion.

Moderators. It is not my intent for this thread to become problematic. I do not believe it will. However, if this is not appropriate please feel free to close this thread, with my apologies.

So anyway, here it is: I typically consider myself a traditional Catholic, or at least fairly so, but at times it seems that the only criteria which matters (to some here and elsewhere anyway) as far as being traditional, is the preference one has regarding the form of the Mass.

I have been to the EF of the Mass, and while I find it beautiful and reverent, it is not my personal preference. I much prefer the OF, providing it is celebrated reverently. However, I fully support those who do prefer the EF and hope that it is more widely available as time progresses so that all of those who are edified by its form will have ready access to a parish where it is celebrated. I have tried learning more about the EF, studying some basic Latin, etc. I’ve tried, but it just has not happened, and I don’t think it is ever going to. Having Mass in my own language speaks to me in a way that I do not believe that having Mass in Latin ever could. That being said, I do enjoy greatly the Anglican Use Mass and cannot help but wonder from time to time why small tweaks in the EF of the Mass were not made along with translating it into the vernacular. But, I digress…

Some fellow parishioners and I are working hard to get our Mass changed so that there are traditional hymns, occasional responses in Latin and Greek, use of the entrance and communion antiphons, but I still prefer the OF of the Mass. We are dealing with hard resistance from some of the members of the “liturgy committee, pastoral council, DRE, etc.” and are trying to counter that by preseting the documents of Vatican II and what they really said about liturgy rather than what people think they said. Our pastor is fully supporting us in this endeavor.

I dislike it strongly when the OF of the Mass is not celebrated in what I would consider to be the mind of the Church. I like chant, I like incense, I like traditional hymns in the vernacular, I like silence in the liturgy, etc. I have been fully supportive of the new translation of the Roman Missal, love the new prayers, etc.

My wife and I work hard to properly posture ourselves at the various parts of the Mass and to not do things which are inconsistent with the mind of the Church. adoremus.org/0210MassGesturesPostures.html

I would love to see altar rails and kneeling for Holy Communion come back, and always take communion on the tongue rather than in the hand. While I recognize their utility at times, I am not a huge fan of EMHC.

I fully believe in all Church teachings even though I all too frequently do not live them the way that I should. Though I do believe in the legitimacy of Vatican II, I can easily see the problems which have come from an understanding of the council which is not consistent with the Sacred Tradition of the Church, as Pope Benedict himself has noted more than once. As such, when I come across something which seems vague or unclear in the documents of Vatican II, I try to go back and look at earlier councils to see how it was taught there to clear things up. I deliberately avoid recommending the US Catechism for Adults because I believe it does not completely portray the doctrine of subsidiarity and typically do not recommend the CCC because, while I believe it is accurate, I also believe that the style of writing leaves it too open to misinterpretation. Instead, I recommend Fr. John Hardon’s Catechism because I believe it to be both orthodox and clearly written and also includes all Church doctrine and Vatican II. When I do use those earlier mentioned sources and come across something which is vague or could be taken more than one way, I go back and look to earlier catechisms to see how they presented it, so that I will understand it properly within the Tradition of the Church.

I am strongly attracted to ancient forms of spirituality within the Church which has led me to consider becoming a Benedictine Oblate. Within that area, I have taken great pains to read and learn about traditional expressions of monastic spirituality and to understand the things which have crept in over the years which may not fall into that category. I have worked hard to track down books which have a good reputation for orthodoxy as well older and out of print books on the subject of the Holy Rule, Monastic Spirituality, and on the subject of Oblates because some of what I have seen in newer books did not jibe or was blatantly and obviously modernist.

There it is. So, considering all of that. Am I a non-traditional Catholic because I personally do not prefer the EF of the Mass or Mass in Latin?

Again, I am legitimately interested in this question and would respectfully ask those who may disagree with my preferences on music, catechisms, form of the Mass, etc. to politely refrain from engaging on those subjects in this thread. I would rather this thread not get derailed because of those types of things, which we have probably all seen happen here more than once.

Thanks in advance, and Peace of Christ.
 
Sounds like you are a traditionalist Catholic in every sense of word. You are faithful to the Holy See to the best of your ability and you have profound respect and preference for reverential traditions over novelties which can be problematic.

Preference for Latin or vernacular is irrelevant on this issue, if you ask me. Before Vatican II, Latin-rite churches were permitted to celebrate Holy Mass in Slavonic languages. And Latin is still the official language of the Church and liturgy, despite the “Novus Ordo” being permitted to be celebrated in the vernacular.

I think the best option among all would be to revert the Ordinary Form into the Tridentine Mass in all ways but language, and let that be chosen by the celebrant.
 
EphelDuath said:
Sounds like you are a traditionalist Catholic in every sense of word. You are faithful to the Holy See to the best of your ability and you have profound respect and preference for reverential traditions over novelties which can be problematic.

Preference for Latin or vernacular is irrelevant on this issue, if you ask me. Before Vatican II, Latin-rite churches were permitted to celebrate Holy Mass in Slavonic languages. And Latin is still the official language of the Church and liturgy, despite the “Novus Ordo” being permitted to be celebrated in the vernacular.

I think the best option among all would be to revert the Ordinary Form into the Tridentine Mass in all ways but language, and let that be chosen by the celebrant.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response.

I should also add in relation to my opening post in this thread, that I did not set out to become some sort of uber traditionalist and am still not actively trying to become so. I simply started out trying to learn more about what the Church teaches on certain things and this led me in a specific direction.

Thanks again.
 
I think the big issue here is the use of the word traditional or traditionalist. Traditionalsit has obtained, whether rightly or wrongly, a rather precise definition of pertaining to a person or persons who are attached to pre Vatican II traditions, Liturgical practices and customs only, and being dismissive if not downright contemptuos of all else.

Traditional Catholics on the other hand come in a wide variety and pretty much cover the gamut of just about all practices and customs, and can generally cite specific reasons why they should be considered traditional Catholics. Heck, I have seen charismatics define themselves as traditional Catholics because in the early days of the Church speaking in tongues was common and widespread.

I think as long as you are faihtful to the Pope and to the Magesterium, follow the rules and precepts of the Church and generally do what the Church requires then you are a traditional Catholic.

Whether or not you prefer one form of the Mass over the other is actually irrelevant and has no bearing on the issue.
 
EphelDuath said:
Sounds like you are a traditionalist Catholic in every sense of word. You are faithful to the Holy See to the best of your ability and you have profound respect and preference for reverential traditions over novelties which can be problematic.

Preference for Latin or vernacular is irrelevant on this issue, if you ask me. Before Vatican II, Latin-rite churches were permitted to celebrate Holy Mass in Slavonic languages. And Latin is still the official language of the Church and liturgy, despite the “Novus Ordo” being permitted to be celebrated in the vernacular.

I think the best option among all would be to revert the Ordinary Form into the Tridentine Mass in all ways but language, and let that be chosen by the celebrant.
Click to expand...
Also, the missionaries to China were permitted by the pope to celebrate the Mass in Chinese (centuries before VII). :cool:
 
The only label you really need to worry about is whether you are an orthodox or heterodox Catholic.

“Traditionalists, conservative, progressive, liberal, modernist, etc., etc.” have all worked themselves into meaningless.
 
I think being a “traditional” Catholic means to follow that Tradition, part of which is to accept the reigning Pope’s Magisterium. BXVI has accepted the EF, while not rejecting the OF. As such, both are OK with me. So, in answer to your question: no.

I choose the OF. Maybe, the OF + (some of the prayers in Latin would be great ala Mother Angelica). I do think that the priest should face Christ, OF or EF.

That’s it. 😃
 
Timothysis said:
The only label you really need to worry about is whether you are an orthodox or heterodox Catholic.

“Traditionalists, conservative, progressive, liberal, modernist, etc., etc.” have all worked themselves into meaningless.
Click to expand...
Its not about assigning a label to myself, its about understanding what criteria some use when they make certain statements. However, I do understand where you are coming from.
 
I also love the Ordinary Form. On this forum it feels strange to say that.
 
You know what kimd of Catholic I am? Catholic.

Not good enough for someone else? That sounds an awful lot like their problem.
 
I really don’t think that “Traditional” or “Non-Traditional” Catholics are defined anywhere in Church writings. They are more or less like clubs that have formed among lay Cathlics. I mean, does one have to pass some kind of test to claim to be one or the another.

I am a Catholic who loves both forms of the mass. I love the whole of the Catholic Church.

I am simply a “Catholic” who tries to be in conformity with our Pope and the Magistrium. Anything beyond that is not my goal.
 
Mike30 said:
I think the big issue here is the use of the word traditional or traditionalist. Traditionalsit has obtained, whether rightly or wrongly, a rather precise definition of pertaining to a person or persons who are attached to pre Vatican II traditions, Liturgical practices and customs only, and being dismissive if not downright contemptuos of all else.
Click to expand...
I have to be dismissive or contemptuous to be a traditionalist? Preposterous. I self-identify as “traditionalist”, I think the EF is objectively more reverent than the OF, but I hold no judgment whatsoever to anybody who thinks differently; I would venture to say that the vast majority of Catholics that celebrate the OF are better than I.
 
EphelDuath said:
Sounds like you are a traditionalist Catholic in every sense of word. You are faithful to the Holy See to the best of your ability and you have profound respect and preference for reverential traditions over novelties which can be problematic.

Preference for Latin or vernacular is irrelevant on this issue, if you ask me. Before Vatican II, Latin-rite churches were permitted to celebrate Holy Mass in Slavonic languages. And Latin is still the official language of the Church and liturgy, despite the “Novus Ordo” being permitted to be celebrated in the vernacular.

I think the best option among all would be to revert the Ordinary Form into the Tridentine Mass in all ways but language, and let that be chosen by the celebrant.
Click to expand...
Not the Catholic Church. It is the language only of the Latin Church and not the other 22 Churches which comprise the Catholic Church.
 
thistle said:
Not the Catholic Church. It is the language only of the Latin Church and not the other 22 Churches which comprise the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
For liturgy, yes. I apologize for speaking too generally.

But all official documents of the Church promulgated by the Holy See are in Latin, and they must be accepted as such by rites whose official language(s) is (are) not Latin (e.g. the Coptic Catholic Church has to accept Lumen Gentium as a binding document, not a Coptic translation of it). So it is fair to say that Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church.

Of course this is rather missing the point, since preferring to celebrate Holy Mass in Latin does not necessarily make one a “traditionalist” considering it’s the default language of the current Missale Romanum.
 
Just Catholic will do for me. Whether I like what forms, it’s just personal taste and preference. I will be at home in both forms. Due to practical reasons not all Catholics today know about EF. I have travelled quite a lot to some countries where OF is the norm. Probably Catholics in these places may not appreciate the EF very much.
 
Thank you for starting this thread, I have been trying to think of how to bring up this type of conversation and you have opened the conversation perfectly.
I find from reading the forums that there is a great disparity in experiences from area to area.

I believe if people approach with reverence and humility and listen to the Holy Father we will see beautiful masses, be they EF or OF.

I know in another thread someone mentioned the opposition a pastor may receive when he arrives and tries to make changes because people are comfortable with the status quo. This baffles me, who is the shepherd?

Possibly we are quite blessed here, as there are 2 parishes we frequent, mass times and work schedules dictate which one we attend.

A little background - both parishes have 2 priests, one a more senior pastor and younger associate, the other the opposite.

Parish A - always had what I considered to be a reverent mass…the pastor is well established and runs a good solid parish. A couple of things…the younger associate has asked and been allowed to bring some chant in to the mass occasionally, it’s been well accepted.
A short while ago the pastor announced that he was making a couple of small changes the way we will do things, his reason? Pope Benedict has asked priests to do this, so we will obey. As subtle statement, but I found it a tremendous teaching moment and a very strong statement of obedience. To him it was no big deal, the Pope asks, we do.

Parish B - new younger pastor…a very settled parish. Very good people, but at times I think they have gotten a little too comfortable and possibly a little too self important.
He is facing some pushback and in a conversation with him and a couple of other priests at a function, they said it is very difficult to be the new guy when you have to rely on the laity for a lot of tasks, they sometimes feel they run the parish, and not the pastor.
He is slowly making some changes, and he said there are lots of changes coming, to bring us more in line with the Holy Father’s wishes for a reverent mass.
We started at this parish last week practicing chant before mass because the pastor wants to add it to the mass for Lent.

A couple of observations:
  1. none of the people pushing back are bad people, they are the first to step up and volunteer when anything needs to be done, they are just perhaps a bit misguided. Without them the church would be a poorer place, they do much good and I believe they are needed. A pastor has to be careful not to chase good people away, even if they need some “re-teaching”. I know if I were to call any of them and said I was in trouble, or needed anything they would be at my door in a minute.
  2. one of these young priest’s explained to me one day the changes they hope to bring about in their lives is to bring things more in line with Pope Benedict’s vision of where we should be taking the teaching’s of VII. He said - our generation was attracted by the charisma of John Paul, and taught on the theology of Cardinal Ratzinger - we are a blessed generation and have been given a great task.
  3. I know 4 of these young priests who have been ordained in the last 10 years or so, they are incredible young men, they fascinate me by their dedication, their humility, their reverence and their dedication to the Holy Father. Another real attraction for me is the profound sense of humour, the joy of the Lord is with them.
I follow the discussions re: the SSPX because I remember Latin from my days as an altar boy in the early 60’s and I believe the intent, and the desire to be loyal Catholics is an important attribute…but I see no difference in their behavior than I see in the folks who do not want the pastor to change anything…both have forgotten who the shepherd is. (again, they are not bad people…and in the case of the SSPX followers, we want and need them, their priests and their zeal in the Church supporting Pope Benedict)

If the folks who feel the church is having trouble, yes there are challenges and struggles, but if they could spend some time with some of these young men, they would see the Lord is sending workers in to the vineyard.

anyway, I have rambled enough, but my point is - yes, I believe you are a traditional Catholic because of the fidelity to the Holy Father and love of reverence, regardless of language, that is more traditional in my view than preference to style or language.

If i have learned anything from our good Fransciscan Brother’s posts (and I have learned lots, humility due to my lack of knowledge maybe the most important) is that fidelity and obedience is our important task - let the Pope worry about the rules, just follow him and we are in good hands and in the right direction on our journey.
 
I attend the ABE* Mass. What does that make me? 🙂
  • Anything but English
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top