Aspirations of those attached to the EF

[Sirach2]

JReducation:

Raymond Arroyo was interviewing someone whose name escapes me. He asked about the possibility of an American being elected to the papacy. The other person responded by saying that the College of Cardinals makes a distinction between American (USA) and American (from the Americas). The possibility of a pope from the USA is remote. The possibility of one from the Americas is plausible.

We in the USA never think of anyone else except ourselves as American. We never think of the other folks on the American continents. Ask anyone.

I’m not sure I agree with this example, Brother. In beauty pagentry, many states will have their own representatives from which a finalist receives the title “Miss USA.” When she goes on to the Miss Universe Pagent, she represents America. OTOH, the candidates from South America are never given the title “Miss South America,” but they identify only by their country, such as Miss Argentina, Miss Brazil, Miss Chile, etc. I have never heard of a South American native identify themselves as Americans. They customarily identify themselves only by their country.

Similarly, those who speak of Americans usually refer only to those who live in the US, as opposed to Canadians who also live in North America. Canadians, like South Americans, identify by their country within N.A. and do not therefore call themselves Americans.

Terminology has specific connotations that muddy the waters whenever we try to reapply identities that are foreign to the general understanding of people.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure I agree with this example, Brother. In beauty pagentry, many states will have their own representatives from which a finalist receives the title “Miss USA.” When she goes on to the Miss Universe Pagent, she represents America. OTOH, the candidates from South America are never given the title “Miss South America,” but they identify only by their country, such as Miss Argentina, Miss Brazil, Miss Chile, etc. I have never heard of a South American native identify themselves as Americans. They customarily identify themselves only by their country.

Similarly, those who speak of Americans usually refer only to those who live in the US, as opposed to Canadians who also live in North America. Canadians, like South Americans, identify by their country within N.A. and do not therefore call themselves Americans.

Terminology has specific connotations that muddy the waters whenever we try to reapply identities that are foreign to the general understanding of people.

Remember, we’re not speaking about what the general public does or say. We’re speaking about the Curia at the Vatican.

In any case, my point was to highlight how one term can have more than one meaning within the Church. Actually, South Americans do resent the “hijacking” of the term American by the USA. They refer to the people from the USA as “Estadounidenses” which essentially means, “United Staters”. I know, it’s a mouthful.

The case is that traditional and traditionalist may be less confusing the having two usages for traditional. Just as using American for people of the USA rather than the people of the Americas.

 

[MrTheosis]

When Pope Benedict wrote of the rightful aspirations of those attached to the EF, he was obviously talking about giving us access to this form of the Mass. But I think it is also a rightful aspiration to want a way to identify ourselves and find others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns.

There is already some history of using the term “traditional Catholics” for those who are attached to the EF. Very often when people do that here on CAF, someone turns up to say that we are all just Catholics and all faithful orthodox Catholics are traditional. Most recently this happened to me in a thread for collecting information about traditional Catholics who are obedient to the Pope. It should have been clear that I was not using the term in a divisive or ill-intentioned way.

Do people have a problem with those who are attached to the EF identifying ourselves and finding others who share our preference in order to discuss our common needs and concerns? Is it not a rightful aspiration? Is there some term that ought to be used instead of “traditional Catholics”? Sometimes this arguing over terminology seems to be used as a way to silence us and that is not appropriate. We are a legitimate movement within the Church and should be allowed to speak.

That in itself is the problem. Not only the need for attention but the division that it causes.

No, I don’t believe it is a “rightful aspiration.” I personally believe it is one born of pride.

There is also the issue of trying to use the moniker “traditional Catholic” to label someone who prefers the EF Mass. I consider myself to be very traditional in my faith but I prefer the OF Mass. There are millions more like me.

 

[Sirach2]

Remember, we’re not speaking about what the general public does or say. We’re speaking about the Curia at the Vatican.

In any case, my point was to highlight how one term can have more than one meaning within the Church. Actually, South Americans do resent the “hijacking” of the term American by the USA. They refer to the people from the USA as “Estadounidenses” which essentially means, “United Staters”. I know, it’s a mouthful.

The case is that traditional and traditionalist may be less confusing than having two usages for traditional. Just as using American for people of the USA rather than the people of the Americas.

This may be true about the South Americans, IDK, but would you also say that Canadians resent the USA people for being called Americans? Why would they resent it the label, when they are a completely different country … even though they live in North AMERICA? No one would think to call them “Americans.” Nor would anyone call Mexicans “Americans” even though they live in Central America.

I get your point, but I think Arroyo used a lame illustration, FWIW. Do individual countries within Europe resent being called Europeans; rather, don’t they and we identify them by their country, such as Germans, French, Italian, etc.?

Traditionalists haven’t much ground to resent non-EF worshippers for “hijacking” their word, since it has not been exclusively used to identify them in past practice. Maybe they would be appeased if the curia would define a word to identify them exclusively. Your idea of Traditionalist, versus “traditional” Catholic may be one that works.

 

[Indyann]

That in itself is the problem. Not only the need for attention but the division that it causes.

No, I don’t believe it is a “rightful aspiration.” I personally believe it is one born of pride.

There is also the issue of trying to use the moniker “traditional Catholic” to label someone who prefers the EF Mass. I consider myself to be very traditional in my faith but I prefer the OF Mass. There are millions more like me.

Exactly. “Latin Mass Catholics” seems like a descriptive label, if they feel the need to label themselves. After all, it is the Mass said in Latin which excludes the rest of us ordinary Catholics from being “traditional”, Traditionalist, according to the OP., It is not tradition that excludes all but Latin Mass attendees, it is the Mass said in Latin.

I know that the ordinary form of the Mass can be said in Latin, so it would appear that those attendees should be allowed in the club of Latin Mass Catholics.

 

[Chatter163]

The issue with the word *American *being used to refer to people of the USA is simply a matter of semantics. While I have occasionally heard Mexicans or other Latin Americans make this complaint, especially in academic circles, it is simply because the term American has more than one meaning. The full name of our country is the United States of America, and the adjective and proper noun denoting its citizens simply reflect that. There is no adjective United Statesian or noun United Stateser, both of which would sound linguistically awkward. For better or worse, American is simply taken from the full name of the country, as is South African.

While Americans are indeed ethnocentric on many issues, I do not see this as one of them. Furthermore, I saw Raymond Arroyo’s interview with Peter Royal, and the point that the latter made was that there is a Canadian cardinal among the papabile, and the question arose as to whether being Canadian and therefore North American would be seen by the cardinals as being very close to being an American from the USA–which carries other issues, such as political and financial influence with the Vatican, etc. Royal also mentioned Brazllian and other South American cardinals as being papabile, but did not see the same issues of proximity in language, culture and geography that he did with the Canadian–USA connection. So even that point was not real;ly related to the issue of Americans perceiving themselves as the “only” Americans.

 

[Sirach2]

Exactly.** “Latin Mass Catholics”** seems like a descriptive label, if they feel the need to label themselves. After all, it is the Mass said in Latin which excludes the rest of us ordinary Catholics from being “traditional”, Traditionalist, according to the OP., It is not tradition that excludes all but Latin Mass attendees, it is the Mass said in Latin.

The more I thought about your post, the more logical it seems. Going back to Melchior’s example of the charismatics, since they were a brand new movement in Catholicism back in 1967, they identified themselves with that which was specific to their movement, renewing the charisms of the Holy Spirit. This, as opposed to another name such as The Holy Spirit movement (for many others could claim that distinction), or Pentecostals (the protestant version), or even *Life in the Spirit-ers. *
In time, the Vatican accepted this identifier and used it when referring to the CCR.

If we consider that the only differentiating factor for “Traditionists” is their love for the EF Latin Mass, it seems a practical designation to call them by something that would distinguish them from other traditional Catholics, who might resent any inference that they are NOT traditional, as well. That seems to be the crux of many arguments that I have read.

So unless the Curia bestows a distinctive name upon this group of Catholics, any title that Floresco, et al, might adopt would be challenged and possibly seen as an affront to others who consider themselves attached to tradition.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I think the movement is legitimate as long as it’s willing to share the space with other legitimate movements in the Church, including those preferring more modern liturgy.

The term itself is problematic because it is misappropriated by other groups in the Church that aren’t legitimate. It’s like the word “gay” which once could be used to define “lighthearted” or “joyful” and has now become a politically-loaded term.

It would therefore help if the Vatican defined this legitimate movement in a way that sets it apart from the movements that use the term and that range from illicit to heretic, and even to groups within the Church that use the term to “protect” themselves from the rest of us or to disparage the modern liturgy.

So it would be helpful if the Vatican helped set parameters for a licit and legitimate “traditionalist” movement within the Church.

A Liturgical tradition with hundreds of years of history is a “movement” while one with less than fifty years, most of those full or Liturgical errors, is the standard? Really?

 

[moon1234]

Bob, you will not win. Being attracted to the EF and publically saying say will get you labeled as either “Traditionalist”, “Latin Mass Catholic”, “Traditional Catholic”, “Vatican II opposer”, etc.

If the Novus Order was said as VII intended the only parts that would NOT be in Latin would be the proper prayers (Readings, Gospel, Collect, etc.). The rest would all be in Latin. The priest would fact East towards God and not towards the people. The rubrics talk of turning towards the people during certain parts of the Mass. How is that possible when the Priest is facing the people 100% of the time.

These are all externalities though. There are outward differences that many people glom on to and say if only the NO was said this way or if only the EF was in English then we would not have these issues.

Many poeple who choose to attend the EF Mass do so because of the substance of the prayers and the type of spirituality that is connected with the EF. Ove 70% of the prayers were changed/removed/replaced in the N.O. when it came out. The idea that it is only Latin or some other external trapping that people are attached to shows how little people know of the EF.

This is treading into comparing one form with the other though, which is against the rules on CAF. This is why it is going to be hard to discuss the EF in the manner this thread is going. It naturally leads down the “comparing” road.

 

[jwinch2]

Many poeple who choose to attend the EF Mass do so because of the substance of the prayers and the type of spirituality that is connected with the EF. Ove 70% of the prayers were changed/removed/replaced in the N.O. when it came out. The idea that it is only Latin or some other external trapping that people are attached to shows how little people know of the EF.

Fair points, in my view. Thanks for sharing them.

For purposes of clarity, it might be important to note that (assuming these sources are accurate) this is not the first time this has happened.

Prior to the pontificate of Pope Gregory the Great, significant changes in the Mass were implemented to the point that there was a “complete recasting of the Canon” (a term that in this context means the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer), “… the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Liturgy of the Mass”), the number of Scripture readings was reduced, the prayers of the faithful were omitted (leaving, however, the “Oremus” that once introduced them), the kiss of peace was moved to after the Consecration, and there was a growing tendency to vary, in reference to the feast or season, the prayers, the Preface, and even the Canon.
newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass

There is some thinking that early Western prayers when it comes to within or outside of the Mass have traditionally been shorter and simpler than our Eastern brothers and sisters and that the changes made in the OF from the EF reflect that heritage to some extent. I will try to track down a source on that and supply it. Regardless, it is clear that large changes to the prayers of the Mass have been made before in Church history. Whether this is good or bad is certainly up for debate, but it is hardly unique nonetheless.

Peace of Christ,

 

[moon1234]

Hi Jason,

What you are referring to is VERY different than what happened recently. If we look to the past we see an organic development of the liturgy and integration of the prayers. Some of the prayers in the EF go back to the 3rd century and before.

It was not just the Mass that had a radical change, it was the divine office as well. Before VII the Divine office was integrated with the Mass and the calendar. It all had a very harmonious organazation to it. The current LOTH in MOST cases does not match with the current calendar or the Mass is most cases. It is almost like it was haphazardly put together.

The Church through her whole history from the very begining has slowly developed and integrated the prayers and liturgy with the calendar. There have been some additions and deletions from the calendar and minor changes in the Mass, but never such a huge change in almost every aspect of the Church such as what happened after VII. I might add that VII never called for this level of change either.

The attraction to the EF for many, including me, is it’s stability and centuries old slow development. It has a calming effect, for me, to know that the Mass I am attending is essentially the same as 90% of the saints in Church history. It is a connection to the past.

Should the EF be frozen in time? Well I think adding some saints to calendar is overdue, but wholesale changes/tinkering should be off limits.

As I said before the externalities, smells and bells if you will, can exist in both the OF and the EF and be very similar. This is only the surface though. What lies underneath, the meat and potatoes to use another analogy, is very different. If you only go to Mass on Sunday and Holy Days, then none of that “meat and potatoes” will be apparent to you.

I choose to attend the EF because it is a spiritual attraction for me. I no longer try to debate what “traditional” means with other people. Anyone who know me, knows what traditional means. I am pretty sure that others know as well, but just don’t like “us” using the word.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

 

[OraLabora]

A Liturgical tradition with hundreds of years of history is a “movement” while one with less than fifty years, most of those full or Liturgical errors, is the standard? Really?

I’m not sure what you are responding to in my post.

The Church has spoken on what is the “ordinary” Liturgy, the LOTH and the OF Mass (or in some cases a Monastic LOTH, and the OF Mass). The extraordinary form is the Roman Breviary and the EF Mass (or in some cases, in some monasteries, the Monastic Breviary and the OF Mass).

Note that there are no “errors” inherent to the OF liturgy. There are often errors by some executing the OF liturgy. And I’ve been to plenty of error-free OF liturgies, both spoken and chanted, in the vernacular and in Latin (oh, well, occasionally a monk will make a mistake and take the reading from the wrong year, or something like that, but not deliberately).

Oddly, I went to Ash Wednesday Mass this morning at a place that has a 1500 year tradition, a Benedictine abbey. The Mass was in the OF. It was entirely chanted, Gregorian propers and ordinary, French plainchant for the rest. Same chants as at the EF really. So I don’t see your issue with the lack of liturgical continuity.

I’m quite certain that if the Church decided that the EF form was suddenly to become normative, the priests that take liberties with the current OF would do the same with the Tridentine Rite. Or do you somehow think that the EF is some sort of magic cure for rebelliousness? The rubrics don’t allow for much wiggle room, but on the other hand if you’re going to breach the rubrics anyway, that doesn’t make much difference (of course exercising the legitimate choices in the OF rubrics is not “error”).

I bet the EF has plenty of errors. The rubrics micro-manage the Mass to such an extent that even the pattern and number of swings of the censer when censing the altar is specified (I have an old ceremonial at home). Lots of places to make mistakes, but I suspect most folks just don’t notice.

 

[OraLabora]

It was not just the Mass that had a radical change, it was the divine office as well. Before VII the Divine office was integrated with the Mass and the calendar. It all had a very harmonious organazation to it. The current LOTH in MOST cases does not match with the current calendar or the Mass is most cases. It is almost like it was haphazardly put together.

I don’t agree. The Divine Office underwent radical change in 1910 under Pius X. In fact that reform set many of the precedents for the 1970 reforms. The 1910 Divine Office resembled nothing that ever came before it, and it was certainly not an “organic development”. The week went from 250 to 150 psalms. Psalms were split into equal lengths requiring new antiphons for which there was no melody in the Gregorian repertory, requiring composition of “neo-Gregorian” pieces of dubious quality. The Laudate psalms as a block at Lauds were split up (ps. 140, 149 and 150). It caused as much controversy then as the LOTH did 60 years later.

I’m not sure what you’re saying about the current LOTH not matching. What is it that doesn’t match? I pray the LOTH in Gregorian chant; the antiphons certainly follow the liturgical year; the Sunday antiphons for the Gospel Canticles are matched to years A, B and C. The Sunday collects are identical to the ones at Sunday Mass. The weekday collects for Lauds and Vespers can licitly be replaced by the Sunday collects. The collects for the saints are the same as at the Mass. The psalm order follows, to a significant extent, a “lectio continua” of the psalms which is a deep tradition going back to St. Benedict; Vespers psalms in the last week of the 4-week cycle come entirely from the monastic cursus (1500 y.o!). The proper antiphons for the chanted Office come from the (very ancient) Monastic Antiphonary for the seasons. Most antiphons follow the tradition of either taking a psalm verse or announcing the theme of the psalm.

There’s nothing haphazard about the LOTH if you actually take the time to study it in depth. Yes some compromises have been made. Yes some choices I don’t like (I’d rather a third psalm than the NT canticle at Vespers and a 2-week cycle as a result). On the other hand many traditions have been kept, at least if you use legitimate options.

The LOTH also has helped busy diocesan clergy in an era of declining vocations.

Finally, it has been a great gift to the laity. For the first time, the laity were encouraged to pray the hours, and moreover the breviary was made within easy reach for them. As a busy professional who spends 3 hours per day on the road commuting 3x per week, I think the LOTH is wonderful.

There is also BTW, a much better 2-year lectionary that can be used with the LOTH (licitly), for the Office of Readings. I don’t know of an English source; I’m using a French version published by the monks of Solesmes. The biblical references are in the back of the LOTH.

 

[jwinch2]

Hi Jason,

What you are referring to is VERY different than what happened recently. If we look to the past we see an organic development of the liturgy and integration of the prayers. Some of the prayers in the EF go back to the 3rd century and before.

I agree to a point. There are historical precedents for many things done in the EF, but from what I have seen, the changes in the years prior to Gregory the Great are bigger than you are acknowledging.

It was not just the Mass that had a radical change, it was the divine office as well. Before VII the Divine office was integrated with the Mass and the calendar. It all had a very harmonious organazation to it. The current LOTH in MOST cases does not match with the current calendar or the Mass is most cases. It is almost like it was haphazardly put together.

The Church through her whole history from the very begining has slowly developed and integrated the prayers and liturgy with the calendar. There have been some additions and deletions from the calendar and minor changes in the Mass, but never such a huge change in almost every aspect of the Church such as what happened after VII. I might add that VII never called for this level of change either.

I don’t have the historical knowledge to speculate on how the LOTH has developed over time. I know the basics regarding the development of the Monastic Office, but I leave the rest to others.

The attraction to the EF for many, including me, is it’s stability and centuries old slow development. It has a calming effect, for me, to know that the Mass I am attending is essentially the same as 90% of the saints in Church history. It is a connection to the past.

I don’t begrudge you that all. It is my wish that every Catholic who finds themselves spiritually satisfied by the EF of the Mass have ready access to it. I believe that Pope Benedict’s steps in this direction were a wonderful thing for the Church.

Should the EF be frozen in time? Well I think adding some saints to calendar is overdue, but wholesale changes/tinkering should be off limits.

Agreed.

As I said before the externalities, smells and bells if you will, can exist in both the OF and the EF and be very similar. This is only the surface though. What lies underneath, the meat and potatoes to use another analogy, is very different. If you only go to Mass on Sunday and Holy Days, then none of that “meat and potatoes” will be apparent to you.

Agreed to a point. I believe that there are many things in the OF of the Mass which can be done to increase that understanding. If the Mass is celebrated properly to include use of the propers, etc. then those things will start to manifest themselves. If not, then they won’t.

I choose to attend the EF because it is a spiritual attraction for me. I no longer try to debate what “traditional” means with other people. Anyone who know me, knows what traditional means. I am pretty sure that others know as well, but just don’t like “us” using the word.

I fully support your decision to attend the EF of the Mass and I am happy that you are in a place where you have access to it. I have tried it myself and it just has not clicked for me. Perhaps in the future it will, and if so, I will be a happy man. However, I am not there at this time. Quite frankly, I do not believe the majority of Catholics will ever be there, even ones who sincerely desire to learn and express their faith properly.

 

[floresco]

If I may use an example of something that I saw on EWTN, I think that it may help.

Raymond Arroyo was interviewing someone whose name escapes me. He asked about the possibility of an American being elected to the papacy. The other person responded by saying that the College of Cardinals makes a distinction between American (USA) and American (from the Americas). The possibility of a pope from the USA is remote. The possibility of one from the Americas is plausible.

We in the USA never think of anyone else except ourselves as American. We never think of the other folks on the American continents. Ask anyone.

I believe this is the issue here with the term “Traditional Catholic.” I can be applied to those who are attached to the EF, but it can also be applied to those who are very orthodox Catholics and never set foot in a Tridentine Mass.

If we were to use the term Traditionalist, that seems more clear to me. For example, among clergy and religious, we speak about the Traditionalists, not the Traditional institutes. FSSP would be a Traditionalist institute. Observe the use of the upper case. It’s being used as a proper modifier, just as one would say American. Whereas traditional is not a proper modifier. It’s more global.

We often use the term traditional to refer to those things, practices and people who are part of a culture, in this case Catholicism. I see Traditionalist referring to a very specific group within Catholic tradition. I can’t compare Traditionalist to any other existing group, because this is very new. The movement doesn’t really have a counterpart. It’s very young.

It would be inappropriate to say that Traditionalist carries the same meaning as Benedictine. It does not. One can be both, Benedictine and Traditionalist. Therefore, they can’t be in the same subset, anymore than you can be Franciscan and Benedictine. It’s either F or B. Whereas one can be a traditional Catholic without being a Traditionalist.

A Traditionalist is always going to be traditional, but not the other way around. Just as an American is always going to be North American, but not the other way around.

I do post on Sundays during Lent so I would like to respond to this now.

I get what you and others are saying about not wanting “traditional Catholic” to be used to identify those attached to the EF. I only attended the EF for the first time in 2007 but I have any affinity for the traditions of the Church for decades. I have been drawn to practices which gave me a sense of connection to my ancestors in faith from my earliest years as a Catholic. I probably would have wanted to call myself a “traditional Catholic” then (if I had heard of the term) and resented it if a group of Catholics took over the term and said it did not include me.

I can see that “Traditionalist” is the term that makes sense for use in this forum. It was used by Thomas Casey in what is, in some sense, a foundational document for the TC sub-forum. Speaking personally, it would be a bit of an adjustment for me to use that term. In my experience, those attached to the EF who accept the authority of the Pope tend to use the term “traditional Catholic” and those who reject it tend to call themselves “Traditionalists.” Since I feel very strongly about this, I have spent the last few years making a point of not calling myself a “Traditionalist.”

However I think it is worth overcoming my discomfort with the term if this sub-forum can have an agreed upon name for Catholics who are attached to the EF. There are enough obstacles to communication among Catholics without this constant confusion over labels. I am happy to make a small sacrifice if it can lead to better understanding among us.

There is a post in this thread which claims that merely wanting a name to identify ourselves shows that we are attention-seekers, divisive, and proud. Unfortunately this comment was not an an isolated incident. I have often seen such claims directed at Catholics attached to the EF, simply for speaking of ourselves as a distinctive group within the Church. These accusations are far more destructive to unity and good-will than any label could be. Labels do not have to be bad things at all. Used properly they can be an aid to clarity and perhaps even to charity.

The priest made a comment in today’s homily that I think many here will appreciate. He was speaking on the Lenten theme of recognizing our own sinfulness. He said, “Just because we attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, does not make us extraordinary Catholics.” I’m thinking that perhaps we should make this our motto.

 

[jwinch2]

The priest made a comment in today’s homily that I think many here will appreciate. He was speaking on the Lenten theme of recognizing our own sinfulness. He said, “Just because we attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, does not make us extraordinary Catholics.” I’m thinking that perhaps we should make this our motto.

That’s pretty good. If I attended the EF, I would consider stealing that for my signature block.

Peace,