Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[Aramis]

From the 3rd-4th century up until the 1962 Missal, we had a single unified Roman Rite. Even the transitory 1965 Missal did not constitute a new rite. But the 1970 Missal did because it broke with tradition and re-wrote the Mass. So yes, too many changes in too many different areas, it was an assault on the patrimony of the Church and, in essence, on the faith. Bugnini & Co. committed numerous sins against the faith and charity by developing the New Mass. So yes, they should not have made those changes.

not entirely true; The Dominican Rite is literally a 12th Century Roman Missal with a different calendar development. The Dalmatian has been, since institution, the Roman in Slavonic. The Ambrosian Rite is a close spur from the Roman. All of these are essentially Roman.

The “Single Unified Roman Rite” NEVER was… at all points, there have been multiple western rites in use. Until Trent, every Archbishop had a unique variation of either the Roman Celtic, or Galican basal liturgy, with varying variances by region.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I converted two years ago because I wanted to be Catholic. I understood that the Catholic Church was THE Church that Jesus founded. I understood because of that I must follow the dictates of the Church.

Which is true but bishops and popes are people too and infallible only in rare circumstances. They have authority and jurisdiction but it is also never allowable to obey something that you know is a sin (“I was just following orders” is never an excuse) nor to accept something as true which has been condemned or is contrary to what has been affirmed. Even when they are wrong, bishops are due our respect because of their office. We must respect the office even if the man is problematic, to use a secular example, I have serious problems with Obama (/Bush/Clinton/etc) but he is still the President and I have to respect his office.

Our absolute duty is to God, of course, and the proximate way we have to follow God is to adhere to the Catholic tradition. The bishops (incl. the pope) are only right insofar as they adhere to the Catholic tradition. If they deny or contradict the tradition by word or example, they are wrong and should not be followed. So we must follow the teachings of the Church, but that means the whole Church, stretching back 2,000 years, not just the present Magisterium. There is a balance between disregarding everything the bishop or the pope says and treating it all like Gospel truth. Radical traditionalists (e.g. sedes) and radical liberals (/progressives/modernists/etc) both tend towards the first, Novus Ordo Conservatives (neoconservatives) tend towards the second; as always, orthodoxy is usually found in the mean.

I thought Vatican II was in the tradition of the Councils of the Church (i.e., Council of Nicea 325AD).

Well, there was one major difference between the two, Vatican II didn’t formally define or condemn anything.
Cardinal Ratzinger:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

Vatican II did not define anything, the only truly authoritative teachings of Vatican II are those things which had already been defined by the Church. Where it is wrong or ambiguous, that is still a possibility.

I guess I am naive, but I thought the changes not misunderstandings or misuse, or any other mis-, should be followed.

But many people (Msgr. Gamber, Cards. Ottoviani & Bacci, Card. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, etc.) have said that the development of the New Rite is a misappropriation of Vatican II, that it is not what SC had in mind. Indeed, a proposed liturgy nearly identical with the New Mass was rejected by the Council.

Gamber argues that the proper implementation of SC would be something more like what is colloquially called the “1965 Missal”. I’m not suggesting that the 1965 Missal is better than the 1962 and in many ways it was problematic, but it was still in the same tradition as we had been celebrating for 1500 years rather than the totally new rite developed five years later. Here is the text of the Ordinary of the 1965 Missal.

(cont.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(Cont.)

I also thought the Mass was originally changed to Latin from Greek so the ordinary people could understand. So a change from Latin to any vernacular (in our case, English) would make sense.

Except the people still didn’t speak Latin then either and few people were educated enough to understand Latin. The transition from Greek to Latin in the Roman Rite did not have to do with the people’s understanding of the prayers being prayed but rather an advancement of Roman culture over Greek. The transition was a slow one and it did not change all at once, some parts stayed in Greek longer than others.

There is some importance in having a sacred language. Jews pray in Hebrew even if they don’t speak it, Hindus use Sanskrit, (Theravada) Buddhists use Pali, a Muslim coworker at my old job immigrated from Pakistan and admitted that he cheated his way through Arabic class (he said he can read the script but he knows few words of it) but all Muslims use Arabic for their prayers, the Greeks (Catholic and Orthodox) use Koine Greek, other Eastern Rites (again, Catholic and Orthodox) use Church Slavonic. I could go on. Even in English, the (traditional) Anglicans use Elizabethan English not common English. It is important to have a liturgical language to distinguish the sacred and the profane and to veil the sacred in mystery. Even many Protestants who have their liturgy in the vernacular have an attachment to the King James Version of the Bible and it’s Elizabethan style. Sacred languages are a universal need.
Council of Trent:

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord’s days and festivals.

ibid:

In order that the faithful people may approach to the reception of the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of mind, the holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, that, not only when they are themselves about to administer them to the people, they shall first explain, in a manner suited to the capacity of those who receive them, the efficacy and use of those sacraments, but shall endeavour that the same be done piously and prudently by every parish priest; and this even in the vernacular tongue, if need be, and it can be conveniently done; and in accordance with the form which will be prescribed for each of the sacraments, by the holy Synod, in a catechism which the bishops shall take care to have faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue, and to have expounded to the people by all parish priests; as also that, during the solemnization of mass, or the celebration of the divine offices, they explain, in the said vulgar tongue, on all festivals, or solemnities, the sacred oracles, and the maxims of salvation; and that, setting aside all unprofitable questions, they endeavour to impress them on the hearts of all, and to instruct them in the law of the Lord.

Vatican II:

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.

ibid:

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Latin never goes out of style…

 

[palmas85]

You are right. I do not believe it in the least, just like I do not believe he was manic in any way. For example, at no point did the Venerable John Paul II state that ecumenism was superior to doctrinal differences, or that reconcilliation was just a matter of the heart. He himself frequented confession. If you have any evidence, please feel free to correct me.

I have to say that Mike may have made a good point. Even though the late Holy Father never explicitly used those terms as you said, his actions truly spoke otherwise. I really don’t think that can be argued against too strenuously. I notice that you only addressed the ecumenism angle. What about the other areas?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I have to say that Mike may have made a good point. Even though the late Holy Father never explicitly used those terms as you said, his actions truly spoke otherwise. I really don’t think that can be argued against too strenuously. I notice that you only addressed the ecumenism angle. What about the other areas?

Pray tell, what are your thoughts about the prayer meeting at Assisi? or visiting the Mosque?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

not entirely true; The Dominican Rite is literally a 12th Century Roman Missal with a different calendar development. The Dalmatian has been, since institution, the Roman in Slavonic. The Ambrosian Rite is a close spur from the Roman. All of these are essentially Roman.

The “Single Unified Roman Rite” NEVER was… at all points, there have been multiple western rites in use. Until Trent, every Archbishop had a unique variation of either the Roman Celtic, or Galican basal liturgy, with varying variances by region.

Up until the 1970’s there was also the Carmeltie rite which was from the 13th century.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Up until the 1970’s there was also the Carmeltie rite which was from the 13th century.

The Carmelite monks from Wyoming are diocesan, they’re not actually part of the OCD, but they use the old Carmelite Rite. The OCD and O.Carm. don’t allow the Carmelite Rite anymore, they mandate the Roman.

When I met the Carmelite hermits (OCD) from Texas last year*, they weren’t so sure what to think of the Wyoming monks since Carmelites traditionally are nuns, friars or hermits, not monks. The hermits, IIRC, said they use the NO with some Carmelite Rite influences – they want to use the Carmelite Rite, but again, it’s not currently allowed by the OCD.

Here is the section from the hermits’ website for their icons and art, it doesn’t clarify whether it’s NO or TLM but I’m pretty sure they said it was NO (in Latin, ad orientem, etc.), as the order does not yet allow the TLM:

The Order of Carmel once possessed its own liturgical Rite, called the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre. Similar to the Roman Rite in many respects, it contained a number of its own proper feasts, hymns, prayers and ceremonies. This Rite was in use among Latin Christians of the Holy Land during the Middle Ages, including our Carmelite forefathers who dwelt on Mount Carmel. They brought the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre back to Western Europe when they were forced to leave Mount Carmel. It became their liturgical Rite and remained in use throughout the Order until our present century.

For the past fifteen years we have been studying the Carmelite Rite. With permission from our Father General, we are able to use some elements of the Rite while we await fuller approbation. We have been researching the history of the Rite: its prayers, hymns and ceremonies, and translating liturgical texts into English. We foresee that certain elements of the Rite would need to be adapted in order to ensure that it will nourish the spiritual life of those who use it. At the same time we wish to preserve the riches of the Rite.

Our liturgy is sung very simply on ferial days (weekdays). On Sundays and feast days it is celebrated more solemnly with the use of Gregorian Chant.

Here are some photos from a video of a Carmelite Rite Mass from 1960. You can notice something my priest said about the Carmelite Rite, which was that the orans posture is with the arms straight out rather than in a Y shape. This further emphasizes the cross.

This is probably that same video on Youtube (it’s split up, so you have to find each part).
* They visited Clear Creek while I was there. It was amazing, I don't remember if it was Mass or one of the hours but they just walked in (there's less than ten of them, compared to over 40 of the Benedictine monks). The Benedictine monks had shaved heads and were thin, the hermits had big beards (think like Russian priests/monks) and most of the hermits were tall and large (though they said they only eat meat a couple times a year and the Benedictines eat it every day, fish on Fridays and fast days, of course) and they had giant rosaries hung from their belts. They were a dramatic contrast to the monks and it was amazing. I overheard them talking to Fr. Subprior and they said that they are supposed to have an outing once a year but it had been more than seven because they had been busy with the animals and everything. So they went to go see an ordination and they wanted to see this new monastery everyone has been talking about. They only stayed a couple hours before they went back home to Texas.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Carmelite monks from Wyoming are diocesan, they’re not actually part of the OCD, but they use the old Carmelite Rite. The OCD and O.Carm. don’t allow the Carmelite Rite anymore, they mandate the Roman.

When I met the Carmelite hermits (OCD) from Texas last year*, they weren’t so sure what to think of the Wyoming monks since Carmelites traditionally are nuns, friars or hermits, not monks. The hermits, IIRC, said they use the NO with some Carmelite Rite influences – they want to use the Carmelite Rite, but again, it’s not currently allowed by the OCD.

Here is the section from the hermits’ website for their icons and art, it doesn’t clarify whether it’s NO or TLM but I’m pretty sure they said it was NO (in Latin, ad orientem, etc.), as the order does not yet allow the TLM:

I have been told by historians within our order, the O.Carm., that the O.C.D. never celebrated the Carmelite rite, that when they were broken off of the O.Carm. they lost the right to it but I am not so sure that they are right in this telling.

Anyways, the reason the O.Carm. (and the O.C.D. if they could celebrate it) do not celebrate the Carmelite rite any longer is that it was surrendered to Rome. We can not just take it up again with out Rome giving it back.

As for the Wyoming group, they are not Carmelites in the official sense, they claim to follow the rule (but they do not follow our or the O.C,D, constitutions). I do not know how they can celebrate out rite when it is with Rome but that is something for another thread.

As the hermits you spoke to, we Carmelites (both O.Carm. and O.C,D,) said, we are either friars, hermits, sisters, or nuns. We are never monks but I think you might be able to make the case that the Wyoming group are hermits who pray together.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I have been told by historians within our order, the O.Carm., that the O.C.D. never celebrated the Carmelite rite, that when they were broken off of the O.Carm. they lost the right to it but I am not so sure that they are right in this telling.

I guess it depends on who’s doing the telling.

The usual story from the Discalced Carmelites today (that I’ve seen) is that it was voluntary to adopt the Missal of the Pope. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia it was the then Provincial Nicholas of Jesus (the second Provincial of the O.C.D. after Gratian) that ordered the switch to the Roman Rite against the wishes of the friars or the Order.

 

[JMJ_coder]

As the hermits you spoke to, we Carmelites (both O.Carm. and O.C,D,) said, we are either friars, hermits, sisters, or nuns. We are never monks but I think you might be able to make the case that the Wyoming group are hermits who pray together.

It is interesting how all the houses are referred to as monasteries and not priories. I guess the Carmelites are just a mendicant order with monastic leanings.

 

[pnewton]

I have to say that Mike may have made a good point. Even though the late Holy Father never explicitly used those terms as you said, his actions truly spoke otherwise. I really don’t think that can be argued against too strenuously. I notice that you only addressed the ecumenism angle. What about the other areas?

I just`picked one area because I believe the response would be the same. Something like you posted. Something like “John Paul II never actually said those things that way, but he believed them” The wording was not mine. It was the formula a previous poster used.

I also thought the ecumenism was the biggest one for most.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is interesting how all the houses are referred to as monasteries and not priories. I guess the Carmelites are just a mendicant order with monastic leanings.

Actually all of our houses in the O.Carm. are called priories.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Actually all of our houses in the O.Carm. are called priories.

No doubt they are setup canonically as priories in the mendicant tradition, and even the Holy Rule calls the local superior a prior (Rule Ch. 4). But, both Orders still refer to the houses as monasteries – for example, here and here. The houses are also routinely referred to as “Carmel” – for example the "Carmel of Lisieux, where Saint Therese was a member. And yes, it seems odd especially considering Carmelites are rarely if ever referred to as “monks”, but most often as “friars”.

I don’t know where or when the tradition of referring to the houses as monasteries started, but it was obviously in wide use by the time of Saints Teresa and John. One could easily understand the reference of “Carmel”, but monastery??? Unless, again, it is the monastic leanings of the Orders (which is my hypothesis).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No doubt they are setup canonically as priories in the mendicant tradition, and even the Holy Rule calls the local superior a prior (Rule Ch. 4). But, both Orders still refer to the houses as monasteries – for example, here and here. The houses are also routinely referred to as “Carmel” – for example the "Carmel of Lisieux, where Saint Therese was a member. And yes, it seems odd especially considering Carmelites are rarely if ever referred to as “monks”, but most often as “friars”.

I don’t know where or when the tradition of referring to the houses as monasteries started, but it was obviously in wide use by the time of Saints Teresa and John. One could easily understand the reference of “Carmel”, but monastery??? Unless, again, it is the monastic leanings of the Orders (which is my hypothesis).

Both of those links are to the female branch of Carmel and their superior is still prioress.

Although we do have a couple of hermitages.

I can only speak for my province but all of our houses are called priories. Laity may call them monasteries but we do not.

My guess would be that the cloistered nuns would call their houses monasteries.

The male Carmelites are always friars or hermits, only the Wyoming group call themselves monks and, again, they are not affiliated with either Carmelite group (I believe they broke away from a group that became affiliated with my province of the O,Carm.).

 

[russell007]

Well, I don’t know about Seamus but in 1967 I was 27 years old. And I’m a convert (1970).

The thing that really gets me is that Trads have been called “elitists”. That sort of burns me a little. All I wanted when I converted was the Mass that had intrigued me for about 15 years. Two weeks after I was Baptised I was introduced to the NO (OF).

As a trad, I have felt robbed for all these years. and I have gotten a little touchy about this OF thing. Remember all the lies we were told about the latin Mass being “outlawed”, and the hand holding, and how about the cursillo, and how about an Archbishop telling me that the Catholic church was “just like communism” therefore communism was good.(1971). I remember the hippie music groups on stage.

sorry, got carried away.

I think the worst of it is the lack of respect for the Eucharist i.e. when I was young I remember having to navigate through the people staying seated just to get to the communion line now a days everyone goes Can you honestly say most people these days do not have mortal sins on their soul? (trying hard not to judge) The EMHC are supposed to be there to help during the busy seasons NOW its become the norm.Female alter servers (young girls dressed like a preist) that possision was originally offerd for young boys Rome used to call them “little consecrats” due to the hope of the church these young boys may become a priest. Thats the reason for the robes sort of an introduction/taste of the priesthood. The way things have been turned around due to PC I feel like a bigit just bringing it up.

Its not like the alter girls will ever be able to take it to the next level Its not really fair for them either.

My point is even a small cancer if left untreated can turn out life threating.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Both of those links are to the female branch of Carmel and their superior is still prioress.

Although we do have a couple of hermitages.

I can only speak for my province but all of our houses are called priories. Laity may call them monasteries but we do not.

My guess would be that the cloistered nuns would call their houses monasteries.

The male Carmelites are always friars or hermits, only the Wyoming group call themselves monks and, again, they are not affiliated with either Carmelite group (I believe they broke away from a group that became affiliated with my province of the O,Carm.).

I’ll take your word on your particular O.Carm province. But, at least in the O.C.D., reference to “monastery” is not limited only to the nun’s houses. All the houses are referred to as “monastery”. This, I’m sure, is not a reference to it’s canonical nature, since each house has a prior/prioress (denoting its mendicant nature), but their titles are Monastery of St. _________. (Not that this matters all that much in the grand scheme of things)

The group in Wyoming was started by a man who was a Carmelite Father in Minnesota, if I recall correctly. I’m not certain if he was O.Carm or O.C.D., but I would guess O.Carm since the new groups letters are M.Carm. At this time, they are (I believe) an order of diocesan right under the local Ordinary (the Bishop of Cheyenne).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ll take your word on your particular O.Carm province. But, at least in the O.C.D., reference to “monastery” is not limited only to the nun’s houses. All the houses are referred to as “monastery”. This, I’m sure, is not a reference to it’s canonical nature, since each house has a prior/prioress (denoting its mendicant nature), but their titles are Monastery of St. _________. (Not that this matters all that much in the grand scheme of things)

I believe that you are right on this.

The group in Wyoming was started by a man who was a Carmelite Father in Minnesota, if I recall correctly. I’m not certain if he was O.Carm or O.C.D., but I would guess O.Carm since the new groups letters are M.Carm. At this time, they are (I believe) an order of diocesan right under the local Ordinary (the Bishop of Cheyenne).

The group in Minnesota was independent and petitioned the Prior General of the O.Carm. to join our Order, they are hermits. Some of the group were unhappy with this, as I believe they wanted to go to the O.C.D., and left to form the group in Wyoming.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

I hear you…Communion lines today lead one to believe that either there are a lot of parishioners who are ready for canonization or there are a lot of sacriligeous Communions…especially considering a lot of churches today only offer 15-30 minutes per week for confessions. I often wonder why these priest are not chastised by their local ordinaries for having such limited times for confession…but then again when you look at the USCCB, it is easy to understand why there are so many problems in The Church today

I think the worst of it is the lack of respect for the Eucharist i.e. when I was young I remember having to navigate through the people staying seated just to get to the communion line now a days everyone goes Can you honestly say most people these days do not have mortal sins on their soul? (trying hard not to judge) The EMHC are supposed to be there to help during the busy seasons NOW its become the norm.Female alter servers (young girls dressed like a preist) that possision was originally offerd for young boys Rome used to call them “little consecrats” due to the hope of the church these young boys may become a priest. Thats the reason for the robes sort of an introduction/taste of the priesthood. The way things have been turned around due to PC I feel like a bigit just bringing it up.

Its not like the alter girls will ever be able to take it to the next level Its not really fair for them either.

My point is even a small cancer if left untreated can turn out life threating.

 

[Shin]

One of the myths propounded by those against the proper observance of the Faith is that to say things like this is disloyal:

'As regards my opinions concerning the present state of the Church with relation to the election of the new Pope, what opinion of any weight could a miserable, ignorant, and unspiritual person like myself possibly give? There is need for prayer and much prayer. All the human science and prudence that there is cannot extricate the Church from the present state of relaxation and confusion in which every section finds itself; the all-powerful arm of God is necessary.

As regards the bishops, very few of them possess genuine zeal for souls. Almost all religious communities - and one could omit the “almost” - are relaxed. As a result of the present state of general confusion, observance has collapsed and obedience is a thing of the past. The state of the secular clergy is still worse: so, in a word, there is a need for a general reform of all clerics and ecclesiastics if there is to be any improvement in the present great corruption of morals among the laity.

So we have to pray to Jesus Christ that He would give us as head of the Church one possessed of more spirit and zeal for the glory of God than of learning and human prudence. He should be free of all party attachments and devoid of human respect. If, by chance, for our great misfortune, we should get a Pope that does not have the glory of God as his sole purpose, the Lord will not help him greatly and things from their present condition will go from bad to worse. However, prayer, which can provide a remedy for so many present ills, will move the Lord to put His hand to the problem and remedy the situation.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

 

[Shin]

Is there a difference between “objectively inferior” and “objectively dramatically inferior”. Although the intrinsic value is the same (Christ offered to the Trinity), since man can add nothing to that; the extrinsic value of the New Mass is, I believe, objectively inferior to the Traditional Mass. Some of this is obvious to many people if you simply compare the prayers of each Rite and how they understand and approach God and each other. But for more information see, “The Merit of a Mass”, Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP.

.

Fr. Ripperger is great stuff, no?

I encourage all to listen to his sermons are on Sensus Traditionis below.