Are Traditionalists too Legalistic?

[kmktexas]

Oh Father,

There are many of us that would have bought tickets to see that conversation.

 

[Les_Richardson]

I couldn’t decide how to answer the poll because I’m still not sure what is meant by “traditionalists.”

Is it only a question of the mass (not that it is insignificant)? Or are we talking about the ultra-conservatives that would renounce Vatican II in its entirety? I would suggest those are perhaps two different cats.
As to the liturgy, being a convert I know only the N.O. but it is conducted in a very reverent manner in our church. Perhaps a little too much dependence on the EMHC’s as well. I occasionally watch the mass on EWTN and I have noticed that over time they have introduced more and more latin, although it is still the N.O. That is something that took me a while to realize, that the N.O. is written in latin and was translated to English and all the other languages from there. In fact, there are a couple of problems in the English translation that are being worked on right now.

I have never been to a Tridentine mass but I would like to at some point.

As to Vatican II, I guess its a question of fidelity to the Magesterium. I’ve read most of the 16 docs and they are actually true to Trent and everything that came before. I was surprised, having heard many wild things about Vatican II.

Legalistic? I would say the rules as given to us from the Pope and the Councils provide a context for our freedom. After all we are trying to live up to what Jesus himself called the greatest commandment.

 

[csr]

“Legalistic” is a euphemism for ‘Pharisaical’. The Pharisees substituted external concerns for the more interior nature of the sacrificial worship that God commands. “Legalistic” is also a euphemism for ‘those who insist that something was lost after the 1960s and who consider that the 1962 (or prior) rite of mass is inherently better’. I have never met such a person who was Pharisaical, i.e. concerned with external perception rather than interior worship.

Is God particular about how He is to be worshipped? See Exodus 25 to get some ideas: God is particular. I think He is particular because He knows that some things do more to further the redemptive plan than others. Those who consider the centuries-old rite of mass to be inherently superior observe the character and content of the prayers that are offered, and believe that they express far more completely the nature of the sacrifice and our status as worshipping faithful who are eager to offer atonement for sin.
Duran-via-RNRobert:

There is no one more orthodox than Satan.

I think the opposite is true: Satan will tell any lie to discourage true worship. Satan is the Father of Lies, and to be the Father of Lies he has to know a great many truths. The angels were given a revelation, after which some of them said non serviam. Satan uses the knowledge he gained from the revelation he received to deceive, and will talk against any point of doctrine. The Father of Lies is the father of all heresies–and there are many different types of heresies. Satan doesn’t mind which way you don’t believe: you can consider that Our Lord has only one nature, you may offer Him just the fruits of the earth rather than a true sacrifice, you may worship a golden calf, * or you may start to worship lots of little “gods” or even your ancestors: Satan doesn’t mind as long as you do not perceive the truth about the Triune God, the redemption, the Blessed Mother, and the true nature of true sacrificial worship. Satan will take all comers: disbelief is the only requirement. All forms of disbelief result in worship of self anyway, and that is his actual sin, the one he wants to tempt us to. So no, Satan is not “orthodox”. Duran argues by association, i.e. he attempts to redefine orthodoxy as little more than Satanism simply by associating the word “orthodox” with Satan.

---

They said in their heart, the whole kindred of them together: Let us abolish all the festival days of God from the land. *

 

[Les_Richardson]

To be fair, csr, Duran rescues himself in the last line of the quote, which I find that I can agree with.

“Let us practice orthodoxy, but with humility and charity.” -Duran

However, you may be more familiar with him that I am, which is not at all.

 

[QuicumqueVult]

I must say that by all appearances, you fellow members of CAF are quite a clever lot.

Everytime I take a poll, I am in the majority.

Irony aside… In my view, the degree of support for Traditionalism seems directly proportional to Revisionism, whether the revised doctrine or practice pertains to liturgics, dogmatics, morality, …

I have observed, during this novitiate period, that many CAF members are disaffected by the Latin Rite status quo. I was just speaking with an Antiochian Orthodox priest today about the aesthetics of the average RCC mass, and he said they seem often to be “clown masses” (this description was unsolicited) One would seldom, perhaps never, say that about an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. For the Orthodox, Holy Tradition is always the norm that norms. So there is always incense, always chanting, always icons, always an ethos that takes seriously the fact that Mass, or DIvine Liturgy, are meant to be illustrative of the heavenly liturgy. It is not something to be rushed through to process the next batch.

We came mutually to the conclusion that too much RCC divine worship is minimalistic, at least since Vat2.

So WhiteDove, if I take your motive , you’re hitting on a sociological phenomenon that concerns many of us.

 

[Flounder]

On a side note, any priest can say the NO in Latin whenever he wants, it doesn’t require permission as the Tridentine does.

Ask your priest to say a Latin mass sometime, perhaps a daily. Good practice for him, and a great experience for us.