Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[MarkThompson]

-]-We hate all music besides chant/-]
As a lame attempt at humor, I wonder how people here would like to disprove the underlined stereotypes cuz I’m guilty of sympathizing with those who view trads that way.

Come on, are you for real? Trads are totally okay with other music other than Latin chant … as long as it’s Latin polyphony … and not too recent like Duruflé, or too archaeological like Machaut … and preferably based on a Gregorian-derived cantus firmus.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Then as that is one form of the rite of the Latin Church the other form must be valid also.

or your not a Catholic and are part of some splinter group.

How does this Church differ from the Catholic Church? There is only one Church.

I see there is no discussing this with you but I should have known that from your other posts.

No, I’m Catholic.

The Novus Ordo is valid, but validity is not all that matters.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You had underlined: We hate all music besides chant

I must admit that I dislike a lot of modern liturgical music, but not because it isn’t chant. Much of it is difficult to sing which discourages congregational participation. And the words are often theologically ambiguous or problematic. (I actually prefer polyphony to chant but that requires a trained choir.)

You also underlined We want to “roll back the clock”

There are some aspects of the past that I see as superior to the present, but other ways in which I prefer the present.

To be honest, I couldn’t care less about liturgical music. I just don’t find it unusual for me to find someone on these boards railing against rock music, even outside mass, and then looking up at their sig or religion indicating that their trads.

The same has been said for turning back the clock. I find the trads here to be more likely to rail against anything produced by secular entertainment and stuff like “immodesty”.

Come on, are you for real? Trads are totally okay with other music other than Latin chant … as long as it’s Latin polyphony … and not too recent like Duruflé, or too archaeological like Machaut … and preferably based on a Gregorian-derived cantus firmus.

Well I don’t know about chants or polyphonies but I know one popular composition that allegedly uses Latin. Does that count? Oh, wait, it’s too contemporary isn’t it? Never mind.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps intellectual elitism is a risk for me. What should I be looking out for?

A propensity for polysyllabic discourse, for one.

That and switching from a cigar to a pipe.

 

[pnewton]

No, I’m Catholic.

The Novus Ordo is valid, but validity is not all that matters.

You are right. Keeping the Mass licit matters. Holiness and reverence matters. Charity matters. Being in full communion with the Holy Father matters.

 

[floresco]

I find the trads here to be more likely to rail against anything produced by secular entertainment and stuff like “immodesty”.

If that is a myth, someone else will have to disprove it. I think the vast majority of secular entertainment is not conducive to Catholic living. I also think that modest clothing and behaviour is important.

Oh well, I didn’t really want a career as a myth-buster anyhow.

 

[floresco]

A propensity for polysyllabic discourse, for one.

That and switching from a cigar to a pipe.

I guess I am really living on the edge. I am one pipe away from being an intellectual elitist.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If that is a myth, someone else will have to disprove it. I think the vast majority of secular entertainment is not conducive to Catholic living. I also think that modest clothing and behaviour is important.

Oh well, I didn’t really want a career as a myth-buster anyhow.

Well if you can live with that stereotype, fine by me.

 

[Onegin]

I’m afraid that I qualify as an intellectual, but I don’t think I am an elitist. I can’t really help liking reading and thinking. I suppose I could ameliorate my propensity for polysyllabic discourse, I mean, avoid big words.

Seriously, could you expand on this. I do not want to turn people away from traditional Catholicism. Perhaps intellectual elitism is a risk for me. What should I be looking out for?

Well, first off, hopefully you noticed that I used the terms “intellectual elitism” together. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being an intellectual or an academic, God gave us varying intellectual abilities so the more power to you! The issue I have is that there are groups within the traditional movement that try to turn traditional Catholicism - be it love of the TLM, Gregorian Chant or what have you - in to a sort of antiquarian academic exercise. Practically speaking, this means that this type of behaviour fosters a sort of competitive attitude resulting in the person who wears the nicest suits or sports the most knowledge of latin, music or history being considered a better Catholic then, say, the working individual without a college degree who also attends the TLM faithfully. Unfortunately, this former group can tend to be the most outspoken proponents of the TLM, leading some Catholics to (erroneously) conclude that the traditional movement has no room for “ordinary folk”.

To be honest, I think a lot of people don’t realise that what they do has this effect. Tradition is a beautiful thing, as is being well-educated in latin, Church history, music, etc. But the truth is that people are a varied lot and what is good for the goose may absolutely intimidate the gander.

Since I don’t know anyone here on this forum, all I can offer by way of advice or invitation is that if and when you may opproach someone about traditional Catholicism, leave behind everything else first and approach them as a person without any other trappings or rhetoric. Perhaps they also love to wear elegantly-tailored suits and read aloud from Belloc whilst sitting around the fireplace, and that’s great! But perhaps they don’t.

Leave behind everything. Share the beauty of Tradition in its glorious and awe-inspiring simplicity. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

 

[floresco]

Well, first off, hopefully you noticed that I used the terms “intellectual elitism” together. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being an intellectual or an academic, God gave us varying intellectual abilities so the more power to you! The issue I have is that there are groups within the traditional movement that try to turn traditional Catholicism - be it love of the TLM, Gregorian Chant or what have you - in to a sort of antiquarian academic exercise. Practically speaking, this means that this type of behaviour fosters a sort of competitive attitude resulting in the person who wears the nicest suits or sports the most knowledge of latin, music or history being considered a better Catholic then, say, the working individual without a college degree who also attends the TLM faithfully. Unfortunately, this former group can tend to be the most outspoken proponents of the TLM, leading some Catholics to (erroneously) conclude that the traditional movement has no room for “ordinary folk”.

Well I certainly don’t think that intellectual gifts make people better Catholics. I see such gifts as a constant source of temptation to spiritual pride. I think that “ordinary folks” are more likely to be better Catholics than I am, at any rate. I hope that comes across when I talk to people. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

 

[Bbigam]

Several people have touched on most of this, but I want to say:
It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and not be fully faithful to the Magisterium of the Church (which did not end in 1955 or 1962 or whatever).
which means that:
It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and reject Vatican II in word or in practice.
It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and reject the Ordinary Form of the Mass as invalid or illicit or objectively dramatically inferior.
It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and support following suspended clergy.

Of course, you can be a Traditional Catholic and strongly prefer the Extraordinary Form.
You can be a Traditional Catholic and reject the “spirit of Vatican II” (as any faithful Catholic should).
You can be a Traditional Catholic and strongly dislike the style of many modern OF Masses and many modern changes and liturgical practices in the way the Mass is commonly celebrated today.
You can be a Traditional Catholic and be horrified by irreverence, gross liturgical abuses, and heresy (as any faithful Catholic should).

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.

I hope you are saying that people who love all these things are a particular subset of people who primarily attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I dislike most of these practices, yet I have a (slight) preference for the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I’m far from the only one. Please don’t lump us all together.

(By the way, exchanging the Sign of Peace is a part of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, albeit an optional one on the part of the priest. I don’t prefer it, but we ought to participate in it, briefly and quietly, when the priest elects to use it.)

 

[floresco]

It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and reject the Ordinary Form of the Mass as invalid or illicit or objectively dramatically inferior.

I think the OF is objectively inferior and have said so on numerous occasions. I have never used the word “dramatically”, but I do throw a “clearly” in there on occasion. The prayers of the OF do not express Catholic doctrine as clearly and explicitly as those of the EF. I believe this characteristic makes the OF inferior since conveying doctrine is important.

 

[Lazarette]

ahem, I need to correct myself. The example ofa woman not being able to have a bank account or car in her own name wasn’t always true. I do know that 1972 was the first year women were officially allowed to run the Boston Marathon (after an official tried to forcibly remove Katherine Switzer from the course in 1967.)

 

[Bbigam]

I think the OF is objectively inferior and have said so on numerous occasions. I have never used the word “dramatically”, but I do throw a “clearly” in there on occasion. The prayers of the OF do not express Catholic doctrine as clearly and explicitly as those of the EF. I believe this characteristic makes the OF inferior since conveying doctrine is important.

While I happen to disagree with you regarding the inferiority of the OF, I did say “reject the Ordinary Form…”

It’s one thing to argue that the Extraordinary Form is better or has aspects that are better, it’s quite another thing to reject the Ordinary Form. I’m not assuming you reject it, just trying to clarify my statement. Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

I think the OF is objectively inferior and have said so on numerous occasions. I have never used the word “dramatically”, but I do throw a “clearly” in there on occasion.

That is fine by me. At least you do the courtesy of throwing the phrase “I think” in to indicate an opinion. Curiously, conveying doctrine is precisely the reason I prefer the vernacular.

 

[otjm]

That is fine by me. At least you do the courtesy of throwing the phrase “I think” in to indicate an opinion. Curiously, conveying doctrine is precisely the reason I prefer the vernacular.

However, the issue was not, I think, about the vernacular so much as it was about the different prayers. At least, that was the drift I was getting.

 

[floresco]

While I happen to disagree with you regarding the inferiority of the OF, I did say “reject the Ordinary Form…”

It’s one thing to argue that the Extraordinary Form is better or has aspects that are better, it’s quite another thing to reject the Ordinary Form. I’m not assuming you reject it, just trying to clarify my statement. Thanks.

No, I don’t reject the OF. I believe it to be valid, licit and a means of grace. I often attend it. But the EF is better.,

 

[floresco]

That is fine by me. At least you do the courtesy of throwing the phrase “I think” in to indicate an opinion. Curiously, conveying doctrine is precisely the reason I prefer the vernacular.

I would rather have clearly formulated doctrine in a language that needs translating than ambiguous doctrine that is easily understood. We don’t gain anything from it being in the vernacular if there is no substance to it.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

we haven’t heard anyone say that there is “no Salvation outside the Church” since Father Leonard Feeney bit the dust.

Why not? EENS is a infallibly defined dogma of the Church and we, or at least I, hear it from people who are not Feeneyites.

Feeney’s stance against Baptism of Desire and Blood not only contradicts Augustine and Aquinas but also the Council of Trent.

Trent:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema/

Feeney justified this by saying that baptism of desire can justify a person but not save them, which is not a distinction I am familiar with.

We can also justify it based on long-standing Church tradition that catechumens have a right to a Catholic funeral:

§1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.

One who dies without baptism is not to be admitted to Church burial.

§2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.

Catechumens who without fault of their own die without baptism, are counted among the baptized.

§3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

All baptized are to be given Church burial, if not expressly deprived by law.

This is the 1917 CIC but the practice goes back to the early Church. There is much evidence for the reality of baptism of desire from theologians and Church practice.

In short, EENS is right but Fr. Feeney was wrong.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Please, for the sake of traditional Catholics, **Latin Rite **check out the facts before you make any statements re the validity of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo & the TLM. are different forms of the same rite.

It is two different propositions regarding the validity of the Novus Ordo and whether or not it is an authentic “form” of the Roman Rite. If I sat down and wrote a liturgy and called it “The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom”, would it be? Would it be if the pope declared it to be so? Does the pope have the power, the authority, to abolish a Rite and create a new one in its place?

[The Rites, East and West]
elude control by any individual, local community or regional Church. Unsponaneity is of their essence. In these rites I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation. That is why the Christian East calls the liturgy the “Divine Liturgy”, expressing thereby the liturgy’s independence from human control. The West, by contrast, has felt ever more strongly the historical element, which is why Jungmann tried to sum up the Western view in the phrase “the liturgy that has come to be”. He wanted to show that this coming-to-be still goes on – as an organic growth, not as a specially contrived production. The liturgy can be compared, therefore, not to a piece of technical equipment, something manufactured, but to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development. In the West there was, of course, another factor. With his Petrine authority, the pope more and more clearly took over responsibility for liturgical legislation, thus providing a juridical authority for the continuing formation of the liturgy. The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the given-ness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. Still less is any kind of general “freedom” of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy. The greatness of the liturgy depends – we shall have to repeat this frequently – on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit).
…
With the radicalization of the historical-critical method, it has become very clear today that the ‘sola scriptura’ principle cannot provide a foundation for the Church and the commonality of her faith. Scripture is Scripture only when it lives within the living subject that is the Church. This makes it all the more absurd that a not insignificant number of people today are trying to construct the liturgy afresh on the basis of ‘sola scriptura’. In these reconstructions they identify Scripture with the prevailing exegetical opinions, thus confusing faith with opinion. Liturgy “manufactured” in this way is based on human words and opinions. It is a house built on sand and remains totally empty, however much human artistry may adorn it. Only respect for the liturgy’s fundamental unspontaneity and pre-existing identity can give us what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift.

After the Second Vatican Council, the monuments of the Church were ravaged. The Mass, the other Rites and Blessings, the Lectionary, the Calendar were all abolished and replaced with manufactured ones. Churches were gutted of their art, statues, crucifixes, even altars were smashed. What was this about?

(cont.)