Define Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality

[una_fides]

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.

Exactly. The conditions we are in today are similar to the days of Trent in that it lacked a universal norm that was being obeyed and people had their own local customs and variations that crept their way into local masses. The situation today, however, is much much worse than even the days of Trent, for the widespread abuse and disobedience in our day by priests and even bishops greatly outdoes that of Trent. (We can thank the Mass being in the vernacular for that.) Priests can make changes to Mass on a whim to fit whatever fancies them that day. The purpose of Trent’s eternal codification of the Tridentine rite, which it said btw can NEVER be abolished, was to bring unity and uniformity to the Church. Oh how we need that today!

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Exactly. The conditions we are in today are similar to the days of Trent in that it lacked a universal norm that was being obeyed and people had their own local customs and variations that crept their way into local masses. The situation today, however, is much much worse than even the days of Trent, for the widespread abuse and disobedience in our day by priests and even bishops greatly outdoes that of Trent. (We can thank the Mass being in the vernacular for that.) Priests can make changes to Mass on a whim to fit whatever fancies them that day. The purpose of Trent’s eternal codification of the Tridentine rite, which it said btw can NEVER be abolished, was to bring unity and uniformity to the Church. Oh how we need that today!

Una fides, thank you again. I wake up, and POOF, you’ve already explained it for me!

No, I don’t think the NO is an evil concoction, but I do believe many priests make less acceptible concoctions out of it (to say the least).

 

[Stewmont]

…It’s called a missal, and you read it during the Mass. And yes, mantillas rather than miniskirts, neckties rather than birkenstocks etc…

No, it’s called a missalette. I read the Bible readings before Mass and I follow them during Mass.

Fr. Pablo Straub wears Birkenstocks in public. I would guess they are close to a modern day version of what the Apostles and Jesus Himself wore on Earth. I have to laugh that you take issue with them.

 

[Stewmont]

Exactly. The conditions we are in today are similar to the days of Trent in that it lacked a universal norm that was being obeyed and people had their own local customs and variations that crept their way into local masses. The situation today, however, is much much worse than even the days of Trent, for the widespread abuse and disobedience in our day by priests and even bishops greatly outdoes that of Trent.** (We can thank the Mass being in the vernacular for that.)** Priests can make changes to Mass on a whim to fit whatever fancies them that day. The purpose of Trent’s eternal codification of the Tridentine rite, which it said btw can NEVER be abolished, was to bring unity and uniformity to the Church. Oh how we need that today!

How so? That’s not logical.

And no, priest are not allowed to “make changes to Mass on a whim to fit whatever fancies them that day.” The Church prohibits that.

 

[una_fides]

How so? That’s not logical.

And no, priest are not allowed to “make changes to Mass on a whim to fit whatever fancies them that day.” The Church prohibits that.

The Church prohibits any such changes under penalty of a grave offense, yet the majority of the many NO masses I’ve attended in various places involve anywhere from a small to a large degree of deviations from the way the Church has promulgated the Mass and has said it is to be enacted.

And yes, it’s perfectly logical that since the Mass is in vernacular a priest can much more easily change the words a with a much greater effect than if the Mass were in Latin. If it were in Latin, most people would not recognize any change and if they did they would not know what it meant. When it’s done in the vernacular, people hear and their beliefs can be and are affected by it.

 

[santodomingo]

It is perfectly logical that the reason why so many priests meddle with the Mass is because it is in the vernacular. The problem is not the vernacular itself. There is nothing wrong or irreverent about saying Mass in English, Spanish or any other language. The vernacular simply makes it easier for priests to improvise. Think; how many priests would be capable of improvising their own little “additions” in latin?

 

[Stewmont]

The majority of traditionalists posting here seem to rely on emotion and inflammatory rhetoric rather than facts (Church documents) and logic. It seemed like the canned response for any legitimate question is a mention of Roger Cardinal Mahony or a youtube URL for a “clown Mass.”

I think many people see through such comments and rightfully discount them. I think that in turn causes consternation within the ranks of traditionalists because “others are just not listening.”

Couple that with many traditionalists picking and choosing what they will accept and I think the menu is set for some real problems. I think that in turn causes the angry tone one receives from many traditionalists here.

There are problems in the Church but they are certainly not limited to one group or area.

Matthew 7:5 *You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.
*

 

[Stewmont]

It is perfectly logical that the reason why so many priests meddle with the Mass is because it is in the vernacular. The problem is not the vernacular itself. There is nothing wrong or irreverent about saying Mass in English, Spanish or any other language. The vernacular simply makes it easier for priests to improvise. Think; how many priests would be capable of improvising their own little “additions” in latin?

Not at all. Most priests were fluent in Latin back when the Tridentine Mass was the normative Mass. Nothing kept them from improvising – and I’m sure many did. Typically their improvising came in the form of shortening the Mass.

 

[una_fides]

The majority of traditionalists posting here seem to rely on emotion and inflammatory rhetoric rather than facts (Church documents) and logic. It seemed like the canned response for any legitimate question is a mention of Roger Cardinal Mahony or a youtube URL for a “clown Mass.”

I did not know that the topic on here required evidence to support our views of traditional Catholic spirituality. If you are referring to the abuses, Cardinal Hujus made it abundantly clear that there were “many, many, many abuses” following Vatican II. Unfortunately, there have not been any studies I am aware of that give statistical evidence as to how many NO masses involves abuses. If I went around to the many parishes in my area and took notes, I have no doubt that the vast majority would involve some type of liturgical abuse. Perhaps researching what priests and laity are and are not permitted to do during Mass. Here is a site with the top 10 most common liturgical abuses you will find: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp
Can you honestly say that you have never seen any of these done in a NO mass? Do abuses cause you any concern? And does the fact that the other extreme abuses take place bother you at all regardless of the frequency?
I recently read pope Benedict saying that there is no wonder why SSPX and such groups are so opposed and alarmed by actions of bishops when for example he cited that they do not oppose abuses to the NO masses but instead oppose the use of the TLM, which the Church has used for over a millenia!

 

[una_fides]

Not at all. Most priests were fluent in Latin back when the Tridentine Mass was the normative Mass. Nothing kept them from improvising – and I’m sure many did. Typically their improvising came in the form of shortening the Mass.

the priests may have been fluent in latin, but the laity mostly was not. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your assumption that many improvised the Mass? Or that they shortened it? If not, please retract.
Also, shortening the Mass is nowhere near as big a problem as changing the words themselves to fit heretical/ modernist ideas and then those heretical ideas then being transmitted to the listeners.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

No, it’s called a missalette. I read the Bible readings before Mass and I follow them during Mass.

Call it what you want (I happen to use a missal and follow the Mass as it happens). If you want to read the bible readings before Mass that’s your prerogative. I was simply making a point.

Fr. Pablo Straub wears Birkenstocks in public. I would guess they are close to a modern day version of what the Apostles and Jesus Himself wore on Earth. I have to laugh that you take issue with them.

We should all try our best to separate the sacred from the profane when it comes to going to Mass (isn’t that the reason people feel strongly toward the TLM, since the NO mixes the two so much?). Also, I wasn’t talking about a priest, I was talking about the lay people who enter the church in their everyday clothing. Flip flops are for the beach so they ought not to be worn at Mass (and I notice you didn’t even mention miniskirts, though this is a popular item anywhere you go these days, including NO Masses). There’s a reason it’s referred to as one’s “Sunday best”. If Fr. wears Birkenstocks I would imagine they’d be black to match his cassock/habit. But since you bring it up, I might remind you that one’s clerical garb, as proscribed by the church is what is the ‘modern’ equivalent of the Lord and his apostles’ garb. Times change and practices and styles develop for a reason, and that reason ought to be for God’s greater glory.

However, for a lay person, Birkenstocks are usually matched with khaki shorts and a tee-shirt or polo shirt…Hardly one’s ‘sunday best’, wouldn’t you agree? Since the Sunday Mass is the most important single act a Catholic does each week it is fitting that he wear his very best. Slacks, a button down shirt, tie, and coat ought to suffice, and I wouldn’t pair Birkenstocks with that type of outfit. If you wear a suit to the office you ought to wear one to Mass (seeing as one is definitely more important and of greater dignity than the other).

Or you can just continue being willfully ignorant and not even attempt to understand my points…

BTW, ‘Fr. Pablo’ does wear a black cassock with a roman collar, doesn’t he? I mean, I have seen sandles with cassocks before, but it’d look funny to wear the black suit with the roman collar that most priests opt for these days with the birkenstocks. Or is he the type of priest who only wears his clerical garb inside the church and ‘civilian’ clothes at all other times?

 

[santodomingo]

Not at all. Most priests were fluent in Latin back when the Tridentine Mass was the normative Mass. Nothing kept them from improvising – and I’m sure many did. Typically their improvising came in the form of shortening the Mass.

I´m talking about nowadays. How many liberal priests who so happily alter the NO Mass today would be able to do the same sort of thing in latin? Not many I guess!

 

[Stewmont]

I did not know that the topic on here required evidence to support our views of traditional Catholic spirituality.

That’s the whole point. The OP asked “Define Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality.” I suggest that’s impossible because it’s nebulous – it differs from one traditionalist to the next. The Church has never defined a “Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality.”

What I see here are people trying to “define” what they believe by attacking what they dislike. That just doesn’t feed the bulldog.

There are concrete spiritual differences between let’s say Latin Rite and Maronite Rite Catholicism. The same cannot be said between Latin Rite Catholics who choose the EF over the OF.

If I asked my Byzantine Catholic priest to explain to me how Eastern spirituality typically differs from Western spirituality he could. If I asked that same question of a self-described traditionalist, I would get a laundry list of clown Masses, dancers, veils, genuflecting, etc. None of which has anything to do with SPIRITUALITY.

I think traditionalists individually package up what they personally feel is “traditional” (or “better”) and then present that as some sort of discrete spirituality which it is not. further when asked why they prefer what they prefer it’s always done by attacking stuff which is largely present only in myth.

 

[Stewmont]

Call it what you want (I happen to use a missal and follow the Mass as it happens). If you want to read the bible readings before Mass that’s your prerogative. I was simply making a point.

I seriously doubt you lug around the actual Missale Romanum or “Missal”. You use a missalette – no matter how thick it might be.

We should all try our best to separate the sacred from the profane when it comes to going to Mass (isn’t that the reason people feel strongly toward the TLM, since the NO mixes the two so much?). Also, I wasn’t talking about a priest, I was talking about the lay people who enter the church in their everyday clothing. Flip flops are for the beach so they ought not to be worn at Mass (and I notice you didn’t even mention miniskirts, though this is a popular item anywhere you go these days, including NO Masses). There’s a reason it’s referred to as one’s “Sunday best”. If Fr. wears Birkenstocks I would imagine they’d be black to match his cassock/habit.

You specifically said “Birkenstocks.” Now you have changed it to “flip flops” Last time I saw him in person, Fr. Pablo had light brown suede Birks which white stocks. If Birks are good enough for a priest the caliber of Fr. Pablo, they are good enough for me.

But since you bring it up, I might remind you that one’s clerical garb, as proscribed by the church is what is the ‘modern’ equivalent of the Lord and his apostles’ garb. Times change and practices and styles develop for a reason, and that reason ought to be for God’s greater glory.

Nothing wrong with Fr. Pablo’s Birks. Shoes do not give greater glory to God than Birks.

However, for a lay person, Birkenstocks are usually matched with khaki shorts and a tee-shirt or polo shirt…Hardly one’s ‘sunday best’, wouldn’t you agree? Since the Sunday Mass is the most important single act a Catholic does each week it is fitting that he wear his very best. Slacks, a button down shirt, tie, and coat ought to suffice, and I wouldn’t pair Birkenstocks with that type of outfit. If you wear a suit to the office you ought to wear one to Mass (seeing as one is definitely more important and of greater dignity than the other).

Don’t assume what others wear with Birks. They are very common here with Dockers sorta pants. Perfectly acceptable attire for Mass. You tried to make Birks unacceptable to wear to Mass by defining an entire outfit you never discuss before and I reject that.

Or you can just continue being willfully ignorant and not even attempt to understand my points…

Matthew 7:5…

BTW, ‘Fr. Pablo’ does wear a black cassock with a roman collar, doesn’t he? I mean, I have seen sandles with cassocks before, but it’d look funny to wear the black suit with the roman collar that most priests opt for these days with the birkenstocks. Or is he the type of priest who only wears his clerical garb inside the church and ‘civilian’ clothes at all other times?

Fr. Pablo was wearing a black Redemptorists cassock and Birks the last time I saw him.

 

[santodomingo]

That’s the whole point. The OP asked “Define Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality.” I suggest that’s impossible because it’s nebulous – it differs from one traditionalist to the next. The Church has never defined a “Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality.”

What I see here are people trying to “define” what they believe by attacking what they dislike. That just doesn’t feed the bulldog.

There are concrete spiritual differences between let’s say Latin Rite and Maronite Rite Catholicism. The same cannot be said between Latin Rite Catholics who choose the EF over the OF.

If I asked my Byzantine Catholic priest to explain to me how Eastern spirituality typically differs from Western spirituality he could. If I asked that same question of a self-described traditionalist, I would get a laundry list of clown Masses, dancers, veils, genuflecting, etc. None of which has anything to do with SPIRITUALITY.

I think traditionalists individually package up what they personally feel is “traditional” (or “better”) and then present that as some sort of discrete spirituality which it is not. further when asked why they prefer what they prefer it’s always done by attacking stuff which is largely present only in myth.

All Roman Catholicism is, by definition, “traditional”. We are all called on to continue the traditions instituted by Christ , and taught by the 12 apostles to their successors down to our day. This is Sacred Tradition, which is admittedly different from tradition with a small “t”.

However, the two types of tradition are related. What is known as the “sensus fidei”, the sense or feeling of the faithful, is considered to be guided by the Holy Spirit. God often chooses to reveal Himself through the daily worship and devotion of ordinary people. What we call “common sense” is precisely the accumulated wisdom of common, humble and God-fearing people over the centuries.

When self-proclaimed sages then decide to undo the practice of generations in the name of progress, one feels cheated. Benedict XVI has spoken eloquently about the arrogance of liberal theologians who hyjack common people´s faith by telling them that everything they have learnt and practise, whether it´s adherence to the dogmas of the CC as they have always been taught, a personal devotion to a saint, or spiritual customs such as refraining from eating meat on Fridays, etc, is now out-dated.

Personally these prophets of spiritual modernity make me sick. I was once told by a clever and highly charismatic Jesuit to stop praying the Holy Rosary, because I wasn´t “an old lady”. As if the centuries of countless millions of ordinary catholics, as well as hundreds of saints, praying the Rosary meant nothing!

 

[Stewmont]

What is known as the “sensus fidei”, the sense or feeling of the faithful, is considered to be guided by the Holy Spirit. God often chooses to reveal Himself through the daily worship and devotion of ordinary people. What we call “common sense” is precisely the accumulated wisdom of common, humble and God-fearing people over the centuries.

And? One thing is still clear. Each “traditionalist” ultimately decides what they will accept or reject often based on nothing more than personal taste.

When self-proclaimed sages then decide to undo the practice of generations in the name of progress, one feels cheated. Benedict XVI has spoken eloquently about the arrogance of liberal theologians who hyjack common people´s faith by telling them that everything they have learnt and practise, whether it´s adherence to the dogmas of the CC as they have always been taught, a personal devotion to a saint, or spiritual customs such as refraining from eating meat on Fridays, etc, is now out-dated.

Like yourself?

Personally these prophets of spiritual modernity make me sick. I was once told by a clever and highly charismatic Jesuit to stop praying the Holy Rosary, because I wasn´t “an old lady”. As if the centuries of countless millions of ordinary catholics, as well as hundreds of saints, praying the Rosary meant nothing!

I’m guessing your comments have a similar effect on at least as many people…

Your comments about the Jesuit priest mean nothing to me because you cannot substantiate them. Even if you could that’s one priest who in no way is authorized to speak for whatever it is you dislike. It’s nothing more than another inflammatory story meant to sidetrack. Stick to the issues.

 

[santodomingo]

And? One thing is still clear. Each “traditionalist” ultimately decides what they will accept or reject often based on nothing more than personal taste.

Your comments about the Jesuit priest mean nothing to me because you cannot substantiate them. Even if you could that’s one priest who in no way is authorized to speak for whatever it is you dislike. It’s nothing more than another inflammatory story meant to sidetrack. Stick to the issues.

I´m sorry, but I don´t understand what you mean. If something is traditional it means it has existed or been practised for many years. As you say, traditionalists often tend to define themselves in terms of what they reject. The simple reason for this is that what they accept is EVERYTHING that has been common catholic practice for the last few centuries. This has nothing to do with personal taste.

It is just a fact that dancing, holding hands, clapping in Mass and so forth has NEVER been catholic pratice until the 1960´s. If you go in for that stuff, that´s fine. I won´t tell you that you´re going to Hell for it. Just accept that it´s not traditional.

I don´t get what you mean by not being able to substantiate my story about the Jesuit. You are right if you mean that I don´t have proof; I wasn´t recording the conversation with a hidden mike because I don´t normally do that kind of thing. Or do you mean that I am making it up? If you chose to doubt my word that´s OK with me, but God knows that it´s true.

Let´s not get nasty. I think we ought to be charitable with each other and accept that we all have different ways of worshipping God. This should not, however, blind us to what is obvious; some things have been around for a long, long time, and others are new. Can you agree with me on that?

 

[I_Believe]

How so? That’s not logical.

And no, priest are not allowed to “make changes to Mass on a whim to fit whatever fancies them that day.” The Church prohibits that.

Sure it’s prohibited, and it may well be that you attend Mass at a parish where the priest(s) stick to the Ordinary. Good deal.

Now, go to Mass at 6 or 7 parishes and tell me they all prayed the Mass in the exact same way. I’m talking about the rubrics and additions or omissions. I don’t mean the options as are in the missal.

The last time I visited a parish for the first time, the gift bearer was allowed to place them on the Altar herself, and as she was escorted back to her pew by the priest, a thunderous applause ensued. I don’t believe that is optional, nor is the walking out of the sanctuary into the center aisle during the homily an option for Clergy either. Great homily, but it didn’t come from the pulpit. Wireless mics are great, but…

 

[una_fides]

That’s the whole point. The OP asked “Define Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality.” I suggest that’s impossible because it’s nebulous – it differs from one traditionalist to the next. The Church has never defined a “Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality.”

What “spirituality” has the Church defined exactly? The whole point of the post is about what traditional Catholics do for spirituality. You are obviously not a traditional Catholic, so I wonder why you are starting fights on here anyway since the topic doesn’t concern liberal Catholics (or w/e brand of Catholic/not you might be) and their opinions of Catholics who do their best to be faithful to Tradition, which is what being a Traditional Catholic is all about.

I think traditionalists individually package up what they personally feel is “traditional” (or “better”) and then present that as some sort of discrete spirituality which it is not.

Traditional Catholics follow the Church and her traditional spiritual practices. They are not about innovation and are content in worshiping in the same ways that saints have throughout history. They do not need something new or “better” than that, and they do not present it as anything different than what the saints have always done and taught in that regard.

further when asked why they prefer what they prefer it’s always done by attacking stuff which is largely present only in myth.

I don’t know from what blissful world this statement has come, but I invite you to attend some masses in Maryland, where I’m from, and I’d be interested to see your opinion then. From what I’ve heard from the many I’ve talked to from elsewhere and from those who have posted on CA forum as well, and from Cardinal Hujus and others in the hierarchy themselves, the deviations and abuses are rampant and widespread.

The pope of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI himself, said that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” Some speculated what he may have meant by that. His closest associate explained that he was referring to the widespread liturgical abuses that followed Vatican II and its improper implementation. Pope Benedict XVI has said that Vatican II has not yet even been implemented! What has taken place in abuses is not what the council had proposed or intended, but the modernists and liberals have run wild ever since.

I mean no disrespect in my opening line for this last part, but I am honestly shocked that you have not experienced any abuses, and statements like that make me wonder how familiar you are with what the Church considers to be liturgical abuse.

 

[I_Believe]

Stewmont, you offer no definition of your own, say you don’t believe there can be one, and tell everyone who has offered one they are wrong.

Will you at least admit there are two distinct mindsets among the laity today ?