Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[ntenaglia]

I unerstand that. My question is “Why”. I’m old enough that I remember the Church prior to V2. I also remember the insanity which followed it. I want to know why the answer to the insanity is to lock yourself in at 1963.

Gary

Gary, not being a part of this group but reading these posts, maybe I might explain it (I think - I’m sure you all will correct me if I’m wrong). When you look at the Church as it was in a time prior to recent changes (yeah I know 40 plus years is hardly recent) there’s a sort of comfort in the old ways.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I can only speak to what I’ve encountered. The SSPX itself has issues; issues I truly wish would be resolved. And the SSPX itself is ONLY CLERICS. There is no lay membership.

I’m relatively new to this forum, so I hope I’m not being repetitive. Yes, Aramis, the SSPX are ‘only’ ‘A priestly Fraternity Without Vows’. They are a voluntary association of priests &and also Sisters) who are endeavouring to become holy Catholics within their state of life. The fact that their path was not followed by anybody else - with a miniscule number of heroic exceptions - was not their responsibility, and most certainly does not prove, by itself, that they were wrong. Laypeople, in virtue of Quo Primum, not to mention Church Law, have been entitled to attend SSPX ceremonies and institutions, provided they do so out of the desire to remain faithful Catholics. They can also join the Third Order. But the rank & file who avail of their spiritual gifts remain members of their local parish and diocese. The SSPX priest prays at every single Mass for ‘Our Father Pope Benedict’ and for the local diocesan bishop.

(If a separate TLM Church Sui Iuris is created, that, too, will change…)

Cdl Newman stated that authentic Doctrinal Development is always the development of what was already there - in an undeveloped form - never that of what was not there. I agree with you that a regular body (such as a TLM group) within the Church will inevitably be under an authority, in good standing, that could order changes in the rubrics. But the SSPX episode has clarified the fact that there are legitimate boundaries that this authority would not be entitled to transgress, in which case the clerics and laity would not be bound to comply.

Those who attach themselves to the SSPX parishes, however, are often FAR more radical than the SSPX themselves.

Yes, this is the perennial problem of The Overzealous Layman, and they are a real thorn in the side of the SSPX clergy. GKChesterton speaks of this kind in his autobiography (and elsewhere). They are more prominent in our own day, of course, because of the manifest failure of so many in the hierarchy to lead. I have seen this kind drive people away, not just from tradition, but from the Catholic Church. But – to keep it in perspective – I have seen far more driven away by the outrageous abuses perpetrated, usually in the name of The Spirit of Vatican II, and with apparent impunity.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, and it makes them not traditional in a great many ways. They themselves reject the vatican’s authority every time one of them says the Mass.

On the contrary. They are resisting the abuse of authority. S. Thomas Aquinas teaches that to do this is not only permissible but mandatory, otherwise one is an accessory to the abuse of authority, which is a sin against justice.

The laity attached to the SSPX are often sedevaticanists, at least in Anchorage, and frequently attached to the SSPX mass because “It’s unchanged since Trent” (which simply shows their own gross and grievous ignorance).

Sigh. I’m sorry to hear that. Here, a small group of sedevacs began distributing piles of their literature at the SSPX Mass Centre about a year ago. When the priest found out he invited them, from the pulpit, to leave and not come back until they changed their views. At least one of them (and the ‘leader’ among them) walked out then and there. At least all concerned were being up front. A couple others quietly stopped attending.
As you say, to claim that there have been no changes since Trent is foolish ignorance; but to keep it in perspective, the most outrageous mis-statements of fact have come out of diocesan offices, told to the laity, and nothing done about it. The very possibility of a Sedevac movement before 1960 would have been inconceivable. Literally hundreds of the words and actions of the late 20th century popes would have had their predecessors beside themselves with fury.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I unerstand that. My question is “Why”. I’m old enough that I remember the Church prior to V2. I also remember the insanity which followed it. I want to know why the answer to the insanity is to lock yourself in at 1963.

Gary

Well, it is an ancient and accepted principle, not just in the Church, but especially so with Her. “When in serious doubt, do what we have always done”. If there is a serious cause for doubt, S. Thomas Aquinas says, “Take the more certain course”. Now there is absolutely no precedent within the Church for imposing the kind of novelty foisted upon us in the past 40 years. The ancient Canon enunciated by S. Vincent of Lérins in the far-off 4th century was officially adopted and imposed under the seal of infallibility by the first Vatican Council: “what was done always, everywhere, by everyone, must be correct”. The actual application of this, of course, may be trickier in particular cases than meets the eye.

Reforms and Revolutionaries through the ages have found that it is the hardest thing in the world to prevent their reforms from careering out of control. Surely now in 2009 there are few left who are complacent about the shambles that engulfed the Church in the wake of Vatican II. The holier-than-thou tone adopted by those who castigate what we will call traditionalists, while ignoring the context of this shambles, does grate on one.

 

[CWBetts]

You are making a logically fallicious argument. Vatican II did not cause the problems you are complaining about.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by franklinf 
…
"A traditional Catholic is not a person who “prefers” the old Latin Mass. Neither are they people simply passed Catechism class.

They are people who adhere to a type of spirituality that is largely lost in the 21st Century Catholic Church.[etc]

I made First Communion in the mid 60’s – this sounds a lot like the Church was in those days.

The reason we didn’t hear about ‘traditionalists’ in those days is that we were all traditionalists then – except for a fringe group who were obstinately persisting in disobedient practices. Pope Pius XII wrote, “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!”

I’ve been away from the Church for 30 years and recently returned. My current husband still has to finish the annulment process on his first marriage (2 of my 3 previous were decreed void and the other one passed from cancer) and then we’ll have our marriage blessed and we can take Communion. In some ways the changes helped me heal the wounds of my separation, but in other ways I really miss some of the old ways. I’m usually the only woman in church wearing a hat, I feel that one should always dress as though God might walk through the door and I wouldn’t want to be dressed like I’m going to clean out the garage. And I remember the Latin Mass from my childhood and miss it, but people in my parish tell me that they’ve gone to one and felt lost, like they don’t know what’s going on or what the words mean.

So, I’m reading this thread in hopes of understanding if maybe there might be a place for me in the Traditional Church.

If I may say so, ntenaglia, you have had heavy burdens to bear. Good luck on your journey back home. I hope the delay in the annulment is not prolonged. I also hope your questions will be answered, so that your first Holy Communion together will be taken kneeling, receiving on the tongue, during a TLM, ‘without qualm of conscience or fear of censure’ as Pope St Pius V put it in 1570 when he ‘canonised’ the TLM forever…

I’m usually the only woman in church wearing a hat, I feel that one should always dress as though God might walk through the door and I wouldn’t want to be dressed like I’m going to clean out the garage.

Good for you. If you go to a trad Mass Centre you will have the nowadays unusual experience of actually being supported in this creditable attitude. In general, when my wife & I started going to the SSPX Mass Centre we rediscovered what we had almost forgotten: what it is like to be in a parish that actually encourages one’s attempts at growth in the Faith, instead of undermining you all the time.

Continued.…

 

[numealinesimpet]

Continued…
**ntenaglia ** writes:

And I remember the Latin Mass from my childhood and miss it, but people in my parish tell me that they’ve gone to one and felt lost, like they don’t know what’s going on or what the words mean.

I have three responses to this. Your fellow-parishoners ought not to have been too surprised, and I would suggest not giving up too early.

(i) The TLM did not try to be two different things at the same time. The actual conduct of the Mass was not meant to be a lesson in the Faith for newcomers. There are things you do in the classroom that you don’t do in the workshop. You cannot actually do worship if you are continually stopping and talking about what you are going to do. It is a valid thing to explain the meanings of the Mass, but it has to be done in a practice session, not in the actual ritual. This is one of the many mistakes made since Vatican II. Imagine the Queen of England at her Coronation Ceremony. What would have become of it if the Archbishop of Canterbury had stopped every five minutes and explained the meaning of everything during the actual ceremony?

(ii) The TLM is what we Roman Rite Catholics do when we are most ourselves. Every single word and gesture had a meaning and history going back centuries or millennia. It is the best we know how to do. Like classical music, or many human activities, it cannot be appreciated the first time out. I myself can appreciate a game of soccer (even though I am hopeless at it myself) having been raised from childhood with this as a background. But I cannot appreciate American football, because I don’t know what they are trying to do at any particular time, and so I don’t know whether or not they are doing it well. I would need time, explanations and experience of many games before I could make head or tail of it. The TLM makes no concessions to the newcomer. In fact, during a Solemn High Mass, at some points the priest is saying certain prayers, the acolytes might be responding, the thurifer (incense-bearer) is incensing various people in turn … while the choir is singing something different. No individual could take it all in at the time, but it is directed to the worship of God, it is not a concert.

(iii) The TLM allows each individual to tune in at his or her own level. S. Teresa of Avila wrote, ‘No two souls are more than 50% alike’. It is a big mistake to expect everyone to be chanting the identical vocal prayers all together. That is like a communist march-past. the TLM is more like an orchestra: some are First fiddle, others are the triangle. “All God’s creatures got a place in the choir”. The great saints of the Mass, like St. Leonard, are very clear about this. At a typical well-attended TLM you could have everything from a layman reading the entire Mass from a Latin-only book (I have seen this done) through those following the parallel English translation, dipping into the Latin; those reading a simplified version in English, and those not using the book at all, but meditating silently. St Leonard mentions in his book that laymen trying to follow each and every word, with the different feastdays etc, is quite a difficult feat, and he doubts that many persist in it full-time. (I think, however, that since his time, the availability of well-designed printed book has probably made it easier). But he says that the layman who ‘assisted at’ his daily Mass Mass [that is the way it was spoken about] with the most profit was an illiterate farmer. For the first part of each Mass, He would meditate on his sins and make an Act of Contrition. During the Canon (Eucharistic prayer) he would meditate on the Last Supper and Calvary, and for the third part he would meditate on the Mystery of the Eucharist. That was all he did. But S. Leonard was insistent that this man was the best in the pews at following the Mass.

++++++++
The fact of Latin not being our own language is a red herring; everything is in translation side-by-side, if the Latin is there at all. But take your initiation gently. And remember: the heart of the Mass is a Mystery. Nobody really does understand it. If we understood it all, it would be only human.

So, if you go, dear lady, do take your time. The first time it would be quite in order to raise your heart and mind to God while simply taking in the sights and sounds - including that of silence!) A simple Mass book is fine. If you are lucky enough to have a well-appointed chapel, look at the architecture, the statues, and everything, and meditate on what it all means. And do not be afraid to let your mind follow its own track, at least part of the time. In the Old days, in our busy lives, it was wonderfully refreshing to many to have that sacred half-hour for quiet, prayerful reflection.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I wrote

the layman who ‘assisted at’ his daily Mass Mass [that is the way it was spoken about]

I meant, of course,

the layman who ‘assisted at’ his daily Mass [that is the way it was spoken about]

 

[numealinesimpet]

You are making a logically fallicious argument. Vatican II did not cause the problems you are complaining about.

Vatican II did not cause the problems of the world (I didn’t say they did), but it exacerbated them for the Church instead of tackling them.
For two centuries, the popes had struggled unceasingly against the Modernist heresy, “The Synthesis of all Heresies”, which was threatening to overthrow Western thought and civilisation. (N.B. the words ‘Modernist’ and ‘Liberal’, when applied to theology, have much sharper meanings than when used in everyday speech. The same thing happens in science, with words like ‘energy’, ‘work’, ‘power’, etc.)
“The poison which has spread throughout the whole church as a result of the reforms of this pastoral Council …] was contained in their equivocations and ambiguities.
[nume: These are in black and white, in the published documents themselves. I recommend M.Davies, “Pope John’s Council”, {ISBN 0-935952-04-7}, for example.]
…
“It will be very instructive to follow the reactions of Protestants, Masons and Liberal Catholics during and after the Council”. (Mgr M. Lefebvre, 18 Aug 1976)
[nume: Many in the Church may have been in denial that the Church had done an about turn and had capitulated to the ideas of her enemies, but the latter were in no doubt about it at all, and crowed about it day and night. Once again, all of this is in the public domain. “These things were not done in a corner”.]
“The ecumenical Liberalism which triumphed at the Council was the greatest victory of Communism against Christian civilisation, which lost its self-confidence and thought it could adopt the principles of its enemies: rights of man, human dignity and religious liberty.
In doing this, it opened a dialogue in which one side does not listen and raised the banner of détente and pacifism, thanks to which Communism has spread over the world without hindrance.
Vatican II, which should have been the anti-Communist Council, as the Council of Trent was anti-Protestant, was taken over by the Liberals and became the instrument for the destruction of all the moral and spiritual barriers against Communism.
When soldiers have lost the ideal for which they fight their weapons fall from their hands. Since there is no longer a Christian civilisation to defend the field is left open to the Satanic Revolution.
…
Those who worked to disarm the truth and surrender it to error bear a heavy responsibility.
(Mgr M. Lefebvre, March 1982)

 

[seremina]

In my own view, Traditionalism refers to worshiping the Lord the “traditional” way. It does not refer to rejecting all of Vatican II (or perhaps the mistaken “spirit” of Vatican II), nor does it refer to rejecting the Pope.

Those who reject all of Vatican II and the Pope are Seds. (Sorry, I ALWAYS have trouble spelling that word, so I hope its acceptable I use this shortened form.) But I do wonder if I’ve stumbled across an “Extremist Sed” as of recently. He even believes the current Catholic Church is nothing more than a counterfeit church whose name is Vatican II, and that Seds should only be friends and family with other Seds. He doesn’t even believe any Mass is valid, so you just read the Tridentine Mass missal at home to fulfill your Sunday obligation. As much as I enjoyed the discussions with him, the extremism was so over the top that I ended up overwhelmed and unable to handle the discussions anymore. I’ll still be his friend though he believes me to be a “Vatican IIist” though I made it clear I’m fairly traditional or outright conservative. He believes even Traditionalists aren’t good enough.

I think CAF should define things for easier discussion. There’d be more value in the discussions, then, rather than just random people defining it so differently that there’s no unity in the definition. In my personal experience, I’ve never met a Traditionalist nor a Sed that smoked cigars.

 

[ntenaglia]

The reason we didn’t hear about ‘traditionalists’ in those days is that we were all traditionalists then – except for a fringe group who were obstinately persisting in disobedient practices. Pope Pius XII wrote, “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!” If I may say so, ntenaglia, you have had heavy burdens to bear. Good luck on your journey back home. I hope the delay in the annulment is not prolonged. I also hope your questions will be answered, so that your first Holy Communion together will be taken kneeling, receiving on the tongue, during a TLM, ‘without qualm of conscience or fear of censure’ as Pope St Pius V put it in 1570 when he ‘canonised’ the TLM forever…
Good for you. If you go to a trad Mass Centre you will have the nowadays unusual experience of actually being supported in this creditable attitude. In general, when my wife & I started going to the SSPX Mass Centre we rediscovered what we had almost forgotten: what it is like to be in a parish that actually encourages one’s attempts at growth in the Faith, instead of undermining you all the time.

Continued.…

Thanks for the words of encouragement, it’s something I haven’t seen too much of in several of the forums on this site. I think the changes that occurred in my time away made it easier for me to reconcile with the Church but now that I’m back, I really miss some of the old ways.

 

[numealinesimpet]

May I offer this as a contribution to debate?
On the very general topic of defining words: the commonest words, like dog, cat, stand, sit etc, have meanings so obvious to the culture that there is hardly ever any need to enquire what they mean: where the boundaries of meaning lie. When we move further from immediate experience, however, we may need to make a conscious decision on what our word is to denote. This is a real need, and one that is not immediately obvious to one who has not previously considered it. The natural impulse is to assume that a word has a definite meaning ‘locked in’, and to enquire what it is. The reality is a little different. Any culture refines its language over generations. One great benefit of learning other languages is the gaining of the insight that distinctions are made in one language that are not made in others. For example, in Irish and Latin, there is just one word to cover the meanings of the two English words ‘do’ and ‘make’; whereas in Irish there are two words for the one English word ‘take’: one meaning ‘take something offered’ and the other ‘take something not offered’. The bilingual person realises that ideas are a separate reality from the words of a particular language. The meaning of a word is normally refined unconsciously by the members of the cutlure, but it can also be done deliberately. Most developed languages have a standard to which the speakers defer, either an authoritative dictionary or an actual organisation (such as L’Academie Francais) that conduct ongoing review of the language, recommending certain innovations and rejecting others.
When thought or experiences in a culture are growing and changing, there can be a transition period in which words are shifting their meaning, and new words are being coined and crafted. Multilinguals have often noted that the modern English language uses many words in a much less clear-cut way than some other European languages. This is just one of the potential pitfalls of translating from another language: ideas can be sneaked across that were not in the original.
The Thomistic method is to define one’s terms at the outset, and then to build on this foundation using the established principles of logic and thought.
I agree with seremina that this is the only way to debate intelligently and fruitfully.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Defining our Words
The changes in the Catholic Church during the past 50 years have thrown up the need for some new terminology. Not surprisingly, the definitions of some of these words have not yet become fully stabilised. Who knows? Maybe this CA debate will help.
When we consider the full meaning of a word, there are two different aspects: the thing that the word asserts, and the things that it pre-supposes, or takes for granted. For example, as far as i can see, the word ‘sexist’ means someone who makes distinctions between the sexes – but pre-supposes that this is wrong. I personally do acknowledge differences, but deny that this is necessarily reprehensible. There is a danger in using such newly-coined words. One can swallow the pre-conceptions without reflection. This has some relevance to the words we are considering.
The present situation in the Church is unique in her 2000-year history, because for the first time since the Messiah appeared on the Earth and ‘made all things new’ – “New wine in new wineskins’ – the faithful have been urged to embark on a process of embracing novelties, and rejection of much that had previously been accepted. This has been urged in the name of Obedience.
The reactions of the Faithful have varied. Although we are talking about individuals, there are several broad categories into which they have fallen. Here is my review of the words to describe them.

Lapsed Catholic/Fallen Away Catholic. These are they who, in the present instance, have decided that the Catholic Church has lost her credibility. The immediate aftermath of the new orientations after Vatican II was a vast exodus of lapsed Catholics. The very idea that ‘The Changes’ could have anything to do with their lapsation was howled down for decades, even when innumerable numbers of them insisted that they did. I might add that these included, at one time, my own parents.

Conservative. These are they who have accepted what they have been told from the pulpit, making changes to attitudes and beliefs when told to do so. This would, perhaps, include the majority of current practising Catholics. It was recently pointed out by C. A. Ferrara & T.E. Woods, however* (The Great Facade, ISBN 1-890740-10-1*) that this term is unsatisfactory, because the term “conservative” is supposed to mean someone who conserves, keeps things as they are; whereas the people referred to are constantly changing - or were doing so throughout the Seventies and beyond. Ferrara & Woods coined the term Neo-Catholic to denote these people. I am not happy with this appellation, as the prefix neo- implies someone who has returned to something ancient: as the Neo-Pagans are those who relapsed into Paganism. But the attitudes and practices of these people are unprecedented in the history of the Church. I prefer the term Novo-Catholics: those following the New Order.

The fallacy of the Novo-Catholics is to believe that, to be a faithful Catholic, one must accept unquestioningly each and every statement issuing from the Vatican, the Diocesan Office, or the pulpit. However laudable this may be as a theory, it runs into impossible contradictions.

Sedevacantist. This is actually the other side of the coin of Novo-Catholicism. Once one makes the erroneous assumption that the pope cannot utter a material heresy, or give fundamentally bad example (both of which are actually consideredto be possibilities in true Catholic thought), then faced with certain words and actions of recent pontiffs, one is thrown into two only possibilities: either to try to justify each and every word and action of the pope and his subordinates, or to deny that he is the pope at all. It can be proven relatively simply why this latter position is impossible and untenable, but unfortunately those following it are often so emotionally traumatised by what they have seen and heard that they will not listen.

Religious Archaeologist. Like Luther, these seek refuge in an attempted reconstruction of the beliefs and conditions of the Primitive Church, rejecting in the process many developments that have been sanctioned by immemorial usage. This position was condemned by Pope Pius XII.

Continued …

 

[numealinesimpet]

Continued …
Conciliar Church. This phrase was coined and propagated by those pushing the strongest for change during and after the Second Vatican Council, such as Cdl Benelli. It seems to mean those committed to following what we have been told are the mandates of Vatican II. It sounds suspiciously like the name for a new Church and a new religion, although the proponents appear to simultaneously affirm and deny this.

Traditionalist. I take this to mean those Catholics who reject such novelties within the Church as are invalid, illegal or manifestly self-destructive. The Catholic Church has developed an entire culture, which cannot be reduced to a few written statements on a sheet of paper, and this on the whole is being preserved, at least in attempt, by the traditionalists. A key principle is that there are limits to authority and consequently obedience, and therefore that certain directives, ‘orientations’ and trends can and must be legitimately resisted. This has been enunciated very clearly in the past, notably by S. Thomas Aquinas. Most Catholics of this stripe, I think, dislike the word Traditionalist, declaring that they are simply Catholics. In the current chaos, however, perhaps we ought to accept it for the sake of argument.

Lefebvrist/Lefebvrian. This word, used by opponents of the SSPX, carries the implicit pre-supposition that Mgr Lefebvre started a new brand or flavour of Catholicicm, and gathered a band of supporters. This is vigorously denied by the SSPX clergy and those laypeople who avail of their emergency services: Mgr Lefebvre affirmed to his dying day that he was doing nothing more than remain faithful to his ordination Vows (and those he took as a bishop). The word is never used by those who actually accept the position adopted by Mgr Lefebvre and act accordingly.

I realise that some of the above is open to much further discussion: I am presenting these thoughts here merely to clarify words as a basis for further debate.

 

[ntenaglia]

Defining our Words
The changes in the Catholic Church during the past 50 years have thrown up the need for some new terminology. Not surprisingly, the definitions of some of these words have not yet become fully stabilised. Who knows? Maybe this CA debate will help.
When we consider the full meaning of a word, there are two different aspects: the thing that the word asserts, and the things that it pre-supposes, or takes for granted. For example, as far as i can see, the word ‘sexist’ means someone who makes distinctions between the sexes – but pre-supposes that this is wrong. I personally do acknowledge differences, but deny that this is necessarily reprehensible. There is a danger in using such newly-coined words. One can swallow the pre-conceptions without reflection. This has some relevance to the words we are considering.
The present situation in the Church is unique in her 2000-year history, because for the first time since the Messiah appeared on the Earth and ‘made all things new’ – “New wine in new wineskins’ – the faithful have been urged to embark on a process of embracing novelties, and rejection of much that had previously been accepted. This has been urged in the name of Obedience.
The reactions of the Faithful have varied. Although we are talking about individuals, there are several broad categories into which they have fallen. Here is my review of the words to describe them.

Lapsed Catholic/Fallen Away Catholic. These are they who, in the present instance, have decided that the Catholic Church has lost her credibility. The immediate aftermath of the new orientations after Vatican II was a vast exodus of lapsed Catholics. The very idea that ‘The Changes’ could have anything to do with their lapsation was howled down for decades, even when innumerable numbers of them insisted that they did. I might add that these included, at one time, my own parents.

Conservative. These are they who have accepted what they have been told from the pulpit, making changes to attitudes and beliefs when told to do so. This would, perhaps, include the majority of current practising Catholics. It was recently pointed out by C. A. Ferrara & T.E. Woods, however* (The Great Facade, ISBN 1-890740-10-1*) that this term is unsatisfactory, because the term “conservative” is supposed to mean someone who conserves, keeps things as they are; whereas the people referred to are constantly changing - or were doing so throughout the Seventies and beyond. Ferrara & Woods coined the term Neo-Catholic to denote these people. I am not happy with this appellation, as the prefix neo- implies someone who has returned to something ancient: as the Neo-Pagans are those who relapsed into Paganism. But the attitudes and practices of these people are unprecedented in the history of the Church. I prefer the term Novo-Catholics: those following the New Order.

The fallacy of the Novo-Catholics is to believe that, to be a faithful Catholic, one must accept unquestioningly each and every statement issuing from the Vatican, the Diocesan Office, or the pulpit. However laudable this may be as a theory, it runs into impossible contradictions.

Sedevacantist. This is actually the other side of the coin of Novo-Catholicism. Once one makes the erroneous assumption that the pope cannot utter a material heresy, or give fundamentally bad example (both of which are actually consideredto be possibilities in true Catholic thought), then faced with certain words and actions of recent pontiffs, one is thrown into two only possibilities: either to try to justify each and every word and action of the pope and his subordinates, or to deny that he is the pope at all. It can be proven relatively simply why this latter position is impossible and untenable, but unfortunately those following it are often so emotionally traumatised by what they have seen and heard that they will not listen.

Religious Archaeologist. Like Luther, these seek refuge in an attempted reconstruction of the beliefs and conditions of the Primitive Church, rejecting in the process many developments that have been sanctioned by immemorial usage. This position was condemned by Pope Pius XII.

Continued …

Thanks for the definitions. I’ve seen many of these words in previous posts, but didn’t know what they meant.

 

[CWBetts]

I am offended by the term 'Novo-Catholic" It should simply be “Catholic” These are the Catholics who realized the true Spirit of Vatican II, do not tolerate legitimate abuses, and realize when Traditionalists are just being arrogant fools.

 

[preV2tradcath]

Wow! Numealinesimpet, all I can say is thank you for your excellent post.

Continued…
**ntenaglia ** writes:
I have three responses to this. Your fellow-parishoners ought not to have been too surprised, and I would suggest not giving up too early.

(i) The TLM did not try to be two different things at the same time. The actual conduct of the Mass was not meant to be a lesson in the Faith for newcomers. There are things you do in the classroom that you don’t do in the workshop. You cannot actually do worship if you are continually stopping and talking about what you are going to do. It is a valid thing to explain the meanings of the Mass, but it has to be done in a practice session, not in the actual ritual. This is one of the many mistakes made since Vatican II. Imagine the Queen of England at her Coronation Ceremony. What would have become of it if the Archbishop of Canterbury had stopped every five minutes and explained the meaning of everything during the actual ceremony?

(ii) The TLM is what we Roman Rite Catholics do when we are most ourselves. Every single word and gesture had a meaning and history going back centuries or millennia. It is the best we know how to do. Like classical music, or many human activities, it cannot be appreciated the first time out. I myself can appreciate a game of soccer (even though I am hopeless at it myself) having been raised from childhood with this as a background. But I cannot appreciate American football, because I don’t know what they are trying to do at any particular time, and so I don’t know whether or not they are doing it well. I would need time, explanations and experience of many games before I could make head or tail of it. The TLM makes no concessions to the newcomer. In fact, during a Solemn High Mass, at some points the priest is saying certain prayers, the acolytes might be responding, the thurifer (incense-bearer) is incensing various people in turn … while the choir is singing something different. No individual could take it all in at the time, but it is directed to the worship of God, it is not a concert.

(iii) The TLM allows each individual to tune in at his or her own level. S. Teresa of Avila wrote, ‘No two souls are more than 50% alike’. It is a big mistake to expect everyone to be chanting the identical vocal prayers all together. That is like a communist march-past. the TLM is more like an orchestra: some are First fiddle, others are the triangle. “All God’s creatures got a place in the choir”. The great saints of the Mass, like St. Leonard, are very clear about this. At a typical well-attended TLM you could have everything from a layman reading the entire Mass from a Latin-only book (I have seen this done) through those following the parallel English translation, dipping into the Latin; those reading a simplified version in English, and those not using the book at all, but meditating silently. St Leonard mentions in his book that laymen trying to follow each and every word, with the different feastdays etc, is quite a difficult feat, and he doubts that many persist in it full-time. (I think, however, that since his time, the availability of well-designed printed book has probably made it easier). But he says that the layman who ‘assisted at’ his daily Mass Mass [that is the way it was spoken about] with the most profit was an illiterate farmer. For the first part of each Mass, He would meditate on his sins and make an Act of Contrition. During the Canon (Eucharistic prayer) he would meditate on the Last Supper and Calvary, and for the third part he would meditate on the Mystery of the Eucharist. That was all he did. But S. Leonard was insistent that this man was the best in the pews at following the Mass.

++++++++
The fact of Latin not being our own language is a red herring; everything is in translation side-by-side, if the Latin is there at all. But take your initiation gently. And remember: the heart of the Mass is a Mystery. Nobody really does understand it. If we understood it all, it would be only human.

So, if you go, dear lady, do take your time. The first time it would be quite in order to raise your heart and mind to God while simply taking in the sights and sounds - including that of silence!) A simple Mass book is fine. If you are lucky enough to have a well-appointed chapel, look at the architecture, the statues, and everything, and meditate on what it all means. And do not be afraid to let your mind follow its own track, at least part of the time. In the Old days, in our busy lives, it was wonderfully refreshing to many to have that sacred half-hour for quiet, prayerful reflection.

 

[ntenaglia]

Wow! Numealinesimpet, all I can say is thank you for your excellent post.

In my 30 years away from the Church I spent most of it in a Protestant congregation, and the rest with a group of solitary pagans (some Wiccan, some Druid) and read and studied other religions as well. One thing I learned in all of those experiences was that God often touches our souls in quiet ways.

When I first came back to the Church I spent a lot of time just taking in the Mass. After a series of meetings with our pastor, discussing both the issues that drove me away in the first place and whether it was possible for me to return to the Church.

Is it possible to just kind of take it all in and not be sure what’s going on at a Latin Mass? Will people look at me like I’m not doing what I should be at any given time?

 

[I_Believe]

I am offended by the term 'Novo-Catholic" It should simply be “Catholic” These are the Catholics who realized the true Spirit of Vatican II, do not tolerate legitimate abuses, and realize when Traditionalists are just being arrogant fools.

Come on Carl. You’ve been a Catholic for only two years. Almost every trad argument is echoed in the halls of the Vatican by some who walk them.

Trads have solid ground to stand on. Some can be exrtreme, yes. But not all. It’s foolish to lump all trads together.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is TLM of 1962 the most traditionalist mass of all times?