Define Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality

[santodomingo]

Let me add my penny´s worth. I think that some are confusing traditionalism with orthodoxy, as has already been pointed out. In my opinion traditionalism is a reaction to liturgical abuse fed by increasing heterodoxy that in turn came about around the time of VII (I didn´t say **as a result of **VII). These two things, liturgical abuse and heterodoxy are obviously linked. However, it is quite inorrect to equate liturgical innovation with heterodoxy, as some are inclined to do. Nobody, even the most die-hard traditionalist, has accused the Council of Trent of heresy on this forum, and yet this council introduced numerous innovations to all aspects of religious life within the CC, including the liturgy. These were all necessary and proffited the CC greatly.

Traditionalists see a return to tradition as a guarantee against the dangers of a watered-down faith and liturgy, as 99% of all today´s heretics are on the liberal side of catholicism. I appreciate this and I share most of their preferences; I never receive communion in my hand, I prefer to receive kneeling if it doesn´t cause trouble, and the more solemn the Mass the better, as far as I am concerned.

Yet what many fail to understand is that heretics can pop up on either side of the spectrum, left or right. We only have to think back to the heretic Jansenius of the XVII century, whose rigid and excessively legalistic theology made it practically impossible for ordinary people to receive communion without committing sacrilege.

In St. Ignatius´ day (XVI century) the resistance to his new order came from the traditionalist wing of the CC. “What´s this?” they cried. “A religious order without choir?” (no obligation to pray the Divine Office). Many thought this was scandalous. In the same way the mendicant orders of St. Francis and St. Dominic were reviled by the most traditionalist sectors of their time.

So please, if you are a traditionalist, remember that innovation, if allowed by the Church authorities, is not the same thing as heresy.

 

[una_fides]

Let me add my penny´s worth. … it is quite inorrect to equate liturgical innovation with heterodoxy, as some are inclined to do. Nobody, even the most die-hard traditionalist, has accused the Council of Trent of heresy on this forum, and yet this council introduced numerous innovations to all aspects of religious life within the CC, including the liturgy. These were all necessary and proffited the CC greatly.

Could you point out some of the “numerous innovations” that the Council of Trent introduced to the liturgy please?

 

[una_fides]

Postings like yours are sad – because largely they lack believability. … I have been attending the Mass of Pope Paul IV since its inception. Not one time have I been witness to ANYTHING you describe. Not once. Before you offer one of the time-worn Youtube URLs for a clown Mass, take a moment to reflect on just how inflammatory your posting is. To be candid it doesn’t sound honest.

These masses are very uncommon, and I never claimed them to be common. In my defense, I was simply making an exaggeration of some of the most liberal ends of the spectrum to contrast it with traditional Catholicism. Here’s just some of what I have in fact experienced, and I suggest doing research into the plethora of abuses that take place at most NO masses.

1. priests making up the words as they go along and changing words in Mass whenever they do not fit with their liberal theology (i.e. “Jesus took the break gave it to his friends and said…”; “For us ___ and for our salvation…” (no reference to “men”); "For the praise and glory of God’s name… (no reference to “his”); etc.) Such is forbidden by the Church and is a grave sin to deviate from the missal.
2. Laity giving homilies
3. unnecessary use of extraordinary ministers of holy Communion
4. music at mass that is geared as a performance rather than worship of God (drawing attention to the performers themselves who are playing electric guitars and drums!)
5. permitting and encouraging hand holding during the Our Father, which has been explicitly forbidden by the Church

I could continue the list for while, but I don’t want this post to be too lengthy.

Needless to say, at these masses, I’ve heard numerous heresies and liberal speculations being preached (such as that Christ did not bodily raise from the dead during an Easter homily!). I was also a part of RCIA at this particular parish where the priest taught the people present (including my family members!) heresies and other things extremely detrimental to their eternal salvation (such as telling them to NOT go to confession and instead to just pray to God b/c no one ever commits mortal sin).

The rest of your post, Stewmont, has already been handled sufficiently. I would only like to add that at many NO masses today it would be much better if people prayed the rosary and entered their own private devotions than to witnesses the many sacrileges and listen to the many heresies that are taking place. No doubt numerous souls are being lost as a result of the false teachings. And yes, there is an inevitable connection between liturgical abuse and heterodoxy. Heresies such as that Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist or that he is only “spiritually present,” produce irreverent and sacrilegious masses. The TLM does not share the same problems as the NO and the priests performing these masses in my experience are nothing but orthodox in their theology, since the liberals are the ones opposing the TLM and refusing to obey the orders of the pope to make it available when requested.

 

[una_fides]

Perfect example. What gives you the confidence to infer that communion on tongue is indicative of “our best, most excellent forms of worship and reverence”? You’re putting yourself in the seat of the grand arbiter and you simply lack the qualifications.

Heck what even gives you the confidence to suggest “John Paul II was opposed to Communion in the hand” or that it was necessarily bad for him not to have rescinded the indult?

I think there might well have been a legitimate reason(s) for both popes not to have rescinded the indult. Either way I’m CERTAIN they know more about it then I do.

Stewmont,

Do you believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, and that it is truly 100% his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity? And that this presence comprises the entire substance down to the last fragment?

If so, then you would realize that Communion in the hand results in fragments falling onto the ground and being defiled and trampled on. It also opens the door to other abuses such as people taking Communion home with them and then performing sacrileges there to the Body of Christ. There was even one instance where someone auctioned off a consecrated host on ebay from a papal mass of JP2. Lastly, the practice itself is not traditional. Doctrine develops throughout the centuries, and the Church has come to understand deeper and deeper the Real Presence and how we should therefore revere and receive such a presence. For this reason, the Church outlawed Communion in the hand for centuries. In addition there is only one alleged reference in history to a saint attesting to Communion in the hand, and it is done very reverential with proper catechesis, and the source itself is of questionable validity.

I will find you the quote from JP2 where he said that he was opposed to the concept of Communion in the hand. Mother Theresa when asked what was the greatest tragedy of the century, she replied: receiving Communion on the hand. All her sisters were only permitted to receive on the tongue. It is only an indult, meaning that it is a special permission given for a particular reason. The bishops that asked for this permission did so after already being disobedient and doing it anyway. Then Pope Paul VI, who did not like to disappoint people, actually permitted the indult that it be permissible to do so. I personally think that it had something to do with this new idea of ecumenism and trying to make Protestants feel at home in the Catholic Church, an idea particularly foreign to the Church for her entire history. Here’s a reason for recent popes not rescinding the indult, they don’t want to cause offense and make people angry and divide people over the issue because you can rest assured that if they do repeal, people will rebel. The Church is already in anarchy as many bishops do not obey the pope. I think the popes need to repeal the indult and let the liberals throw their temper tandrums. It would certainly draw them out.

 

[palmas85]

Postings like yours are sad – because largely they lack believability. From your posting:

*"For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” *

I have been attending the Mass of Pope Paul IV since its inception. Not one time have I been witness to ANYTHING you describe. Not once. Before you offer one of the time-worn Youtube URLs for a clown Mass, take a moment to reflect on just how inflammatory your posting is. To be candid it doesn’t sound honest.

It would be like me focusing on people praying the rosary during the Mass because they had no clue what was going on. People choosing Masses by length – the shorter the better. Masses burned through so quickly that the celebrant sounded more like an auctioneer than a priest. People trying to prostrate themselves because somehow it was better than kneeling. People worrying more about wearing mantillas and neckties more then reading the daily readings before Mass.

I’m beginning to think that “traditonalists” are a tiny group who feel they somehow have the truth and everyone else is wrong…

No what is truly sad is that despite the documented evidence that these aberrations have occurred, do occur and in all probability will continue to occur,. people such as yourself close your eyes and say because you personally have never seen such things they don’t happen.

As far as your opinion of traditionalists, I am starting to think the exact same thing about progressives.

 

[I_Believe]

I’m beginning to think that “traditonalists” are a tiny group who feel they somehow have the truth and everyone else is wrong…

The truth is there for all. Some embrace it and accept it, some do not.

 

[una_fides]

Stewmont,

I’m short on time and did some quick research and couldn’t find the exact quote from JP2 that I recall reading. I suggest doing some research on the topic. Perhaps you could start a thread on here specifically concerning that issue. I don’t want to get off on a tangent on this because the thread is about spirituality and not specifically on discussing the details of Communion in the hand vs. on the tongue. Here is a website I found latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm
There are many good sites you can find online that explain the controversy quite well.

God bless.

 

[jfallaw]

The what? Oh yeah, the rosary, people still pray that thing, how archaic (let’s see if we can think of a way to update it).

So I take it you refuse to pray the Luminous Mysteries?

The thing with me is, I love traditional Catholicism, and I try to practice the Faith as traditionally as possible. I honestly don’t like the NO, but I go, because there is not a TLM anywhere near. But whether I like it or not, it is a valid Mass, even though I know “we have always done it another way” (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

It is one thing to believe that the old way is better or more proper- it is another to claim the Holy Father is wrong and should not be obeyed. Not that you did, but many traditionalists seem to make that claim. And if there is one thing that is extremely traditional, it is obeying the Holy Father and trusting that the Holy Spirit will guide him, and if he happens to be ‘wrong’, that the error will eventually be made right.

 

[una_fides]

So I take it you refuse to pray the Luminous Mysteries?

The thing with me is, I love traditional Catholicism, and I try to practice the Faith as traditionally as possible. I honestly don’t like the NO, but I go, because there is not a TLM anywhere near. But whether I like it or not, it is a valid Mass, even though I know “we have always done it another way” (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

It is one thing to believe that the old way is better or more proper- it is another to claim the Holy Father is wrong and should not be obeyed. Not that you did, but many traditionalists seem to make that claim. And if there is one thing that is extremely traditional, it is obeying the Holy Father and trusting that the Holy Spirit will guide him, and if he happens to be ‘wrong’, that the error will eventually be made right.

I agree; to the extent that the pope does not deviate from received tradition or in understanding defined dogmas in the way they have always been understood. We do not have to accept whatever the current pope’s ideas or teachings are unless he makes use to bind them on us. This is especially true if they run contrary to previous popes. That said, I respect the holy father a great deal and give him due reverence as the vicar of Christ and the head of the universal Church on earth. Concerning the Luminous mysteries, JP2 did not make them binding on all Catholics who pray the rosary. He merely offered them as an additional set of meditations (aka optional!). They were not given to us from our Lady, and though he had a great devotion to her, that does not mean they necessarily “came from heaven.” That said, I think the actual Luminous mysteries themselves are great objectively speaking, but personally, I stick with the traditional 3.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

I agree; to the extent that the pope does not deviate from received tradition or in understanding defined dogmas in the way they have always been understood. We do not have to accept whatever the current pope’s ideas or teachings are unless he makes use to bind them on us. This is especially true if they run contrary to previous popes. That said, I respect the holy father a great deal and give him due reverence as the vicar of Christ and the head of the universal Church on earth. Concerning the Luminous mysteries, JP2 did not make them binding on all Catholics who pray the rosary. He merely offered them as an additional set of meditations (aka optional!). They were not given to us from our Lady, and though he had a great devotion to her, that does not mean they necessarily “came from heaven.” That said, I think the actual Luminous mysteries themselves are great objectively speaking, but personally, I stick with the traditional 3.

Thank you for writing that for me, una fides.

jfallaw, it’s not a refusal, it’s just simply sticking to the ‘tried and true’. I just don’t understand why JPII felt the need to tamper with everything. Perhaps that’s one of the differences between ‘traditional’ spirituality, and the new stuff. When it comes to novelty trads say “Why?” while the OF lay people and clerics say “Why not!?!?!?!”

“Why?” means '“is this good for souls and for the greater glory of God? Let’s think about it before something detrimental happens”.

“Why not?” means “Hey, this is new and may be worth trying! I don’t know what’s going to happen, whether it’s going to be good for souls or not, but…What the heck, let’s give it a try and see what happens. If it bears bad fruit it has to die on its own anyway…right?”.

Yikes.

 

[una_fides]

When it comes to novelty trads say “Why?” while the OF lay people and clerics say “Why not!?!?!?!”

“Why?” means '“is this good for souls and for the greater glory of God? Let’s think about it before something detrimental happens”.

“Why not?” means “Hey, this is new and may be worth trying! I don’t know what’s going to happen, whether it’s going to be good for souls or not, but…What the heck, let’s give it a try and see what happens. If it bears bad fruit it has to die on its own anyway…right?”.

Yikes.

Wasn’t this what happened with the experimentation that took place immediately following Vatican II? And what did the popes do to stop it? What puzzles me is that JPII rather than excommunicating some of these innovators actually promoted them! And no the whole keep your friends close but enemies closer excuse doesn’t work in this case.
St. Paul makes clear in Scripture how such deviations are to be handled.

Traditional Catholic spirituality also understands the need for discipline and that a good father disciplines his erring children.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Wasn’t this what happened with the experimentation that took place immediately following Vatican II?

Yes, it seems that way to me, very much so.

And what did the popes do to stop it?

Nothing. But they sure put an end to Lefebvre long before '88, or so they’d hoped.

What puzzles me is that JPII rather than excommunicating some of these innovators actually promoted them!

On the one hand, I’m very surprised that many senior clerics (bishops, cardinals) haven’t been seriously disciplined, but on the other, I’m not at all surprised, given that this rough treatment seems only to be handed out to the trads.

Traditional Catholic spirituality also understands the need for discipline and that a good father disciplines his erring children.

post VII spirituality, IN MY OPINION, understands the need and the right and the political correctness of acting upon one’s own conscience (whether well formed or not…).

 

[una_fides]

post VII spirituality, IN MY OPINION, understands the need and the right and the political correctness of acting upon one’s own conscience (whether well formed or not…).

There does seem to be a big promotion of acting in accordance with one’s own conscience. Such language reeks of relativism and as such is on a slippery slope to universalism. They start out by saying that everyone forms their own conscience and should not be judged, and then go as far as to say that no one can commit mortal sin because he is merely acting within the scope of his conscience. From there it’s not a large step to universalism.

 

[jfallaw]

I agree; to the extent that the pope does not deviate from received tradition or in understanding defined dogmas in the way they have always been understood. We do not have to accept whatever the current pope’s ideas or teachings are unless he makes use to bind them on us. This is especially true if they run contrary to previous popes. That said, I respect the holy father a great deal and give him due reverence as the vicar of Christ and the head of the universal Church on earth. Concerning the Luminous mysteries, JP2 did not make them binding on all Catholics who pray the rosary. He merely offered them as an additional set of meditations (aka optional!). They were not given to us from our Lady, and though he had a great devotion to her, that does not mean they necessarily “came from heaven.” That said, I think the actual Luminous mysteries themselves are great objectively speaking, but personally, I stick with the traditional 3.

I guess what I’m trying to understand is how the Pope can err to the point of harm, if he is supposed to be protected by the Spirit from doing just that, and also how we as lay persons can tell whether error has occurred. For instance, if the Pope defines a dogma that seems to contradict a previous one, but then gives examples of how they do not contradict previous pronouncements, even if they are very ambiguous and maybe even an obvious attempt to square the new teachings with the old, how can we really know if he is right or wrong? Even if he is wrong (God forbid), would it be appropriate to obey, to basically err on the side of caution? Because what if we do not have all the facts, and in disobeying we are committing sin?

An example- on the SSPX website, in the FAQ section, is this:

Q: I am aware that you claim exemptions to jurisdiction laws for yourselves, but do you agree that you are subject to diocesan jurisdiction?

A: In normal circumstances, of course we are subject to diocesan jurisdiction. But as long as the situation is what it is, we will not submit to it. Once again, either there is a severe crisis and we must fight it with what means we have as strongly as we can. Or there is no crisis, and we are very guilty.

So, aren’t they guilty either way? In refusing to submit to diocesan jurisdiction and, vicariously, to the Pope, they are sinning, right? Whether they are right in their beliefs or not, aren’t they still guilty? Because in trying to remain loyal to the Church, they are disobeying the Church.They themselves claim that if they are wrong, they are guilty. But aren’t they guilty even if they are right? Wouldn’t Luther have remained in communion if he had expressed his beliefs, but remained loyal to the Church anyways, trying to change things from within rather than thinking himself better or holier or more Spirit-led than the Pope himself?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

I guess what I’m trying to understand is how the Pope can err to the point of harm, if he is supposed to be protected by the Spirit from doing just that, and also how we as lay persons can tell whether error has occurred.

Just look at the history of the Church. Popes have erred, harm has been done. They cannot officially promulgate anything but true dogma, but when you consider that in the last 40-50 years a billion changes have been made in every aspect of the church in matters of discipline, it spills over into the fundamental dogma. No, no dogmas have been changed (officially, though that’d be impossible anyway), and popes have been very clear about that, but they haven’t been clear about correcting errors that are like, DUH errors, and just let them slide until the majority of Catholics do not have well formed consciences while at the same time more importance is placed on following one’s conscience…It just makes for a nasty recipe. Remember, the supreme law of the Church is the Salvation of souls. How seriously is this taken by the clergy at large? Eh, not very seriously. That’s why in ‘modern’ western societies like ours, nobody knows their faith, and yet nobody cares, and Mass attendance dips as low as 10% in some places.

For instance, if the Pope defines a dogma that seems to contradict a previous one, but then gives examples of how they do not contradict previous pronouncements, even if they are very ambiguous and maybe even an obvious attempt to square the new teachings with the old, how can we really know if he is right or wrong?

Dogmas are fundamental truths. A new ‘truth’ cannot contradict what we already know and hold to be truth. Moreover, the Holy Ghost guarantees as much. A thing is either true, or it is not. If it’s not, the Holy Ghost wouldn’t even allow it to be promulgated…Something about the gates of hell…Ya know?

Even if he is wrong (God forbid),

Can’t happen (officially, ex cathedra)

would it be appropriate to obey, to basically err on the side of caution?

See here, my friend, the side of caution is the side of Tradition. Either do as the saints have always done, or go along with this innovator! Choose.

Because what if we do not have all the facts, and in disobeying we are committing sin?

Popes aren’t perfect. Fortunately, the Holy Ghost is. A pope cannot officially promulgate heresy. Yet we see from history that heresies have crept in and must, later, be corrected by ex cathedra dogma (if it hasn’t already been pronounced) or reiterated and combatted by the saints and clergy if it has.

An example- on the SSPX website, in the FAQ section, is this:
Q: I am aware that you claim exemptions to jurisdiction laws for yourselves, but do you agree that you are subject to diocesan jurisdiction?

A: In normal circumstances, of course we are subject to diocesan jurisdiction. But as long as the situation is what it is, we will not submit to it. Once again, either there is a severe crisis and we must fight it with what means we have as strongly as we can. Or there is no crisis, and we are very guilty.

Is there not a crisis within the Church? How low must Mass attendance be for you to admit a crisis? There have been numerous essays written about jurisdiction (particularly supplied jurisdiction), and you either fall on one side of the debate, or the other. Many lawyers (civil, not canon) I know in person or online side with the SSPX because canon law cites instances of when and how and why jurisdiction can be supplied, and in what way, and having had legal training, lawyers can more readily understand these situations. Recently I even learned that John Salza of scripturecatholic.com fame once sided against the SSPX argument, but has since changed his mind, even in regard to marriage and confession.

As I said, the supreme law is the salvation of souls. The SSPX does what it does to further that end, and for no other purpose. Do you think their leadership enjoys being considered excommunicated? I don’t. Nevertheless, they have a mission and they’re sticking to it.

So, aren’t they guilty either way? In refusing to submit to diocesan jurisdiction and, vicariously, to the Pope, they are sinning, right? Whether they are right in their beliefs or not, aren’t they still guilty? Because in trying to remain loyal to the Church, they are disobeying the Church.They themselves claim that if they are wrong, they are guilty. But aren’t they guilty even if they are right? Wouldn’t Luther have remained in communion if he had expressed his beliefs, but remained loyal to the Church anyways, trying to change things from within rather than thinking himself better or holier or more Spirit-led than the Pope himself?

supplied jurisdiction. In remaining loyal to the Church, it is not only possible, but necessary to disobey a pope. Also, keep in mind that the SSPX aren’t heretics. They are sometimes said to be in schism, however (thought lately even this claim seems to be going lame, thank God).

 

[santodomingo]

Could you point out some of the “numerous innovations” that the Council of Trent introduced to the liturgy please?

Sorry about the delay in replying.

The goal of the Council of Trent was to impose uniform belief and practice on the entire Roman Church in order to prevent further infiltration by Protestant sects. In doing this they abolished several local versions of the Mass which were not deemed to be of the same worth as the Roman Rite, that dated back to Pope Gregory the Great, who died in 604.

Some of the rites that were supressed include the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Sarum Rite in England and the Norbertine Rite in the Low Countries.

I hope this answers your question.

Doesn´t this supression of old rites sound familiar?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Sorry about the delay in replying.

The goal of the Council of Trent was to impose uniform belief and practice on the entire Roman Church in order to prevent further infiltration by Protestant sects. In doing this they abolished several local versions of the Mass which were not deemed to be of the same worth as the Roman Rite, that dated back to Pope Gregory the Great, who died in 604.

Some of the rites that were supressed include the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Sarum Rite in England and the Norbertine Rite in the Low Countries.

I hope this answers your question.

Doesn´t this supression of old rites sound familiar?

This is not accurate. Rites older than 200 years were allowed to remain. It’s not that they weren’t of the “same worth” as you put it, but rather of the same age.

And to answer you other question “doesn’t this supression of old rites sound familiar?” No, it does not. As you accurately stated, Trent was to codify worship by doing away with newer innovations whereas the NO did away with the codified worship and replaced it wth any and all innovative methods for celebrating Mass, which lead to even more singular innovations until we have this epidemic, this sickness that we have today.

 

[I_Believe]

Sorry about the delay in replying.

The goal of the Council of Trent was to impose uniform belief and practice on the entire Roman Church in order to prevent further infiltration by Protestant sects. In doing this they abolished several local versions of the Mass which were not deemed to be of the same worth as the Roman Rite, that dated back to Pope Gregory the Great, who died in 604.

Some of the rites that were supressed include the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Sarum Rite in England and the Norbertine Rite in the Low Countries.

I hope this answers your question.

Doesn´t this supression of old rites sound familiar?

That is all true santodomingo, but Trent preserved the Gregorian Rite and in the end, defined Catholicism. And this was accepted for a very long time.

The original Novus Ordo and it’s original rubrics, if followed strictly, would have the quality of being a universal Rite. But how long did it last before Clergy started experimenting and introducing novelty ? Many things we see in the OF today occur because Rome has granted permission for them or tolerates them. Rome didn’t introduce them.

As far as suppression of old Rites, in this case, it’s the supression of the signature Rite of the Church as defined by Trent, and despite the Motu Proprio of BXVI, it is still supressed in some areas.

 

[I_Believe]

This is not accurate. Rites older than 200 years were allowed to remain. It’s not that they weren’t of the “same worth” as you put it, but rather of the same age.

And to answer you other question “doesn’t this supression of old rites sound familiar?” No, it does not. As you accurately stated, Trent was to codify worship by doing away with newer innovations whereas the NO did away with the codified worship and replaced it wth any and all innovative methods for celebrating Mass, which lead to even more singular innovations until we have this epidemic, this sickness that we have today.

CL, you posted as I was typing, but we are pretty much in agreement here.

Only thing I’ll add is that santodomingo did say local Rites, not all Rites in use before Trent. True, the Mendicant Orders Rites were deemed acceptable.

I’m not convinced the OF is an evil concoction, but we have too many forms of the OF. And it’s kind of a reversion to pre Trent conditions, in that now, it can vary from parish to parish in the same city, not just from region to region.

 

[santodomingo]

This is not accurate. Rites older than 200 years were allowed to remain. It’s not that they weren’t of the “same worth” as you put it, but rather of the same age.

And to answer you other question “doesn’t this supression of old rites sound familiar?” No, it does not. As you accurately stated, Trent was to codify worship by doing away with newer innovations whereas the NO did away with the codified worship and replaced it wth any and all innovative methods for celebrating Mass, which lead to even more singular innovations until we have this epidemic, this sickness that we have today.

Hello Casius,

Forgive me if I was a little cheeky. My retorical question, “doesn´t this supression of old rites sound familiar?” was intended to get a response and it worked!

Don´t get me wrong, I´m all for TLM, but I just think we “traditionalists” need to be less dogmatic about the NO Mass. Perhaps what I´ve just said discualifies me from the category of “traditionalist”, but as that´s exactly what the OP wanted defining maybe my views can help.

God bless you all, wherever you are in the Church!