Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[aicirt]

I have yet to run into a fellow traditionalist (In Real Life) who denies the Validity of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I mean he gave us the Summorum Pontificum and he celebrates the EF for his personal masses. He will only distribute communion to communicants kneeling and on the tongue. I know I wish him many many long years for his pontificate.

If this was how the OF was practiced (youtube.com/watch?v=9EQbnGi6NCI) do you really think we would have an SSPX? Instead we get something like this 99 percent of the time:youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcoQbCopuE

That being said, I Attend a Parish which has the EF (Dominican Rite) Once a Month and on most major feast days. The OF mass at 11AM always has its ordinary chanted and in Latin. I would say its about 60/40 English to Latin (The Propers are in English).

Also there is a rumor that the Concecration might be changed to Latin regardless of whether the Mass is in the Vernacular or Not.

Exactly! My Church is one of the 99%…unfortunately.

 

[Cat]

I have yet to run into a fellow traditionalist (In Real Life) who denies the Validity of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I mean he gave us the Summorum Pontificum and he celebrates the EF for his personal masses. He will only distribute communion to communicants kneeling and on the tongue. I know I wish him many many long years for his pontificate.

If this was how the OF was practiced (youtube.com/watch?v=9EQbnGi6NCI) do you really think we would have an SSPX? Instead we get something like this 99 percent of the time:youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcoQbCopuE

That being said, I Attend a Parish which has the EF (Dominican Rite) Once a Month and on most major feast days. The OF mass at 11AM always has its ordinary chanted and in Latin. I would say its about 60/40 English to Latin (The Propers are in English).

Also there is a rumor that the Concecration might be changed to Latin regardless of whether the Mass is in the Vernacular or Not.

99% of the time?

That’s quite a statement. Where is your proof? You have a study documenting that 99% of the OF Masses are like the one you posted?

And frankly, I see nothing wrong with that Mass. There is nothing in the rubrics forbidding guitars and modern music. There is an indult allowing for Communion standing in the Hand. There are provisions for EMHCs. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything at all wrong or abusive about this Mass. What exactly do YOU see wrong? Yes, it’s not “traditional Latin Mass,” but there is NOTHING in the rubrics stating that ALL Masses must be TLM. Right?

And there is absolutely NOTHING in the rubrics stating that OF must be celebrated in LATIN. RIght?

Where is the violation of rubrics? Where is the “irreverence?” Where is the abuse?"

(Hint–there is no violation, no irreverence, no abuse, in the second Mass that you posted.)

If you were to attend the Masses in our diocese, you would find that we are doing things correctly here. I seriously doubt that the only reverent, abuse-free Masses are in our diocese. We’re more than 1%.

shuzo1189, with all due resect, this kind of wild statement is one reason why Traditionalist Catholics get no respect! When you make one wild, untrue statement, it really casts doubt on everything else you say. And when you post a Mass that is perfectly OK and imply that it is something bad, you’ve really lost respect. In fact, you’ve sinned, because you are telling an untruth by implying that something perfectly good and correct is bad and incorrect. Sorry, bud. Tell the truth.

 

[Aramis]

At its most basicTraditionalism is the group that says “The magisterium may not change anything.”

Fundamentally, that stance rejects the authority of the magisterium, in whole or in part.

 

[EnchantedEve]

At its most basicTraditionalism is the group that says “The magisterium may not change anything.”

Fundamentally, that stance rejects the authority of the magisterium, in whole or in part.

I cannot think of a single traditional group that advocated the view you describe. Could you elaborate on this?

 

[FrancisFan516]

Here is the original poster’s question; "Can someone explain traditionalism to me?"

I’d have to say “Yes”,…but after seeing some of the most rediculous statements I’ve ever read I’d suggest not formulating an opinion of “Traditionalists” based on what has been written on this forum.

Honestly,…I wonder where some of you people are getting your information.

I’m a member of a quote unquote Traditional Catholic Community, and don’t believe I’ve heard anyone in our congregation ever say anything disrespectful of the Vatican,…we love the Holy Father.

However; after watching the way most of todays Novus Ordo parishes have taken the changes that were implemented by Vatican II, bending and twisting them resulting in some of the most disrespectful and non-reverent Mass’s we’ve ever seen, we have after recieving permission from Pope John Paul II, gone back to worshiping God the way our parents and grandparents did before 1962,…and the Pope applauds us for doing it.

If I remember correctly, everyone I’ve talked in our parish seems to share my opinion,…the Novus Ordo Mass as implemented by VII is a wonderful Mass,…it’s the abuses of that Mass that we disagree with.
We just happen to prefer the Mass that was in effect in 1962.

 

[I_Believe]

At its most basicTraditionalism is the group that says “The magisterium may not change anything.”

Fundamentally, that stance rejects the authority of the magisterium, in whole or in part.

I’m glad we have a non Roman Catholic here to straighten out this mess. If you need any help over on Eastern, we’d be glad to return the favor.

Seriously, you folks are terrified at the prospect of the SSPX becoming regularized aren’t you ?

 

[shuzo1189]

99% of the time?

That’s quite a statement. Where is your proof? You have a study documenting that 99% of the OF Masses are like the one you posted?

And frankly, I see nothing wrong with that Mass. There is nothing in the rubrics forbidding guitars and modern music. There is an indult allowing for Communion standing in the Hand. There are provisions for EMHCs. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything at all wrong or abusive about this Mass. What exactly do YOU see wrong? Yes, it’s not “traditional Latin Mass,” but there is NOTHING in the rubrics stating that ALL Masses must be TLM. Right?

And there is absolutely NOTHING in the rubrics stating that OF must be celebrated in LATIN. RIght?

Where is the violation of rubrics? Where is the “irreverence?” Where is the abuse?"

(Hint–there is no violation, no irreverence, no abuse, in the second Mass that you posted.)

If you were to attend the Masses in our diocese, you would find that we are doing things correctly here. I seriously doubt that the only reverent, abuse-free Masses are in our diocese. We’re more than 1%.

shuzo1189, with all due resect, this kind of wild statement is one reason why Traditionalist Catholics get no respect! When you make one wild, untrue statement, it really casts doubt on everything else you say. And when you post a Mass that is perfectly OK and imply that it is something bad, you’ve really lost respect. In fact, you’ve sinned, because you are telling an untruth by implying that something perfectly good and correct is bad and incorrect. Sorry, bud. Tell the truth.

If you will notice, I never once stated that there was anything “wrong” with the second video I posted. Yes, everything you listed has been granted visa vi an Indult, even if it has no bearing in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I find the Mass in the second video is a woefully watered down presentation of our Catholic faith and Patrimony.

The 99 Percent Comment was a bit much ill admit, but I would easily say that is “A Typical Catholic Mass” at least in the Arch-Diocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker.
I hope that fact changes (And it seems like its starting too thanks to the recent Summorum Pontificum)

I would say that the use of four stringed Guitars and the Choir being up front would be examples of irreverence and an Abuse which has been tolerated for so long that it now has de-facto permission. But seeing that its allowed now I will just chock that up to my own personal sensibilities.

 

[Aramis]

I’m glad we have a non Roman Catholic here to straighten out this mess. If you need any help over on Eastern, we’d be glad to return the favor.

Seriously, you folks are terrified at the prospect of the SSPX becoming regularized aren’t you ?

No, actually. I sincerely hope the SSPX gets brought back as a separate Church Sui Iuris (as was requested originally by Archbishop Lefebvre. Move it completely away from the control of the OF. Grab the SSPX, ICRSS, and FSSP, Appoint a major archbishop, and let them continue with the Mass of '62 as they see fit.

I am still canonically Roman Rite, BTW, and my father is a Roman Rite deacon.

And it’s not like the Traditionalists are not busy complaining about how the Ruthenians are delatinizing. At least in Anchorage.

Then again, most of the “traditionalist” crowd in Anchorage ARE anti-V II, are ill informed, and SSPX attendees. The masses in the Archdiocese of Anchorage are generally fairly reverent, and done to rubric.

 

[I_Believe]

Right, put them in a box and protect the NO from them.

 

[CWBetts]

Why is it that every thread I have ever read in the “Traditional Catholicism” Forum turns mean and nasty? Usually because some of the Traditionalists (not all, so don’t jump all over me) come across as being “More Catholic” than the non-Traditonalists, and some of the Modernists (again, not all) do the same. Why can;t we accept that some people like recieving in the hand (a licit practice) and the vernacular, while others prefer the tongue and latin? Last time I checked we are all Catholic, and all in submission to the Holy See.

 

[numealinesimpet]

That’s not true. I am a traditional Catholic and I prefer communion in hand. I find it to be a more ancient practice. I also fully support the reforms of VC2.

Just a small point on this. Pope Pius XII warned against what he called ‘liturgical archaeologism’. If a particular practice was once widespread, and was later dropped, it is important to find out why - there might have been a very good reason. As the centuries passed and the first fervour was waning, the Church adjudged that it was dangerous to the Faith to allow Holy Communion to emphasise the aspect of the external sign of bread. Hence the Host was made into a perfect white disc, not a loaf, and only the consecrated hands of the priest were ever allowed to handle it. I was in my 20s when communion in the hand was re-introduced (by the tactic that was so common in that post-Vatican II period - organised disobedience until the Vatican caved in and changed the rules to accomodate the disobedience). The decline in reverence for the Holy Eucharist that has occurred since then is notorious.

The “Kiss of Peace” was abolished except for a highly stylised ritual during High Mass, and dropped from the usage of the congregation, because the young lads (and no doubt, more discreetly, lassies) were spending too much of their efforts ensuring they were next to the ‘right’ girl/boy in the pew.

I also fully support the reforms of VC2.

That does rather beg the question, doesn’t it? Which of ‘the changes’ inflicted on our generation all through the Seventies and beyond were (i) reforms; & (ii) actually mandated by Vatican II in the first place? For 13 years (I counted) I made a reasonably conscientious effort to go along with all the Changes we were assured were revitalising the church. The day came when ‘they’ went too far. My growing uneasy thought ‘this can’t go on’ suddenly became ‘this has got to stop’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

At its most basicTraditionalism is the group that says “The magisterium may not change anything.”

Well, luckily that lets the SSPX off the hook, because they make no such ridiculous statement. Mgr Lefebvre had several ideas, before Vatican II, about how the Order of Mass could be improved (some of them were actually implemented in the 1962 Missal) but in view of the anarchic situation of the 70s he believed that true liturgical reform had been killed stone dead for the forseeable future. There was nothing for it but to adhere to the last faithful revision of the TLM, which was 1962. We are grateful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for confirming what the trads had always insisted – when they were not being muzzled or shouted down – that the TLM had never been validly abrogated, hence under Pope Pius V’s legislation priests are exempt from all sanction if they choose to follow the TLM Missal. Mgr Lefebvre also expelled seminarians who rejected the Pope or the Magisterium, or the validity of the NO when said correctly in Latin.

Fundamentally, that stance rejects the authority of the magisterium, in whole or in part.

Aramis, you are vanquishing straw men. I think you are getting confused with the sedevacationist heresy.
Just a polite question: do you know anything at all about what the SSPX – who are generally considered trads – are saying at all?

 

[Aramis]

Well, luckily that lets the SSPX off the hook, because they make no such ridiculous statement. Mgr Lefebvre had several ideas, before Vatican II, about how the Order of Mass could be improved (some of them were actually implemented in the 1962 Missal) but in view of the anarchic situation of the 70s he believed that true liturgical reform had been killed stone dead for the forseeable future. There was nothing for it but to adhere to the last faithful revision of the TLM, which was 1962. We are grateful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for confirming what the trads had always insisted – when they were not being muzzled or shouted down – that the TLM had never been validly abrogated, hence under Pope Pius V’s legislation priests are exempt from all sanction if they choose to follow the TLM Missal. Mgr Lefebvre also expelled seminarians who rejected the Pope or the Magisterium, or the validity of the NO when said correctly in Latin.

Aramis, you are vanquishing straw men. I think you are getting confused with the sedevacationist heresy.
Just a polite question: do you know anything at all about what the SSPX – who are generally considered trads – are saying at all?

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

 

[EnchantedEve]

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

Aramis, I think we have already explored why what you say is not the case, and it would seem that saying SSPX supporters are “often” sedevacantists is unjust, and the overall tenor of this post does not seem charitable. It appears there is a wish to paint the SSPX worse than it is.

 

[Aramis]

Aramis, I think we have already explored why what you say is not the case, and it would seem that saying SSPX supporters are “often” sedevacantists is unjust, and the overall tenor of this post does not seem charitable. It appears there is a wish to paint the SSPX worse than it is.

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

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

 

[EnchantedEve]

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

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

Boy, isn’t that the truth! But sedevacantism seems a bit like pushing the mark on most, it seems…

 

[I_Believe]

The masses in the Archdiocese of Anchorage are generally fairly reverent, and done to rubric.

“Generally fairly reverent” doesn’t cut it.

Are the Eastern Rite Catholics OK with “Generally fairly reverent” Liturgies in their own churches ?

“Generally fairly reverent” is a pretty low standard I’d say.

 

[shuzo1189]

I imagine the over-riding reason why most of those SSPX Members are radical is a deep sense of hurt and fear that they will loose something utterly precious to them. It will be interesting to see how the talks between B16 and the SSPX play out.

 

[ntenaglia]

Well put.

WhollyRoamin wrote a pretty good paragraph that relates to this. I hope he doesn’t mind me borrowing it, but here it is:

"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.

Truthfully, it’s easier to describe their outward signs than their character: the old Latin Mass is the biggest identifier… though there are certainly traditional Catholics who are marooned in Novus Ordoland; there are likewise non-traditional Catholics who go to the TLM.

Trads are people who listen to Catholic Radio… skeptically. They might have a blog. They can list their “top-five” favorite Ecumenical Councils… none of which will rhyme with “Attican Shoe”. Their friends think they’re fuddy-duddys. They’ve got Holy Water fonts in all the bedrooms and by the front door. They quote the Douay Rheims bible. They have an opinion on offering Mass in baroque vestments while in a gothic chapel. They’re tired of tinfoil hat jokes. They may not like Bishop Williamson, but concede that sometimes he’s right, and when he’s right, he’s really right. They can tell you about Assisi. When they’re at a Novus Ordo Mass, they’ve got their hands folded like a Catholic during the Our Father. The women have an extra mantilla in the van-- just in case. The men have an opinion on the best type of pipe tobacco for any occasion. The boys have their own cassock and surplice hanging in the closet. The girls know how to play Dies Irae on the organ. They wear a t-shirt while they go swimming so their brown scapular doesen’t float away. They’re willing to drive an hour to go to Mass… every Sunday. They know the confession times of at least 4 churches. They invite priests over to play cards and smoke cigars. They pray to saints that you think may not really exist. They ask you to finish the sentence when you say “John Paul the Great”… the great what? They might own a live chicken. When they’re at a Novus Ordo Mass, everyone watches them to figure out why they’re hitting themselves during the “Lamb of God”. They’re kneel after Mass to pray… and miss out on the fun gladhanding with Father by the parish gift shop. They scoff when they pass the Masonic Lodge. They cross themselves when they pass a Catholic church. They mutter something about the “poor souls” when they pass a cemetary. They mutter something about St. Michael when an ambulance passes them. Their girls’ first names are Mary. Their boys’ middle names are Mary. Cappa Magma doesn’t sound like a drink at Starbucks to them. They’ll tell you at length why being “charitable” isn’t always being nice and friendly."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300666

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

 

[ntenaglia]

Gary - This question is difficult, because “tradition” has a different meaning to different people. Nevertheless, there are some generally common strains of beliefs, preferences, and advocacies that you will encounter within the traditionalist movement:

• As you indicated, a definite preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (“Latin Mass/Tridentine Mass”, etc.) and all the “outer trappings” that this Mass entails: Communion at the rail, not in the hand; women wearing veils to Mass, Gregorian Chant, etc.
• Heightened criticism and distaste for the Novus Ordo Mass in terms of liturgical style
• A strong desire to return the Novus Ordo to the Extraordinary Form whenever and wherever possible.
• Very loyal, devout approach to Catholicism in general - Daily Rosaries, Weekly confessions, vigorously incorporating traditional Catholic practices into one’s daily routine, etc. I would go so far as to say that a large percentage of traditionalists take their faith very seriously, and are quite devoted to their faith. Best word: Zealous.
• A preference for home-schooling their children.
• A very pro-family, anti-abortion, anti-contraception stance
• An advocacy for the Douay-Rheims as the most “authentic” version of the Bible
• A generally highly critical attitude towards ecumenical efforts of the Pope
• A certain segment of the traditionalist movement hold anti-semitic views - as in the case of the radical anti-semitic beliefs of Holocaust-denier Bishop Williamson of the SSPX. This is by far one of the worst characteristics of the movement in general, and a major detraction from its positive elements.
• A generally highly critical attitude towards the liturgical and “philosophical” changes that have taken place within the Church since Vatican II. If not overt, certainly an underlying current of anti-Vatican II criticism and rhetoric among its adherents.
• A very strict, literal interpretation of pre-Vatican II Church doctrine and teachings without taking into account historical context or later changes that have taken place within the Church. Adherence to the “literal” interpretation instead of the “spirit” of the teaching.
• A very narrow, insular, almost stubborn outlook towards others that disagree with their “traditionalist” views, such that traditionalists can sometimes come across as extremist and harsh

Again, I am speaking in general terms. Not all traditionalists fall into this category, but if you spend any time studying the subculture of this very tiny sect of the Catholic Church, you will certainly encounter some or all of the above.

Traditionalists are a very tiny minority of the Catholic Church, but certainly one of the most vocal.

What makes a “traditionalist a traditionalist” is some combination of some or all of the above preferences, beliefs, and advocacies in varying degrees. The list is not all inclusive, and certainly is not all encompassing. There are great positives, and some glaring negatives. There is no one singular element, but this will give you a general snapshot of the movement in general.

Will a traditionalist have some of these traits, but not necessarily most of them?