Argumentation in Favor of Traditionalism

[DebatingDebator]

The problem with this discussion is not the truth being on one side or another. But that neither side often does not truly understand what the problem actually is.

People who criticize the Novus Ordo often go too far. However those who defend the Novus Ordo often do not realize that there are a whole host of issues that need to be cleared up with respect to the liturgy.

What the Pope and/or the Hierarchy can do / should do / actually does in individual periods are often different.

D

 

[PaulinVA]

This is where you are contradicting yourself. The Second Vatican Council never called for Mass in the venacular yet that is the norm now. How do you explain that?

There is an English translation of the latin Novus Ordu. How do you think it came about? It comes from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

We do not have a ‘what the Bishop says goes’ Church. We are bound by the Magisterium, which consists of Scripture and Tradition. If the Bishop tells you to denounce Transubstantiation you have a duty to protest.

Yes, he would be excommunicated in that instance. I am not talking about this whim or that. You are right, Rome keeps us safe from Bishops who go off the rails. But, diocese are the basic building blocks of the Church. Remember, the pope is first the Bishop of Rome. Within wide latitude, what the Bishop does is what is right in that diocese.

Clergy have led us astray before. Would you worship a golden calf if your priest told you to? The Magisterium wants Latin as it is a unifying language. Does it have pride of place in your parish?

What does pride of place even mean?

If a clergy person leads us astray, that is a millstone around his neck.

If we pick and choose what we follow, whether for liberal, conservative, or traditional motives, we are still picking and choosing.

 

[Ockham]

There is an English translation of the latin Novus Ordu. How do you think it came about? It comes from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Indeed. How often is it celebrated in your parish?

I prefer not to pick and choose. The Church gave us instructions at Trent and reaffirmed at V2. There was no call for most changes we endure today therefore I’m not choosing but rather following the Church. Those that ‘prefer’ the ‘spirit of V2’ changes are making choices the Church never called for.

 

[PaulinVA]

Indeed. How often is it celebrated in your parish?

I prefer not to pick and choose. The Church gave us instructions at Trent and reaffirmed at V2. There was no call for most changes we endure today therefore I’m not choosing but rather following the Church. Those that ‘prefer’ the ‘spirit of V2’ changes are making choices the Church never called for.

Have I been talking to myself this evening?

I agree with you - the Church needs revival and there are some things that drive me crazy.

But, where in the world do you think these things came from? Did they just fall out of the sky? NO! They are from the Church. However they got there, they are now there.

How can you say “the Church never called for” when the Church instituted them?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Indeed. How often is it celebrated in your parish?

I prefer not to pick and choose. The Church gave us instructions at Trent and reaffirmed at V2. There was no call for most changes we endure today therefore I’m not choosing but rather following the Church. Those that ‘prefer’ the ‘spirit of V2’ changes are making choices the Church never called for.

We are called to obedience. I think most of what you lament are the liturgical abuses that are sadly much too commonplace in some areas. But liturgical abuses are not part of the Liturgy – it is some being disobedient to the approved rituals of the Latin rite.

But, the Holy See has the authority to regulate the Liturgy. Pope Venerable Pius XII affirms this in his great liturgical encyclical Mediator Dei when he writes:

1. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Cf. 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 1257.)…

 

[Timothysis]

Indeed. How often is it celebrated in your parish?

I prefer not to pick and choose. The Church gave us instructions at Trent and reaffirmed at V2. There was no call for most changes we endure today therefore I’m not choosing but rather following the Church. Those that ‘prefer’ the ‘spirit of V2’ changes are making choices the Church never called for.

The Apostolic Consititution Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council * is what “gave” us the current ordinary form of the Mass on Holy Thursday, April 3 1969 promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI.

 

[choy]

Here’s the thing - the Church never took the direction we’ve been moving in the past forty years. The Church never called for a new Mass, CITH, general absolution, etc. If obedience and humble servitude is your practice then traditionalism best represents it.

i would normally agree with this statement except its not what i have been seeing in this forum

now you’re denying everything the Church has done. i hope those less educated in the history of the Church wouldn’t just take your word for it. you throw out false information like JWs or LDS hoping to get people on your side. thats not very Catholic.

If generally speaking you are liberal in your various positions, why do you make posts in the traditional forum?

sticking with your opinions? thats fine, you’ve been trying to get me to leave for a while. but i’m here to stay, whether you like it or not. someone has to tell the truth

 

[MarkThompson]

This is where you are contradicting yourself. The Second Vatican Council never called for Mass in the venacular yet that is the norm now. How do you explain that?

Ockham, you need to reread your Vatican II documents:
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
   – Sacrosanctum Concilium

 

[Ockham]

Have I been talking to myself this evening?

I agree with you - the Church needs** revival **and there are some things that drive me crazy.

But, where in the world do you think these things came from? Did they just fall out of the sky? NO! They are from the Church. However they got there, they are now there.

How can you say “the Church never called for” when the Church instituted them?

The Church needs repair. “Revival” is what caused all the damage these past forty years.

Vatican 2 never called for a new Mass. Pope Paul VI signs off on a new liturgy in violation of Trent; it was originally supposed to be in Latin, ad orientum, and COTT. What happened to it? When did things changed?

 

[Ockham]

Ockham, you need to reread your Vatican II documents:

V2 documents are nothing but ambiguous. This left the door open for change agents to invoke the ‘spirit of V2’ to justify their agenda. Pope Benedict XVI has told us the documents were misinterpreted.

 

[Ockham]

sticking with your opinions? thats fine, you’ve been trying to get me to leave for a while. but i’m here to stay, whether you like it or not. someone has to tell the truth

I’m not trying to get you to leave, just questioning your motives here. If there was a ‘Modernist’ forum I’d steer clear of it.

What truth are you telling? You don’t support your claims with Church documents or other sources. You ignore the sources that are presented to you contrary to your opinion.

That being said, it’s kind of a waste of time debating you. At least Mark is interesting.

 

[iluvburpees]

V2 documents are nothing but ambiguous. This left the door open for change agents to invoke the ‘spirit of V2’ to justify their agenda. Pope Benedict XVI has told us the documents were misinterpreted.

Perhaps the most (painfully) ironic passage in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is #23, where it says: “Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

I fail to see how the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required all the changes that we saw in the New Mass. Bugnini constantly failed to follow the rules he himself laid down.

 

[PaulinVA]

The Church needs repair. “Revival” is what caused all the damage these past forty years.

No, definitely not. We need a revival of religious devotion, a fervent return to belief and practice. That is revival.

Ockham:

Vatican 2 never called for a new Mass. Pope Paul VI signs off on a new liturgy in violation of Trent; it was originally supposed to be in Latin, ad orientum, and COTT. What happened to it? When did things changed?

You know when these things changed. They were changed by the Church.

You know, if you would stop being a broken record playing the same bits, you would see that we actually agree. I, too, am displeased with the result of the changes in the last 40 years. I, too, want to see some things, like COTH, done away with. But I acknowledge that these things came from the Church.

I want a revived Church, whether you take that to mean a renewed fervor or an increase in energy.

How we got here is less important than where we are going. The real question, where we diverge in opinion, is that I want to go forward to 2020, and you want to return to 1950. Not a dig, just an observation.

 

[crazzeto]

I too would like to know exactly what “modernism” (officially sanctioned) by the Church constitutes the traditions of man getting in the way of the Word of God. Note I don’t claim that there were never abuses with in the Church that did in fact do just this, I am saying however the Church never taught anyone to do these things (i.e. move the tabernacle).

See Society of St. Pius X website and literature for more info on this.

sspx.org/

And this is exactly the reason why I’m very cautious about this subject matter. SSPX is “so catholic” that they can’t even be in the Catholic Church. They have an invalid ministry, invalid priests et. al. Traditional Catholics are also obediant to the Pope and council, they can not teach error.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Regarding non-traditionalists reporting here, as I understand this forum, it is for discussion of topics related to traditional practices. It isn’t specified that only traditionalists are invited.

Part of the topics related to traditionalism is dealing with people who are not like minded, so to me it all seems good.

For myself, I only started posting in this section because I got roped in by the old CITH argument whereby I objected to being judged because of my choice to receive that way, and I wanted to know more about it and/or defend my honor.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

For myself, I only started posting in this section because I got roped in by the old CITH argument whereby I objected to being judged because of my choice to receive that way, and I wanted to know more about it and/or defend my honor.

Alan

So what have you learned so far.

 

[choy]

I’m not trying to get you to leave, just questioning your motives here. If there was a ‘Modernist’ forum I’d steer clear of it.

see, thats were the problem begins. you think Catholics are divided into different kinds. there’s One Church, One Catholic Faith

you think Traditionalists are different from those you branded as Modernist, and that is the problem. you are making a division within the Church, where there is none.

What truth are you telling? You don’t support your claims with Church documents or other sources. You ignore the sources that are presented to you contrary to your opinion.

That being said, it’s kind of a waste of time debating you. At least Mark is interesting.

no, i support them. you on the other hand tend to come up with a different interpretation to make them support your viewpoint. hey, all these Protestant and Restorationists groups use the Bible to support their claims, doesn’t mean their claims are right. not just because you point to a document from the Church to support your claim, it doesn’t mean that your interpretation of the document is the right one. thats what i am refuting

and i’m not here for amusement. i don’t debate you for amusement. i want to make sure that people who come to this forum gets the truth. if i want fun and games, i’d be on another site

 

[Ockham]

So what’s the truth about CITH for example?

Or better yet, what’s your favourite argument for Traditionalism?

 

[MarkThompson]

V2 documents are nothing but ambiguous. This left the door open for change agents to invoke the ‘spirit of V2’ to justify their agenda. Pope Benedict XVI has told us the documents were misinterpreted.

Ockham, you just make a bunch of false claims about Vatican II. You’ve insisted repeatedly that Vatican II didn’t call for the vernacular in the liturgy, and when you’re shown where it expressly called for “[t]ranslations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy,” your only response is to say, “that’s vague.” No, it’s not. If you read that (not to mention the rest of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which hopefully you’ve read), and are still unsure about whether the Council wanted to permit vernacular in the liturgy, the problem lies with your comprehension, not the document.

You also make claims like “Paul VI signs off on a new liturgy in violation of Trent,” when this is in fact not remotely true. I assume you’re referring to the bull Quo Primum, but that was issued seven years after the Council of Trent disbanded, and is not a conciliar document in any way, shape or form. I don’t know how you could possibly even think so. It’s just a disciplinary document from one pope, which Pius V did not consider binding on himself (he changed the Mass the following year), and which no pope, or anyone else, ever considered binding on the pope.

 

[choy]

So what’s the truth about CITH for example?

simple. the Church allows it. if its allowed, then its okay. if the Church then decides to take it away, then we should humbly follow the Church. but don’t make people feel bad for doing what the Church says is a perfectly fine practice today

Or better yet, what’s your favourite argument for Traditionalism?

depends on what Traditionalism is to you. your view on Traditionalism is, “TLM or nothing.” to me that is not what Traditionalism is. remember, there are big T Traditions, and small t traditions. best to understand that we can’t change Traditions, but we can change traditions, and even start new traditions.