Certain attitudes in traddom

[severus68]

Nor mine.

A woman has the right to stay at home, but I don’t think it is ever a good idea for a woman to NOT be educated. She can go to school and then choose to stay at home. It should be a choice, not her only option because she is not educated.

A woman needs to make sure she can take care of herself and her children, in case anything happens like: civil divorce, death of the spouse, or disability of the spouse.

To discourage a woman from going college or to teach it is not the traditional Catholic thing to do is plain old wrong.

I agree. Further, education is not just about getting a job, it is about opening your mind, learning life skills etc.

 

[SBroxson]

From an earlier post:

“By the way, the EF and OF are the same rite. They are forms of the one Roman Rite.”

I’ve heard that very often (although less frequently since Pope Benedict–as he had some very strong things to say about the functional suppression of the traditional Latin mass, and the method in which the Novus Ordo was drawn up). Most often, I’ve heard it expressed: “It is the same mass!”

I don’t deny that it may be true in a sense: however, the prohibition of the (now) EF by many bishops over a period of decades does tend to undercut this concept. If both forms are the “same” rite then how could one be banned by a bishop? If I have access to a secure government facility, and that access is not pulled, I will be admitted repeatedly because I am the same person. Nobody else will be in my name, because they are not the same person.

One also frequently hears that to choose between the EF or OF is a matter of mere personal preference of no significance (e.g., some like chocolate ice cream, others prefer vanilla). That certainly is often true, however the concept is undercut by the active hostility of so many Bishops against the traditional Latin mass over a period of decades: to be sure, THEY did not think it was a matter of personal preference or attachment, and they thought that the matter was very significant indeed.

These issues are now fading from memory–and hopefully will continue to fade. That is, hopefully the current policies will continue if not expand.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’ve heard that very often (although less frequently since Pope Benedict–as he had some very strong things to say about the functional suppression of the traditional Latin mass, and the method in which the Novus Ordo was drawn up). Most often, I’ve heard it expressed: “It is the same mass!”

I don’t deny that it may be true in a sense: however, the prohibition of the (now) EF by many bishops over a period of decades does tend to undercut this concept. If both forms are the “same” rite then how could one be banned by a bishop?

If the 1570 Mass and the 1962 Mass are the “same,” then how come it is permitted to celebrate according to the 1962 Missale and forbidden to celebrate according to the 1570 Missale?

 

[malphono]

SBroxson;8267849:

I’ve heard that very often (although less frequently since Pope Benedict–as he had some very strong things to say about the functional suppression of the traditional Latin mass, and the method in which the Novus Ordo was drawn up). Most often, I’ve heard it expressed: “It is the same mass!”

If the 1570 Mass and the 1962 Mass are the “same,” then how come it is permitted to celebrate according to the 1962 Missale and forbidden to celebrate according to the 1570 Missale?

How did that come from the quoted post?

 

[MarkThompson]

How did that come from the quoted post?

The answer to my question provides a solution to the puzzlement about how two things can be “the same Mass” and yet one be forbidden and the other allowed.

 

[malphono]

The answer to my question provides a solution to the puzzlement about how two things can be “the same Mass” and yet one be forbidden and the other allowed.

Ooohkay … I still don’t get it, really, but I’m not involved in this thread anyway so it doesn’t matter.

 

[MarkThompson]

Ooohkay … I still don’t get it, really, but I’m not involved in this thread anyway so it doesn’t matter.

Oh yes, “I’m not in this discussion” – we’ve beforethere, haven’t we?

 

[JReducation]

I believe that several things happened.

First:

There was the intent of the Council Fathers and Pope Paul VI to reorganize the liturgy to respond to the needs of the faithful of the 20th century and to engage the faithful in a vocal participation in the mass. As I posted in other threads, this was not a new concept. It is very common in the East and in the Latin Church, it is very common in certain religious communities. Lay people who attended the mass of Trent at any place where certain religious orders governed, already had vocal participation for centuries. Laity who were in parishes run by other religious or by diocesan priests did not have such dialog masses. The point here is that they were not thinking of anything that was new or bad. It was an old concept and if it had been bad, it would not have been allowed to anyone. What was wrong with it? It was foreign to most people. It is important to separate what is foreign from new. Something can be very old, but it can be very foreign to me. This leads to the next problem.

Second:

There was not a proper catechesis. It was too fast. Some people blame the Vatican and others blend the bishops’ conferences for the speed with which the changes were introduced. It’s water under the bridge at this point. The deed is done. We simply need to learn so as not to do it again. Maybe if people had seen how the East had dialogue liturgy, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Carthusians, the Carmelites, the Society of Jesus, the Ambrosians, the Mozarabic and other Latin groups, and it had been explained why they had it, it may have helped make the transition smoother. You’re always going to get people who are not going to transition smoothly even if you glaze the path with butter. But you can reduce the number.

Third.:

We cannot deny that there were a group of people who were misguided either by a lack of understanding, by their own agenda, or simply swept up in the world culture of the time, who knows? We can never prove what is in the hearts of men. We can only speculate by their actions. This group was determined that we needed a “new Church”. This prompted an attempt to break with the past rather than transition from one chapter to another. These were the people who sucked others into what I call an almost militant denial and rejection of the Tridentine form. Not satisfied with that, they went further. They dabbled rubrics and messed it up. I’m sorry for using such a vulgar term. I can’t think of another term.

Fourth and last:

There is the laity itself. The lay faithful have not always helped to make smooth the transition from one form to the other and to make it clear that they are two forms of the same form, equally valid. We see this in this sub-forum. Instead of promoting the oneness of the two forms as one rite, many lay people have engaged in disparaging one or the other, in words of anger, condemnation, blame, and often hurtful words to those who appreciate one form or the other. The lay faithful, while claiming to be protecting and defending the liturgy, in either form, have failed to protect the Church in their local communities. They have engaged in labeling and mudslinging, at times even arrogance in their manner of talking to and about clergy, bishops and religious superiors who, in the end, have the final word as to how the mass must be celebrated. No one denies that those in authority have made mistakes, as I mentioned above. However, throwing stones at them does not help. In the end, they hold the power and authority, because of the office they hold. This authority is not up for discussion. It is what it is. There are proper channels that we can use to voice our concerns and communicate our needs and complains. Bashing has never fostered unity.

To conclude, it is the same mass and the two forms are equally valid and equally holy. Mark brings up an important point. We don’t use the ritual prior to 1962 to celebrate the EF, not because it’s not the same mass or because it’s invalid. It is not used because the Church is so large today that it would be chaotic if we opened the flood gates to the many forms of the mass that have existed through the ages. I always teach our novices that the mass itself is the mass of the ages. The forms are not perennial. They have changed many times over the centuries. I always use the example of the early Franciscans. They are the forefathers of the EF that we have today. They went to Pope Innocent and asked for a missal that allowed them to celebrate the mass without all of the “trimmings” that many of the forms being used at that time had. Francis did not like the use of so many books, cards, and so many vessels on the altar. Innocent gave him an old missal that was rarely used. They took it throughout Europe and eventually the Council of Trent polished it up and came up with what we call the Tridentine Form. I point out to our guys how it was always one of many forms and it was Trent that standardized the form. However, Trent allowed certain groups to develop a modified version of the Tridentine Form to preserve their customs.

The Church, which has the power to bind and unbind, can and has bound and unbound different forms, not because one is the mass and the other is not, but simply to keep some harmony, while at the same time allowing for diversity. Diversity is not new, it’s just foreign to most people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

The point here is that they were not thinking of anything that was new or bad. Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Are you sure everyone involved was so benevolent?

Just asking.

I think it is important for a group to be vocal about abuses. I really don’t think if most OF masses were reverent like the ones on EWTN, the EF enthusiasts would be so vocal.

Sure some believe that we lose a lot by changing the liturgy, but I think the worst part of it all is when the “Spirit of Vatican II” gets out of hand.

And I do believe without these traditionalist group’s vocal preference for the EF is why we have SP and UE today, not to mention the FSSP and other traditional groups.

 

[Aramis]

Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit.

Not according to the various states…

Most states set some clear limits on what parents can or cannot do in raising their children.

In most, education is compulsory, and proof of said education is required. Which means, if you choose to keep your child out of the public schools, you are required by law to either have enrolled them in an accredited home school program or an accredited private school program.

Most states also limit corporal punishment… from Florida’s “Not allowed outside of school” through Alaska’s “maximum 3 strikes with bare hand on the clothed buttocks, and no visible mark 15 min later.”

Almost all specify you must provide adequate nutrition.

And ALL states in the US and ALL provinces in Canada specify that, if you can’t or won’t meet the minimums set by the state, they can and will take your children away from you.

 

[JReducation]

Are you sure everyone involved was so benevolent?

Just asking.

I think it is important for a group to be vocal about abuses. I really don’t think if most OF masses were reverent like the ones on EWTN, the EF enthusiasts would be so vocal.

Sure some believe that we lose a lot by changing the liturgy, but I think the worst part of it all is when the “Spirit of Vatican II” gets out of hand.

And I do believe without these traditionalist group’s vocal preference for the EF is why we have SP and UE today, not to mention the FSSP and other traditional groups.

The Church certainly encourages people to report abuse. In fact, for the first time in 2,000 years, the Church made it a law. It’s in Canon Law.

There are two problems.

First:

The American Heresy – Americans and now Europeans too don’t seem to know how to communicate problems without being aggressive and oppositional. That’s not what Canon Law says. But that’s what we are taught in our schools today. Even our forefathers spoke of peaceful gatherings, not vociferous whining, condemnation and complaining. We know that this stunned Pope Benedict when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. Instead of getting some quiet letters of concern, delegations, requests to be heard, people ran to the press and bashed what they perceived as wrong. This same thing is happening with the abuses in the liturgy. Just look at CAF. Let me tell you, CAF is much more tame. Some Traditionalist forums are outright hostile. That’s not what the Church had in mind when she made it law that the faithful are to express and communicate on such abuses.

Second:

Going back to your first question, “Am I sure that everyone was so benevolent?” I’ll give you an answer that you should already know, because you have read the Perfect Joy of St. Francis. Our Holy Father Francis would look at the good that people intend and discourages, at times even condemns speculation about the intent of people. He would never engage in speculation about evil intent in another person. The heart and conscience is a corridor in which God alone has the right to walk.

If we are to act contrary to what he has taught us and begin to speculate about that which we cannot prove, we do even greater harm to the Church. We would be annulling a spirituality that has been handed down to us for the preservation of the Church. We have to use what our Holy Father Francis taught us and commanded. We judge actions and not the intent of our brothers.

What would you think of me, if I were to answer in any manner contrary to what you have read about our Holy Father Francis?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

What would you think of me, if I were to answer in any manner contrary to what you have read about our Holy Father Francis?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

And what’s that grin supposed to mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

And what’s that grin supposed to mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It means you essentially shut me up. I can’t say anything about mirroring St Francis.

 

[SBroxson]

If the 1570 Mass and the 1962 Mass are the “same,” then how come it is permitted to celebrate according to the 1962 Missale and forbidden to celebrate according to the 1570 Missale?

To me the answer seems obvious: alas the obvious often takes a long time to explain. Moreover, I’m not sure as to your reasoning process to know where our point of disagreement lies–which is not surprising since these are posts, not dissertations. So, I’ll only note this:

1. I was referencing a point in time in which there was one version of the mass that was authorized, and then then that version was forbidden. The 1570 Missale was not in use, and so does not enter into the question.
2. Are you drawing an equivalence between minor, gradual change and “rupture” (to quote our Pope)?

Currently, we are about to make modifications to the OF: the prior version will no longer be said: so are you saying that correcting a mistranslation here and there is the same as the suppression of the traditional Latin mass, the the substitution with what is now called the OF?

1. I wonder if your realize how minor were the changes in the traditional Latin mass over the centuries? Tweaks, not rewrites?

Moreover, none of this refutes my basic points: that there are differences between the EF and the OF, and that many bishops–past and even current–acted in a way as to preclude any reasonable conclusion that they viewed the two forms as essentially the same and/or matters of mere personal preference/attachment. Indeed, many made public statement indicating as much quite clearly. During none of these discussions did the 1570 Missale come up as that was not the issue for anybody involved.

 

[JReducation]

To me the answer seems obvious: alas the obvious often takes a long time to explain. Moreover, I’m not sure as to your reasoning process to know where our point of disagreement lies–which is not surprising since these are posts, not dissertations. So, I’ll only note this:

1. I was referencing a point in time in which there was one version of the mass that was authorized, and then then that version was forbidden. The 1570 Missale was not in use, and so does not enter into the question.
2. Are you drawing an equivalence between minor, gradual change and “rupture” (to quote our Pope)?

Currently, we are about to make modifications to the OF: the prior version will no longer be said: so are you saying that correcting a mistranslation here and there is the same as the suppression of the traditional Latin mass, the the substitution with what is now called the OF?

1. I wonder if your realize how minor were the changes in the traditional Latin mass over the centuries? Tweaks, not rewrites?

Moreover, none of this refutes my basic points: that there are differences between the EF and the OF, and that many bishops–past and even current–acted in a way as to preclude any reasonable conclusion that they viewed the two forms as essentially the same and/or matters of mere personal preference/attachment. Indeed, many made public statement indicating as much quite clearly. During none of these discussions did the 1570 Missale come up as that was not the issue for anybody involved.

I’ll add only one point to this for consideration. The idea that we had one mass for the Latin Church is not true. It felt that way to the laity, because most lay people, especially in Europe and the USA, only knew secular priests. All secular priests used the same form and the same rite.

There has always been only one Latin Rite, but there has never been only one Latin form until the mass of Paul VI was promulgated. Prior to that, every religious community had its own form. Some religious communities had their own rites, which is an bigger difference than just a form. The difference in forms is in minor details such as language, postures or a different liturgical calendar. The differences betweeen rites are bigger than that. The theological approach is different.

The majority of the lay faithful had secular priests in their parishes. They knew only one form. Those who had religious in their parishes did not have the same experience as the majority of the Latin Catholic laity.

Let’s rewind into history. You said that there were tweeks in the past. Not exactly . . . . there were more than tweeks. I can tell you from the history of my own community, that our founder made major changes to the form of the mass and the LOTH. In fact, those changes that he made were later adopted by Pope Pius V who actually did tweak by adding Gregorian Chant, where Francis had banned it. Pope Pius was trying to implement the Council of Trent’s decision to create one Roman Missal for the secular clergy.

Prior to Trent,there were many forms of the mass and they were very different, including in language. That’s why they legislated Latin. Not everyone used Latin. Even after the Council of Trent, the exempt religious were never bound to use only Latin. That law was only for the secular clergy, which was a minority in those days. Today, if you take the number of priests in the world, 70% of priests are secular. It stands to reason that at least 70% of the lay faithful would not be familiar with the mass as celebrated by the other 30%, expecially after 1970 when more than half of the religious were pulled out of parishes, because parish work was not part of the vision and mission of their founders.

We have a numbers issue here. I’m not disparaging the preferences of people or defending those who bullied others to accept one form or another. I find that in fairness to us, who are religious, it must be said that we have never been bound to this “mass of the ages” that lay people aond some Traditionalist clercis claim existed for everyone. There was never such a thing as one Latin Catholic form. There were many. In fact, if anything, it was Vatican II, inappropriately interpreted, that did away with the diversity.

Carmelites and Dominicans stopped using their rites. Carthusians modified their rite. Franciscans, Jesuits, Salesians, Passionists and Augustinians stopped using their forms and adopted the Roman Missal of Paul VI…

As you can see, while lay people are upset because of the variety, the religious are upset because of the uniformity. I know that we, religious, are a minority, but we are no less essential to the Church and our experience must be included in these discussions, if they are to be fair to the whole Body.

I think that’s one of the weaknesses in “Traddom” and “Liberals” too. People are excluded, because of an a priori assumption that one’s experience is the universal experience.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rben20]

Going into the traditionalist teaching on women and being educated and/or working…this is the article that my ex would use in defense.

traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B006cpVocationWoman.htm

I’ve already refuted it by actually looking at the sources in context. I know this is an opinion trying to be twisted as Catholic teaching but my point is there are traditionalists who say this is the right thing to do and anything contrary or added on would not sit right or be traditional. Again I’m all for tradition but it’s sites like these that really have me worried because this is the realities of some. Tradition begins to encompass much more.

 

[JReducation]

Going into the traditionalist teaching on women and being educated and/or working…this is the article that my ex would use in defense.

traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B006cpVocationWoman.htm

I’ve already refuted it by actually looking at the sources in context. I know this is an opinion trying to be twisted as Catholic teaching but my point is there are traditionalists who say this is the right thing to do and anything contrary or added on would not sit right or be traditional. Again I’m all for tradition but it’s sites like these that really have me worried because this is the realities of some. Tradition begins to encompass much more.

What this site presents has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It’s very interesting, because the site does not link you to writing that came out in recent years. Bl. John Paul II wrote two documents on women. One is an encyclical, in which he uses Sacred Scripture, which is the source of doctrine to expound on the role of women in creation and in society. The second is a letter, which is very interesting. Here are two paragraphs of great importance that contradict what this person says is a doctrine.

This is a matter of justice but also of necessity. Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future: leisure time, the quality of life, migration, social services, euthanasia, drugs, health care, the ecology, etc. In all these areas a greater presence of women in society will prove most valuable, for it will help to manifest the contradictions present when society is organized solely according to the criteria of efficiency and productivity, and it will force systems to be redesigned in a way which favours the pro- cesses of humanization which mark the “civilization of love”. (Parr 4)

My word of thanks to women thus becomes a heartfelt appeal that everyone, and in a special way States and international institutions, should make every effort to ensure that women regain full respect for their dignity and role. Here I cannot fail to express my admiration for those women of good will who have devoted their lives to defending the dignity of womanhood by fighting for their basic social, economic and political rights, demonstrating courageous initiative at a time when this was considered extremely inappropriate, the sign of a lack of femininity, a manifestation of exhibitionism, and even a sin! (Parr 6)

The Holy Father points to how even people inside the Church tried to keep women out of the mainstream of society by throwing aroiund the word “sin” and misrepresenting their positions as doctrines.

To read more on this important subject you can begin with Pope John Paul II: Letter to Women and then go on to his apostolic letter The Dignity and Vocation of Women.

He says neither that women should leave their home and enter the work force or that they should stay at home and not be medical doctors, teachers, business women or political leaders. Women must fulfill the mission for which man was created. We know that this mission is complex and cosmic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[clickplaymovies]

www.clickplaymovies.com -watch online movies

www.clickplaymovies.com -watch online movies

 

[SBroxson]

JReducation, we are talking past each other because we are addressing issues in different senses.

First, let me directly address the more sophisticated and intellectual approach that you are using. The problem with pointing out parallels and analogies is that, according to Pope Benedict, there are none. He claims that what happened when the new mass was drawn up and implemented was simply unprecedented in the whole history of the Church. In this view, the examples that you raised were not precisely identical in every way: to the contrary, they were dramatically different in profound ways.

(Of course, you do not have to agree: most of his comments were made before he was Pope, but in any event he would not have intended them to be taken as infallible pronouncements. His view does seem to me to be correct given my knowledge of Church history–but I am not an expert.)

Putting aside that issue, I have no disagreement with your points, and they bear keeping in mind–especially the sharp diminishment of liturgical variety after Vatican II.

Now, as to the sense in which I was viewing the matter: the point of view of the average, perhaps working class, pew Catholic who has neither knowledge nor interest in such things as the distinction between forms and rites.

My original comment was this: I do not deny that the EF and OF are the same rite, but the prohibition of the traditional Latin mass did “tend to undercut” the concept that it was the same mass. I think that is clearly true: without exception (i.e., show me any other example, and it is true of that example too).

There are two things that Catholics may have partially lost sight of:

• We are incarnate creatures who are supposed to have bodies: God already had angles (pure spirit), and we are not angels. Catholics have always understood the importance of the physical as well as the spiritual (as illustrated in modern times by JPII’s theology of the body). What happened after Vatican II, but not directly because of Vatican II, is that what the ordinary Catholic saw with his eyes, did with his body, heard with his ear, and spoke with his mouth in connection with the faith changed dramatically almost over night. Since we are incarnate creatures, the only rationale conclusion–although a very inaccurate one–was that the underlying teachings had changed too…although they had not. For, if the teachings have not changed dramatically, then what we do with our bodies in connection with the faith should not change dramatically–according to Catholic wisdom. We are one whole.
• Although Catholicism has always been the most intellectual of religions, it also had very ample room for the simple man–the non-intellectual. The non-theologian.

So, I was using terms such as “same” and “mass” in purely ordinary, pedestrian sense. Your examples of different masses were the exceptions that proved the rule. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Catholics the majority countries of the world (primarily exempting Byzantines) experienced the traditional Latin mass–which had only experienced minor tweaks within his life time, and the life times of his father, and his father’s father… I was referencing the average Catholic who is walking on a literal sidewalk towards a literal church–which is Roman Catholic…and the actual things that he literally experienced–and how that changed. And why the two masses (NOT forms or rites–what he actually saw, heard, said, and did) did not seem to be the “same,” and why claims to the contrary tended to be undercut by the vast changes. Literally.