Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I meant people who go to the Novus Ordo. They’re just given the name “Novus Ordo Catholics”.

The Novus Ordo is not the true Liturgy of the Church. I’m not going to go into deep discussion on that, but it is not the true Liturgy. You aren’t a Traditional Catholic just because you go to the TLM. A Traditional Catholic is someone who goes by Tradition.

The Pope disagrees with you, he states that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are two forms of the same rite.

So following your logic the EF (what you call the TLM) is not the true Liturgy of the Church either.

Dissent from the Teaching of the Catholic Church and the Holy Father such as this is not traditional nor is it Catholic, it is a form of protestantism.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=ByzCath;6653503]No such thing as a “Novus Ordo” Catholic

.

Of course there are “Novus Ordo” Catholics. Hopefully, they aren’t ashamed to be called by the name of the Mass they are so devoted to.

Novus Ordo Catholics approve of the use of EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers at EVERY Mass, & are often one themselves. They belong to parishes that actually schedule EEM’s. They feel that Altar girls are just fine, they participate in the handshaking & the Communal Meal atmosphere. They like standing to receive the Eucharist in their hand. They like the more Modern hymns & wouldn’t accept a* great deal* of Latin in their Mass or their music. This is the TRUTH & if you cannot say PROUDLY that “yes, that is me”…& I love being a “Novus-Ordo” Catholic", then something is terribly wrong.

IMHO there are just Catholics. Labels such as these are divisive.

I don’t think so, I think that many are **making **them divisive. I believe that most Novus Ordo Catholics are so used to being the only type of Catholic, that they cannot make peace with the fact that not everyone agrees with them. In fact, & this is not meant in a mean way…many of you are just spoiled. We have become like the Orthodox Jews/ Reformed Jews. They are still both members of the Jewish faith & we are still all Roman Catholics.

What defines a “traditional” Catholic besides a preference for the EF Mass?

If I answer this, I fear it will start an argument (MORE of an argument), just see above what I listed as staples in a Novus Ordo Mass (EEM’s, altar girls, etc.) Also, we know & believe in the dogmatic truths that have come from every council …the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the pronouncement on the infallibility of Popes when they speak ex-Cathedra re faith & morals & we know what happened at most of the councils. What they were for, what they were about.

I have no problem with the fact that many prefer to be Novus Ordo Catholics, I simply wish that they would proudly accept their truths & who they are & leave us… who believe that the Tridentine Mass better suits us & is** more representative of the whole of Catholicism…**…in peace to discuss our faith on this ONE forum called Traditional Catholicism.

"

 

[CradleCath]

Corsair, reading your post reminded me of how difficult that time was for those who lived through it. I landed on the OF side but do understand the pain of those who missed what is now the EF.

um, hippie music groups on stage? In connection with Mass?

Ouch on the misinformed archbishop. (archbishop?!? yikes)

Cursillo was actually something positive, although like everything, it could have been misused.

You lived through that time and I can understand why you missed what is now the EF. I find patience more difficult with those who didn’t live through that time and by what they say, it’s clear they have no idea what it was like then.

Since I was 27 when the council closed, I agree with you. Someone says that “Aunt Mary said so & so” & it becomes a** fact **to those who know no better.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If I answer this, I fear it will start an argument (MORE of an argument), just see above what I listed as staples in a Novus Ordo Mass (EEM’s, altar girls, etc.) Also, we know & believe in the dogmatic truths that have come from every council …the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the pronouncement on the infallibility of Popes when they speak ex-Cathedra re faith & morals & we know what happened at most of the councils. What they were for, what they were about.

All Catholics believe this, if they do not they are not Catholic, just as a person who claims that the OF is not the true Liturgy of the Church is not a Catholic.

Matters of discipline are not part of Tradition as they can and do change, most of what you list for a Novus Ordo Catholic are just that, discipline.

 

[angelic06]

What is this tradition vs. Novus Ordo Catholic business again?

Some of us want to go to a liturgy that is reverent and not heretical. Period. We are not interested in pitting “traditional” Catholic against “Novus Ordo” ones—if the Church has put several options out there for us as far as choice of liturgy, then let each person worship as he or she pleases within the legitimate options. The best liturgy is the one that is reverent so that it doesn’t offend God, dignified so that it doesn’t offend man and woman, and not only be not heretical, but able to convey the Holy Catholic Faith to the worshippers and possibly some non-Catholic onlookers (I stole part of this from Monsignor Schuler (?)). If the EF does it, fine, if the OF does it, fine as well. The Church has already declared the OF a legitimate part of the Church’s liturgical rites, so deal with it.

I reject the term Novus Ordo Catholic (eventhough I do not regularly attend said Mass) and consider it insulting. I think it is the ones who style themselves traditionalists who invent these terms so as to elevate themselves and fool themselves into thinking that they are more Catholic than the rest of us. At my own parish, it has already been shown week after week that it is perfectly possible to have a reverent and dignified Novus Ordo Missae.

My advice to those who consider yourselves traditional Catholics: don’t make a show of it like a Pharisee and go around boasting about how Catholic you are and these myths will start to disappear. Instead, continue doing what you do, praising God reverently and handing down the orthodox Catholic Faith, while doing the charitable works which are signs of the followers of Christ. When I hear the term traditionalist, I think of the SSPX and the like. Surely you don’t want to be associated with them, do you?

 

[Bailey2]

Original question: Biggest Myths about Traditional Catholics

My answer: That they are different from other Catholics.

Whether one prefers TLM masses, OF, head veil, no head veil, kneeling for Eucharist, standing for Eucharist, on tongue, in hand… so long as a Catholic accepts ALL the official teachings of the Church, that person is a Catholic.

We should be working to find commonality, not differences. The differences are superficial expressions anyway, certainly not the heart of the faith… and we need to appreciate them as being part of the diversity found in the universal Church. Perhaps visiting another country would help in this regard; many traditions there.

 

[angelic06]

Bailey2,

Good post.

 

[CradleCath]

I’m sorry for the above post. It was greatly lacking in charity. Unfortunately it took more than 20 minutes for me to realize it, so I can’t change it now. Maybe a couple of clarifications may help.

When I was describing the feelings of someone my age upon attending the EF, it probably sounded like I meant that all people my age would feel that way. Certainly that isn’t true, and I didn’t mean that, but my wording was poor. But there are a good few who did, and possibly (sinfully) resented never having been allowed to see such a liturgy before.

My parents don’t appreciate the EF as I do, not because they are of a different generation, but because they are different people. My mother hasn’t gone to Mass at all for years (please pray for her!) and my father isn’t good at languages, so he really appreciates the Mass in English.

My point about not caring what it was like in the 50s is actually relevant although it may not seem so at first glance. I don’t want to bring back the 50s. How could I want to give up all of the wonderful teachings of our last two Popes (which are the ones I remember clearly, meaning nothing against the Popes before)? I don’t want to outlaw the OF. I would like to see the OF celebrated reverently, according to its rubrics, and I look forward gladly to the new translation. But I think that more widespread celebration of the EF will help the celebration of the OF to be more reverent, and being experienced with the OF will help people understand what is happening in the EF.

There is nothing wrong with having experience of both the EF and the OF and choosing to attend the OF, assuming it is celebrated licitly. But I do think it would be good if more people had sufficient experience of both.

Maybe the myth about young (well, younger–I don’t exactly qualify as young any more), traditionalist Catholics is that they think their parents are dense.

–Jen

I don’t think so. I think it’s as you said earlier, they long for the sense of the sacred…they have never known it…but in their hearts they know that there is “more”. Remember, the “Law of God is written on the hearts of men”. I am constantly amazed at the number of young people at the TLM. I attend exclusively. High school students, LOTS of young parents with children aged infancy to 8-9 years old. In fact, we held a pot-luck dinner after the Latin Mass that followed All Hallows Eve. The children were dressed in costumes…costumes patterened after their favorite saint & believe me, there were plenty of “saints” there. They each spoke a few words & we were to guess which saint they portrayed. LOTS of fun!!!

I look back & remember the congregation at my old Novus Ordo parish & the chuch was filled white heads of hair than. Traditionalism is definitely the Church of the future.

 

[floresco]

When I hear the term traditionalist, I think of the SSPX and the like. Surely you don’t want to be associated with them, do you?

Yes, I do.

I owe the SSPX a debt of gratitude for preserving the TLM when most were trying to suppress it. Much of what they were rejecting they were right to reject. There was a time of widespread liturgical abuses and experimentation (which still affects us to some extent) and they were often the only voice of protest.

There may be some schismatic attitudes involved in the SSPX, but I hope that can be overcome. I pray that their talks with the Vatican lead to a clarification of doctrinal ambiguities and the SSPX being fully integrated into the Church with their canonical status resolved.

 

[pnewton]

1.- Traditional Catholics call themselves Traditional because they follow Tradition.

By that definition, pretty much every Catholic is a Traditional Catholic. Our Sacred Tradition is what sets us apart from Protestants, who follow Scripture alone.

 

[otjm]

I found this post to be rather insulting to Traditional Catholics. I have a few questions to ask if you don’t mind.

1.- What do you mean by “the so-called traditionalists”? By the way, I believe you mean Traditionalists with an upper-case T.

2.- How are we in any way “obsessed” with apparitions of Mary? The debate over the Third Secret is about the fact that it has not been released yet and the one released in 2000 is a fake. That isn’t obsession, that’s trying to help people understand. Would you rather us be like the Protestants and not even pray to Mary or care about her apparitions?

3.- What do you mean by “their wacko web sites”? I’d like you to please elaborate on this line, I’m a bit puzzled by what you mean here.

the ones you have been reading about the third secret would be a good start.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

The Pope disagrees with you, he states that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are two forms of the same rite.

So following your logic the EF (what you call the TLM) is not the true Liturgy of the Church either.

Dissent from the Teaching of the Catholic Church and the Holy Father such as this is not traditional nor is it Catholic, it is a form of protestantism.

How many Popes disagree with me though? Maybe 5? Yet, pre-Vatican II Popes can’t disagree with me. So therefore I have 200+ Popes that would agree with me in this situation.

If the Pope does not uphold Tradition then we don’t have to obey his every command. It is not protestantism. Keep in mind that Martin Luther was accused of being mentally ill and even thought the Pope was the anti-Christ.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

the ones you have been reading about the third secret would be a good start.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the secret released in 2000 is a phony.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How many Popes disagree with me though? Maybe 5? Yet, pre-Vatican II Popes can’t disagree with me. So therefore I have 200+ Popes that would agree with me in this situation.

If the Pope does not uphold Tradition then we don’t have to obey his every command. It is not protestantism. Keep in mind that Martin Luther was accused of being mentally ill and even thought the Pope was the anti-Christ.

Again, the form of the Mass is discipline and I highly doubt that any Popes disagree with the current pope.

But then you have shown your “catholicism” is it is not that of the Church nor is it traditional. As there are two forms of the one rite of the Latin Church and you make the claim that one is invalid that makes the other invalid also.

Again by your logic there is no valid Mass in the Latin Church. That is in no way traditional, nor is making yourself the authority over the pope traditional, that is the same error that protestants make, plain and simple.

Being traditional is standing with the Church and all it Teaches even when we personally disagree with it.

 

[John_Grudzien]

I’ve often hoped that the biggest myth about traditional Catholics like myself was that we really weren’t wanted in the Church. I felt that way from 1967 through to 2004 and played the game that way…I stayed away. I would listen to the Tradtional Latin Mass on the radio until the Archdiocese here in Detroit pressured the radio station to remove it from their programming. I would attend Mass, perhaps once a year, usually on a Feast of
OUR LADY (Yes, you modernists out there, this is one trad Catholic to DOES have a strong devotion to Our Lady.), and usually leave in disgust when I saw how far down the liturgical chain it had degenerated. For a long time, I would get so angry that I had to consider, for me, that the way the Novus Ordo was celebrated became an occasion of sin. And in not attending Sunday or Holydays Masses, I just didn’t need any more mortal sins. I just prayed to Our Lord, and asked Him to please understand the ANGUISH my very soul experienced during these services. I had never considered jumping ship and going protestant because I knew from my historical and theological that the Catholic Church WAS the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and, APOSTOLIC Church that weas founded by Our Lord. I considered myself a Catholic without a Church!
When I would voice my concerns to other Catholics, lay and priestly, I would usually be greeted with rolling eyes and ridicule, being called a dinosaur. Bear in mind, I was still a young man during the seventies and not the decrepit being typing this now. I was an acolyte until I was 17 (in 1967) and quit when they turned the altar around. The vernacular never really bothered me though I had a pretty good command of Latin at that time (4-years in a Jesuit High School saw to that.) It was just what I call the “Felt Doves on Burlap Banners” age and for me it was all nothing but a distraction from what the Mass was, being present at the foot of the Cross, becoming a me centered meal with the priest now putting on a show for the audience. The gorge still rises in my throat when I encounter such masses. So again I just stayed away and prayed for Our Lord’s Patience and Forgiveness.
About six years ago, I found a parish nearby that still has kneelers of all things and still had a remnant of an altar with and INTACT TABERNACLE! Wow, I was getting so desparate for the Eucharist and Our Lord’s Presence, that I swallowed hard, went to Confession for the first time in 27 years and have been weekly attending Mass again ever since. I’m still not happy with the liturgy or the so-called “catholic” music used,and the lack of quiet time immediately after receiving Communion (Host only No Precious Blood for me…not a wine man myself) on my tongue from the Priestly celebrant (NEVER from and EMHC). I just bury my head in my trusty old “St. Joseph’s Missal”, 1961 edition with my hand-written 1962 changes that the Sisters had us do in grade school, say my responses in Latin (very few NO Parishioners sit near me now as they’ve gotten to know the Latin Nut), so I don’t have to hold hands during the Pater Noster, or glad hand every one from 6 pews around during the so-called “sign of peace.”
Sorry to vent, one and all, but I do have as one of my prayer intentions during my daily rosaries, the successful conclusion to the talks between the SSPX and Holy Mother Church as there is one of their chapels nearby. I just won’t and cannot go until things haveve been normalized.

 

[archangel04]

.

Of course there are “Novus Ordo” Catholics. Hopefully, they aren’t ashamed to be called by the name of the Mass they are so devoted to.

Novus Ordo Catholics approve of the use of EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers at EVERY Mass, & are often one themselves. They belong to parishes that actually schedule EEM’s. They feel that Altar girls are just fine, they participate in the handshaking & the Communal Meal atmosphere. They like standing to receive the Eucharist in their hand. They like the more Modern hymns & wouldn’t accept a* great deal* of Latin in their Mass or their music. This is the TRUTH & if you cannot say PROUDLY that “yes, that is me”…& I love being a “Novus-Ordo” Catholic", then something is terribly wrong.

"

Excuse me? How offensive are you? I attend the ordinary form, but I don’t call myself a “Novus Odo”, I am a Catholic and traditional one because I follow Sacred Tradition, I also attend the EF, but it does not make me “more” traditoinal, than a devout Catholic who happens to attend the OF. How dare you put other Catholics through the dirt like that? I don’t approve of EEM, alter girls, and some of the music that is played during mass, but that’s just my opinion and nothing more. So let me guess your a holier person because you attend TLM? You sound worst the SpiritusSantos with his schismatic opinions.

 

[otjm]

How many Popes disagree with me though? Maybe 5? Yet, pre-Vatican II Popes can’t disagree with me. So therefore I have 200+ Popes that would agree with me in this situation.

You need to go back and take Logic 101. 200 Popes don’t agree with you as they never had the question posed to them.

If the Pope does not uphold Tradition then we don’t have to obey his every command. It is not protestantism. Keep in mind that Martin Luther was accused of being mentally ill and even thought the Pope was the anti-Christ.

Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have said that the documents of Vatican 2 have to be (and are eminently capable of being) interpreted in light of the 2000 year history and Tradition of the Church.

But then, what is a matter of a little bit of truth among people who know they are superior in intellect and judgement to those led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[floresco]

Sorry to vent, one and all, but I do have as one of my prayer intentions during my daily rosaries, the successful conclusion to the talks between the SSPX and Holy Mother Church as there is one of their chapels nearby.  I just won't and cannot go until things haveve been normalized.

As I understand the situation, the Vatican allows Catholics to attend Mass at SSPX chapels when done out of attachment to the TLM rather than rejection of Church authority. Under some circumstances it is permitted to take Communion there too. Perhaps, if you were to discuss this with your pastor, he might say that it is appropriate for you to attend. I know of other cases like this.

By the way, I am praying for that too.

 

[pnewton]

How many Popes disagree with me though? Maybe 5? Yet, pre-Vatican II Popes can’t disagree with me. So therefore I have 200+ Popes that would agree with me in this situation.

You need to go back and take Logic 101. 200 Popes don’t agree with you as they never had the question posed to them.

Because they are dead and cannot disagree with you, ergo they agree with you?

Have these former popes been having conversations with you by any chance?

 

[Lazarette]

Jen, thanks for your post. In some ways, I did paint with a broad stroke (especially on the dense parent bit; I’ll get a wet noodle to flagellate myself in a minute) and in some ways not - and I’ll try to explain that after looking at the rest of your post.

Most of the younger generation that I’ve met do feel the same way you’ve expressed, at least, I haven’t heard other reasons.

But please, enough of the 1950s! I feel like an olf fogy enough as it is. Vatican II wasn’t until 1962-1965. In 1964, Mass in the vernacular was introduced. I don’t remember when the fasting rule changed from midnight the night before to three hours but I did a quick search and came up with 1970.

As for the OF and EF influencing each other, you’re right about that. I think it was one of the reasons for Summorum Pontificum.

Let me go back to the “not caring what it was like in the 50s (well, I’ll speak to the 60s).” While I have heard someone write that he’d like to go back to the 1950s, I did not get that impresson from you. You were clear that you’re not anti-OF.

The one time I had occasion to attend an EF Mass, I was astonished because it was not the Mass of my childhood. The people saying the responses floored me. If done strictly according to the 1962 rubrics, the altar servers made those responses. The people in the pews either prayed the rosary or read the equivalent of a missalette. Unless they had taken Latin in school, they didn’t know what was being said. That there was Latin on one side and an English translation on other side didn’t really make a difference for many.

That’s just the Mass. The world was a very,very different place then. That’s mostly what I meant. And that’s what I find so difficult to articulate. It was a different culture than today. As a woman, you would not have been allowed to have a bank account in your name, own a car in your name, nor allowed to run in a marathon if you wanted to. Women were frequently blamed if raped; domestic violence was not ever mentioned.

The outside world was just that. Film travelogues were popular because the only images of other locales were in magazines such as National Geographic or Life. My point is that I don’t think those who have grown up with 100 television channels, much less the world wide Internet, can imagine how cocooned everyone was.

Personally, I think the Holy Spirit foresaw all the coming changes and that’s what prompted Vatican II. Yes, there were those eager to seize the opportunity to insert their own agenda, and indeed, the changes were implemented poorly, to be polite. So that’s a little bit more complete answer.