Argumentation in Favor of Traditionalism

[ErichK]

This is taken from an Orthodox Christian pamphlet I have in my library, but I found it extremely relevant and applicable to Catholicism. The pamphlet is titled “Orthodox Tradition and Modernism” by Constantine Cavarnos, as translated by Patrick G. Barker, published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Copyright 1992.

I’m no longer an advocate of the Schismatic Orthodox Church, but I have still held onto all of my literature from those days in order to be better versed in what I argue against when I advocate Catholicism. Please note that I am not promoting the Orthodox Church, but I am taking a few excerpts from a pamphlet which I found relevant to Catholicism. Nowhere in here is there anything included which will attempt to debunk the Holy Mother Church or etc. Only modernism. I have bolded the text I found to be of utmost importance.

From “What Sacred Tradition Is” P. 8-9

In order to understand what Sacred Tradition is, right from the beginning we must distinguish it from the various kinds of human traditions. Sacred tradition originates from God, it is a divine revelation, whereas human traditions originate from mankind, are products of the human mind. Christ Himself explicitly distinguishes these two kinds of tradition, the Divine and the human, when He disapproves of the Scribes and Pharisees, because they disregard the Divine Tradition, the Divine Teaching, while they observe human traditions, saying: “Ye leave the commandments of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” Mark 7:8. And the Apostle Paul clearly distinguishes these two kinds of tradition when he advises the Colossians saying: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8; also when he says to the Thessalonians: “Now we command you, brethren…that ye keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that ye received from us.” 2. Thessalonians 3:6. From these passages, as also from others, the distinction between Sacred Tradition and human tradition is clear, as is the placing of Sacred Tradition on an incomparably higher level than human tradition. They put forward Sacred Tradition as a Divine and consequently sure guide to our life, while on the contrary, they demote human tradition. They proclaim that we should always observe Sacred Tradition, whereas we should break human tradition, which is composed of human teachings and customs, whenever it is opposed to Sacred Tradition. … It was given to men by God, whether directly, by the God-man, or indirectly, through the Prophets and the Apostles. The Incomparable superiority of Sacred Tradition is due to its revelatory character.

Also see:

“Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15

From “About Modernism” P. 15-16

…This demonstrates the ignorance which the heterodox [modernist, in this regard] customarily have about the true essence of Christianity, and shows to what degree they confuse the revealed faith with the different worldly systems, with the different human contrivances and creations. Since in the crafts and the sciences there is a continuous development and perfection, they think that the same thing ought to happen in the Christian religion, that here, too, should there be a continuous revision, change, and replacement of the old by the new – in a word, “modernization.” Look at Christianity rationalistically, they misunderstand its revelatory character and demote it to the level of the systems which the mind of man has formed on the basis of reason and the observations of the five senses.

…

If Strict perseverance in Tradition does not entail the deadening of the Church, but on the contrary is absolutely necessary for the preservation and fruitfulness of the life of the Church, as much again the disregard for and even partial abandonment of Tradition entails the slackening of her life and her gradual decomposition.

…

Protestantism, having denied the unwritten Tradition, was quickly divided into different confessions, and they again into others, and so on, so that there exist today countless [25,000+] Protestant confessional groups, called “Churches,” a result of the different innovations and adaptations to each “contemporary spirit.”

 

[seanflynn]

What are some examples of “modern Catholicism” that put human tradition before the revealed Sacred Tradition?

 

[spencer2]

i’d like to know myself.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

There are reasons to change things.

For example, with modern technology we can now have Mass for shut-ins on TV, we have microphones for the speakers at Mass so all can hear the Word, and we have Internet to discuss our faith. If we were strictly for tradition, we should send our correspondence snail mail rather than use Internet, and forget about forums such as these.

I bought the part about where traditions are necessary for the Church to remain alive. I say this because somebody has to keep the Good News protected from being rewritten by each generation. The things the Church has done are not always pretty, but they resulted in keeping the Bible message intact for all generations to date.

As far as Protestantism and tradition, I don’t think it’s whether they broke with tradition in the sense that they honored only old ways of doing things, but in that they didn’t believe in what was going on at the time in church history. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Yes, and like the others I’m hoping to hear examples of what you are talking about. (Probably should have waited on that before I opined. )

Alan

 

[oldsinnner]

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

sspx.org/

 

[Ockham]

One of the best arguments for traditionalism I’ve seen is the papal Oath Against Modernism.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

 

[scylla]

One of the examples of Modernism is the feeling of many liturgists to keep the Mass relevant, you will see this in the constant seeking of ways to engage the people at Mass. It is a thought that usually focuses on what is popular will bring people instead of a focus on truth it is a focus on relevance.

For example, many of you are pretty familiar with a folk Mass, or something similar to this. You can see an example of this type thinking in that movie where Elvis is singing at Mass with a guitar in entertainment fashion, from the 70’s…
Here is a link. Change of Habit

If you attend any Catechist\Liturgy class in my diocese and you read Pascendi (Pascendi dominici gregis), you can learn a whole lot about modernism. Here is a good website which explains it in some more clear language. Fr Larry’s Blog, (excellent blog)

In Christ
Scylla

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is taken from an Orthodox Christian pamphlet I have in my library, but I found it extremely relevant and applicable to Catholicism. The pamphlet is titled “Orthodox Tradition and Modernism” by Constantine Cavarnos, as translated by Patrick G. Barker, published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Copyright 1992.

I’m no longer an advocate of the Schismatic Orthodox Church, but I have still held onto all of my literature from those days in order to be better versed in what I argue against when I advocate Catholicism. Please note that I am not promoting the Orthodox Church, but I am taking a few excerpts from a pamphlet which I found relevant to Catholicism. Nowhere in here is there anything included which will attempt to debunk the Holy Mother Church or etc. Only modernism. I have bolded the text I found to be of utmost importance.

From “What Sacred Tradition Is” P. 8-9

Also see:

“Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15

From “About Modernism” P. 15-16

beautyfully done! i coudnt agree more.

modernism have penetrated the Church in full force, and it is destroying the Faith, the Tradition giving by God. there is a great attempt to separate the Church from our ancestrals. many in the Church have no sense of what the Church is and what she represents here on earth.
take for instance, i remember in the past, women could not marry in the Church in White Dress, unless she was a virgen. people respected that. now and days, they couldnt careless, everything goes. half dress, minimal covering of the body, women have lost the sense of holiness in the Church and how to approach the Sanctuary. to them it is just another place just any other. we have lost the sense that the Church is to be different from the world.

 

[Ockham]

One of the examples of Modernism is the feeling of many liturgists to keep the Mass relevant, you will see this in the constant seeking of ways to engage the people at Mass. It is a thought that usually focuses on what is popular will bring people instead of a focus on truth it is a focus on relevance.

Good point. Of course the flaw in this approach is our society’s limited attention span. By approaching the liturgy from the viewpoint of the congregation and not God it succumbs to the whims and trends of the day. When worships becomes about us it takes on our flaws and limitations.

 

[Miss_Linda]

beautyfully done! i coudnt agree more.

modernism have penetrated the Church in full force, and it is destroying the Faith, the Tradition giving by God. there is a great attempt to separate the Church from our ancestrals. many in the Church have no sense of what the Church is and what she represents here on earth.
take for instance, i remember in the past, women could not marry in the Church in White Dress, unless she was a virgen. people respected that. now and days, they couldnt careless, everything goes. half dress, minimal covering of the body, women have lost the sense of holiness in the Church and how to approach the Sanctuary. to them it is just another place just any other. we have lost the sense that the Church is to be different from the world.

Amen! Excellent post, WisdomSeeker!

 

[seanflynn]

One of the examples of Modernism is the feeling of many liturgists to keep the Mass relevant, you will see this in the constant seeking of ways to engage the people at Mass. It is a thought that usually focuses on what is popular will bring people instead of a focus on truth it is a focus on relevance.

I understand this point. Liturgists obviously have some influence on the Church as a whole, especially how Mass is celebrated, but they are definitely the minority of actual Catholics (what, maybe 1/1000 of Catholic adults?) But what revealed Tradition does a folk Mass contradict? I feel like this question may make you want to pull your hair out in frustration, but the answer isn’t that obvious to me, so humor me.

I do agree that the Truth is always going to be more relevant to every person in every pew than any idea originating from any parish employee.

So is it a better course of action to out-influence these liturgists thoughout the Church, or try to oust them from their parish roles, or let them have some parishes while we keep ours?

 

[Ockham]

I But what revealed Tradition does a folk Mass contradict? I feel like this question may make you want to pull your hair out in frustration, but the answer isn’t that obvious to me, so humor me.

How about Apostolic? The parish liturgist should be the priest who gets his orders from the bishop who in turn answers to the Vatican. Once the laity get involved with novelty and variations that chain of command, (originating from Matthew 16) is broken.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Amen! Excellent post, WisdomSeeker!

Thank you.

God bless you.

 

[choy]

we should be humble enough to accept the direction the Church is taking. this reminds me of Jews vs. Gentile Christians in the first century. Jews wants to cling to their Jewish traditions, demanding that Gentiles get circumcised among other things. what did the Apostles do? they abolished that tradition. i’m pretty sure for a while there were Jewish Christians who were angered by this, same as some Traditionalists today are angered by the change in direction. but ultimately we must submit ourselves to the Church, including its decisions in the direction it is taking. as Christians do we want to be looking at each other picking out whats wrong with what one does and think one is better because of the perceived value of a practice or tradition?

i’d like to share this beautiful post by Bro. JR on another thread, which applies to this OF vs EF discussion and what should be our action and reaction to this issue and the situation we’re in

It is true that we live in a world of conspiracies, some real and others imagined. However, human beings have the right to their good name and to the gift of life. To get back to the topic of this thread, to denounce someone is to attack their good name. This is contrary to the law of justice. Therefore, it constitutes of grave act of disobedience to the Will of God.

As I always tell our Franciscan Brothers of Life, “Never forget Christ’s last prayer for humanity. ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ “ Christ’s last dying act was not to denounce, but to pray for forgiveness on behalf of those who do not ask for forgiveness on their own. Only when we learn to pray for those whom we believe have sinned or for those who have actually sinned, will we be one step closer to becoming like the Crucified Christ.

I tell the Franciscan Brothers of Life that the object of their life as brothers is not to complain and condemn, but to achieve sanctity by embracing the cross, as our Holy Father Francis embraced it. When a Brother of Life looks at the cross, he does not see condemnation on the faces of Jesus and Mary. He sees compassion. We have in our chapel the icon of San Damiano, which is a copy of the one that spoke to St. Francis. I often sit there for hours and look at its face. There is something wonderful about it.

Jesus is not hanging his head with his eyes closed. Instead he is looking straight at me with his eyes wide open, almost as if to say, “I’m here for you. This is my life that I give so that you may bring life to others.” Condemnation always precedes execution, not life. As a Brother of Life, Christ has called me to share the life that he has given up for me, not to condemn those for whom that life is intended.

To go about condemning, judging, criticizing, comparing what need not be compared, is contrary to the cross. The cross was the site of great compassion, forgiveness, generosity, understanding, and hope for humanity. Jesus gives his mother a fallen humanity as her children, because he trusts that humanity will rise to the occasion. There is no way that he would give his mother dead children. He gives her children that have great potential. He makes her the mother of children who are gifted with life, his life, the life that pours out of his side shortly after he says, “It is finished.”

As a Brother of Life, my obedience must shine through by complying with the will of the Father at Calvary. It was the Father’s will that all may have life and have it in abundance. The only way that could happen was to pour it upon humanity from the side of Christ. That’s why we see water and blood. Water and blood are life sustaining forces. When we transmit that life to others, rather than condemn them, when he hope and pray for that life to become visible in others, rather than hold them suspect of every malevolent thing that happens in the world or the Church, then we are obeying the Will of the Father. It is the Father’s will that all may live, even those who have sinned. We should Will nothing else for our brothers and sisters, except Life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

but ultimately we must submit ourselves to the Church, including its decisions in the direction it is taking.

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.

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

 

[PaulinVA]

" scylla:

                 [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6739230#post6739230)                 
             *One of the examples of Modernism is  the feeling of many liturgists to keep the Mass relevant, you will see  this in the constant seeking of ways to engage the people at Mass.  It  is a thought that usually focuses on what is popular will bring people  instead of a focus on truth it is a focus on relevance.*

What is the opposite of relevant?

I agree that the Truth must be preached with fervor.
Ockam:

Good point. Of course the flaw in this approach is our society’s limited attention span. By approaching the liturgy from the viewpoint of the congregation and not God it succumbs to the whims and trends of the day. When worships becomes about us it takes on our flaws and limitations.

But isn’t your personal preference to return to the past about you? Do you really think that God prefers Latin? Do you really think He sees girls as altar servers and shakes His head?

How about Apostolic? The parish liturgist should be the priest who gets his orders from the bishop who in turn answers to the Vatican. Once the laity get involved with novelty and variations that chain of command, (originating from Matthew 16) is broken.

Everything you say is absolutely true. Except the last part. The clergy is presiding at these Masses where you say the evil liturgists are promulgating all of these bad things. The clergy could stop it in a heartbeat. Did you ever think the liturgist could be following the direction of the pastor?

Ockham:

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.

This makes no sense to me at all. The Church did take the direction we’ve been moving. The Church moves with the clergy, not the other way around. All of the things you abhor about the Church in the 21st Century were perpetrated by the Bishops and their Priests. To think otherwise is to deny the basic organizational structure of the Church.

Nothing goes on in a parish without the implicit or tacit approval of the Pastor.

 

[Ockham]

But isn’t your personal preference to return to the past about you? Do you really think that God prefers Latin? Do you really think He sees girls as altar servers and shakes His head?

Prior to the 'spirit of V2" we didn’t have this concept of “personal preference”. The Church stated that Latin was to be given a “pride of preference” so yes I do think God prefers it.

Everything you say is absolutely true. Except the last part. The clergy is presiding at these Masses where you say the evil liturgists are promulgating all of these bad things. The clergy could stop it in a heartbeat. Did you ever think the liturgist could be following the direction of the pastor?

In a perfect world this would be true. The reality is when laity make enough of a fuss, the bishop is pressured into acquiescence.

This makes no sense to me at all. The Church did take the direction we’ve been moving. The Church moves with the clergy, not the other way around. All of the things you abhor about the Church in the 21st Century were perpetrated by the Bishops and their Priests. To think otherwise is to deny the basic organizational structure of the Church.

Nothing goes on in a parish without the implicit or tacit approval of the Pastor.

Really? Could you show me where in the documents of V2 it asks for a new Mass, CITH, EMHCs, girl altar servers, venacular, ad populus, the removal of altar rails, the punting to the side of tabernacles, clamshell church architecture, etc, etc, etc?

 

[PaulinVA]

Dear Ockam,

I think that saying God prefers Latin is an indefensible position. It’s just a language. Now, if you said that Latin binds the Catholic people of God together, across the world and across time, I would agree with you. But that doesn’t make it a superior language to worship the Lord wth.

The central theme of your reply to me is that the laity have taken over the Church, and the Bishops and Cardinals are cowering in their places of residence, afraid to come out and afraid to speak. That describes approximately zero of the Bishops and Cardinals of the Church, wouldn’t you agree?

It doesn’t matter what document some “innovation” that you disagree with appeared in, if any at all. The basic unit of the Church is the Diocese, and it is ruled by a Bishop. What the Bishop says goes. What the Church does, through it’s ordained representatives, is bound on earth and in heaven.

Now, some Bishops are more liberal than others, some priests more “innovative” than others. But they are responsible for where we are today.

And, where the Church is today is where the Church is. I don’t like everything. I’m really rather disillusioned right now. But, this is the Church. It needs revival precisely because all of the things we dislike, that have led to a lack of reverence, have been endorsed by the Church, and are therefore what the Church sanctions right now.

 

[Timothysis]

Dear Ockam,

I think that saying God prefers Latin is an indefensible position. It’s just a language. Now, if you said that Latin binds the Catholic people of God together, across the world and across time, I would agree with you. But that doesn’t make it a superior language to worship the Lord wth.

The central theme of your reply to me is that the laity have taken over the Church, and the Bishops and Cardinals are cowering in their places of residence, afraid to come out and afraid to speak. That describes approximately zero of the Bishops and Cardinals of the Church, wouldn’t you agree?

It doesn’t matter what document some “innovation” that you disagree with appeared in, if any at all. The basic unit of the Church is the Diocese, and it is ruled by a Bishop. What the Bishop says goes. What the Church does, through it’s ordained representatives, is bound on earth and in heaven.

Now, some Bishops are more liberal than others, some priests more “innovative” than others. But they are responsible for where we are today.

And, where the Church is today is where the Church is. I don’t like everything. I’m really rather disillusioned right now. But, this is the Church. It needs revival precisely because all of the things we dislike, that have led to a lack of reverence, have been endorsed by the Church, and are therefore what the Church sanctions right now.

Excellent post, sir.

 

[Ockham]

The basic unit of the Church is the Diocese, and it is ruled by a Bishop. What the Bishop says goes. What the Church does, through it’s ordained representatives, is bound on earth and in heaven.

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?

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.

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?