Hostility toward Tradition

[SuzanneD]

That is one of the things I enjoy most about mass. Not jumping up and down waving your arms around and clapping in time to a band , like at a concert. Just calm deeply profound worship. The focus on Christ and his beautiful sacrifice for us. His Awesomeness, The worthiness of Christ to be adored and praised. I am not Catholic yet, but I can’t go to mass without feeling humbled and so grateful for the chance to worship him.
I don’t condemn modern worship, I just know I am blessed in Mass.

 

[littlenothing]

Who says modern changes are any more done for their own sake than the older ones (which were all novelties at some point) that have now become “tradition”?

I mean who is to say Pope St Gregory didn’t have exactly the same attitudes, motives and feelings in composing his chants that Marty Haugen or David Haas, whose music gets such bad press? It’s not like Gregory kept detailed journals about the process, nor is he still alive to be asked.

Haugen, Haas and others modeled their songs after popular contemporary music. That was what they intended to do, its not just my opinion. Pope St Gregory did not do that. Chant was not the popular music of the day, but it was easy to sing and was prayerful in the way that reciting the Rosary is prayerful. The Church is universal and changeless. As mulch as possible, so should Her music and services be.

It is a scourge of modernity that change is often undertaken simply for the sake of change. Its progress, so people say. Yeah, but a progression to what?

It is a mistake to think that what was popular music in 1in3 will endure.

 

[littlenothing]

That “1in3” was some silly auto correct by my phone. I meant to type 1983.

 

[LilyM]

Haugen, Haas and others modeled their songs after popular contemporary music. That was what they intended to do, its not just my opinion. Pope St Gregory did not do that. Chant was not the popular music of the day, but it was easy to sing and was prayerful in the way that reciting the Rosary is prayerful. The Church is universal and changeless. As mulch as possible, so should Her music and services be.

It is a scourge of modernity that change is often undertaken simply for the sake of change. Its progress, so people say. Yeah, but a progression to what?

It is a mistake to think that what was popular music in 1in3 will endure.

None of the popular music of Pope Gregory’s day has survived - so we cannot say that he either didn’t, or did not intend to, model it on popular music. And Haugen and co intended a whole lot more than that anyways.

I DO know that the tune of the uber-traditional hymn Pange Lingua was in fact an old marching song used by the Roman army in Julius Caesar’s day. And soldiers don’t go for highbrow spiritually uplifting music as a rule.

I also know that at various times both pipe organs and polyphonic chanting (think Allegri’s Miserere) were banned from churches as being too secular.

I daresay secular influences on religious music are as old as religious music itself, and there is no reason to presume Pope Gregory any more immune than Allegri or whoever began using pipe organs. Or that in 500 years people won’t be fulminating against whatever the newer fashion in church music is, and longing for the good old reverence of Haugen and Haas.

 

[OraLabora]

Quibble but St Gregory the Great did not compose Gregorian chant. Most of the Gregorian chant of today comes from the Carolingian era from approx. the 9th to 12th centuries, with roots in Gallican and Roman chant. Most of the repertory came several hundred years after St Gregory the Great. Some of the repertory, notably the hymns of the Divine Office, come from the time of St Ambrose who predates Gregory by over 200 years.

 

[LINVS]

Many had a feeling after Vatican II that change was needed, and needed badly. Many of these people, apparently, felt that traditional practices inhibited change and should thus be avoided or discarded completely. For instance, it is not uncommon these days to hear a public recitation of the Rosary, either before or after Mass. It is also not unusual for Churches to have Eucharistic Adoration. After Vatican II, both of these customs almost disappeared. In fact, the Rosary was described in a popular catechism of the time as an old time devotion, not much practiced by the modern Catholic but those who nonetheless feel something for it it should be allowed to continue the practice, and loved for their piety in spite of it being misplaced.

Now that sounds very much like a back handed compliment if I ever heard one.

Eucharistic Adoration was derided as being unnecessary in the modern Church because Jesus was present in the community and thus there was no need for Adoration as it had been practiced for years. The idea of contemplating and worshipping Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration struck many of the time as hopelessly naive and only of use for the uneducated and then only sparingly.

Music was said to have to change to adequitely serve the sensibilities and enrich the worship of modern people and not those of people hundreds of years ago.

As for Extraordinary Form of the Mass, forget it. It was next to impossible to find one after 1965 and prior to the issuance of the indult in 1984. Elderly Priests could be excused from learning the Ordinary Form and thuse could celebrate the Extraordinary Form and it was allowed on rare occasions in England and I believe Wales. The Extraordinary Form was said to be elitist, anti feminist, non participatory on the part of the laity, was celebrated in a dead language and did not fulfill the spiritual needs of the people. Kneeling was seen as a relic of the past as was receiving on the tongue. Both of these practices tended to lessen the dignity of the individual and thus needed to be removed.

Anything old was considered to be suspect and in need of overhaul. Anything new, no matter how outlandish, was thought to be deserving of a trial and consideration. This attitude continued well into the Papacy of John Paul II, when it started to change…

I guess you could say that tradition was hated because it was… tradition. Nothing more or less than that.

And it still is by a great many…

Thank you for that post. I’m a child of the 80s so I missed the period when the rosary had gone and Eucharistic adoration was unknown. I had no idea that those traditions had disappeared. What a change Vatican II had brought! I always thought it must have been extreme when I read my parish’s changing the architecture to accommodate Vatican II. Moving alters around and removing kneelers always seemed like a big change to me. I can see how Sedevanists and SSPXs became upset.

 

[JustaServant]

The things you describe almost sound like the usual round of accusations thrown around by those who are hostile to the TLM.

Did you read the post? I never said I was “hostile” to the TLM. I am hostile however to people who, with little personal experience as to the history of the issues, identify themselves with an older generation of Catholics who would be horrified at what passes for traditional Catholic today.
Having spent twenty years across the Tiber, I can witness the observation that, what I will call “neo-Traditionalists”, have morphed into something almost identical to Protestant fundamentalism.
Without getting into the issues, and speaking purely from a psychological and sociological perspective, this is the conclusion I have reached.
A group whose self-description is more about what they are **against **than what they are for.
A legalistic mindset that insists on outward obedience without recognizing the inward working of the Spirit.
Picking and choosing which traditions they adhere to, in much the same fashion fundamentalists pick and choose what parts of the Bible they can emphasize.
Mistaking western culture with Christian culture.
Immature, overly emotional thought patterns. Log into FE to see that.
Separation from the “world”.
The emotional and intellectual high of belonging to an exclusive “club”, making them feel superior to others around them. Very similar to Calvinism.
Extreme negativity.
Racism.
Fascination with end times.
None of these things have anything to do with the TLM or the 2000 years of Catholic tradition.

I think true Catholic traditionalists are seeing, some perhaps for the first time, the underbelly of certain extreme movements.
And I think they are going to have to make a choice.
Do you continue down a road that ultimately will lead to separation from the Church? Or will you separate from the “neo-traditionalists” and remain loyal to the Church Christ founded.
That the gates of Hell shall never prevail.
The choice is yours.

 

[JustaServant]

Thank you for that post. I’m a child of the 80s so I missed the period when the rosary had gone and Eucharistic adoration was unknown. I had no idea that those traditions had disappeared. What a change Vatican II had brought! I always thought it must have been extreme when I read my parish’s changing the architecture to accommodate Vatican II. Moving alters around and removing kneelers always seemed like a big change to me. I can see how Sedevanists and SSPXs became upset.

The answer to one extreme is never another extreme.

 

[JustaServant]

I know a whole family who almost left the church because of guitar Masses. Wellenough should have been leftalone!

A TLM can be done with guitars in much the same fashion as an organ or a piano.
It’s not the instument, its how its used.

 

[ljwahn]

In Spanish Masses you have to clap to the beat as well. I believe that’s traditional too.

I’m not Spanish or of Mexican descent but I have gone to Masses on the border that were in Spanish. The music was on an overhead projector so the congregation could sing along. I’m not sure one necessarily HAS to clap to the beat (I did not) but I’m sure you could. That would be a distraction to me. I guess I am too much a proponent of quiet prayer but I am reminded of the story of the pharisee and the tax collector in the synagogue. I would be more inclined to stay in the back and ask The Lord to have mercy on me as a sinner.

 

[Rich_C]

Who says modern changes are any more done for their own sake than the older ones (which were all novelties at some point) that have now become “tradition”?

I mean who is to say Pope St Gregory didn’t have exactly the same attitudes, motives and feelings in composing his chants that Marty Haugen or David Haas, whose music gets such bad press? It’s not like Gregory kept detailed journals about the process, nor is he still alive to be asked.

Two things to consider are this:

1. Hopefully people did resist changes that have since become traditional. I hope they did. Catholicism is a religion that is passed down. “Adhere to traditions,” St Paul said. But these things were tested and found good and so they were kept.

Today we are too happy to accept anything new. We ought to be as skeptical of guitar Masses as Medieval Catholics may have been of polyphony.

1. Basically all of what has become our traditional orthopraxy was introduced by saints. Today, many of them come from ordinary priests or laypersons. The sanctity of the men who introduced high chant, or wrote the propers for Corpus Christi gave their works credibility. That is lacking today, no offense to anyone.

It’s not that we should never change, but we ought to resist it until all the bad changes die from lack of acceptance and only the good ones make it after a couple of generations. That’s the way Catholics think. If a Catholic doesn’t think like that, he’s not thinking like a Catholic.

 

[Seamus_L]

It’s ironic how many times I’ve heard the Latin Mass community described as this sort of refuge for extreme right wing racists, because off hand, that I can think of, I’ve met regular attendees who were Mexican, Puerto Rican, Haitian, American Black, American Indian, Chinese, Filipino,Japanese, African and Indian.
Hostility towards Catholic Tradition is in no way surprising when you consider the fact that a disturbingly high number of people who describe themselves as Catholic, support abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce and the ordination of women.

 

[JustaServant]

It’s ironic how many times I’ve heard the Latin Mass community described as this sort of refuge for extreme right wing racists, because off hand, that I can think of, I’ve met regular attendees who were Mexican, Puerto Rican, Haitian, American Black, American Indian, Chinese, Filipino,Japanese, African and Indian.

Hostility towards Catholic Tradition is in no way surprising when you consider the fact that a disturbingly high number of people who describe themselves as Catholic, support abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce and the ordination of women.

Are you speaking of Latin Mass communities within the Church? Of course there is a variety because they are true traditionalists. They have remained within the Church and are not involved with groups independent of Her.
The factions separate from the Church are a different matter.
Again, the answer to one extreme is not another extreme.
The culture of people who call themselves traditionalists leads logically, as with any extreme movement, to abberant philosophies that can be easily seen by reading trad forums and blogs. But also, in face to face encounters.
Protestant fundamentalism (as it began in the early part of the 20th century, not the word as it is used today) is dying because it was born of division and continues to divide until it is no more.
A lesson those who call themselves traditionalists need to heed.

 

[Seamus_L]

The only Latin Mass communities I’m personally familiar with, are in full communion with the Vatican.

 

[JustaServant]

The only Latin Mass communities I’m personally familiar with, are in full communion with the Vatican.

 

[HelenRose]

It’s easy to be snobby and give snarky comebacks to these situations. However, I find that just reinforces people’s stereotypes of Catholics who like traditional worship. Like corsair above, I find that a big smile is all that is really possible. You can never intellectually convince someone to love something.

My husband and I are musicians in a small mission church and have had much the same attitude. Dan and I have decided to do as much Latin as possible on the first Sunday of the month. The rest of the month we do what we can to keep the music reverent. This has worked well for us. We do our best to make the First Sunday a special time and the congregation is coming around to the idea that this is the “special Mass”.

To my way of thinking: It is better to love something and let that love show rather than to show dislike for something else. I have great faith that if not pushed against the wall and are allowed to “save face” people will naturally move toward beauty. It takes time and patience.

 

[shelby_sun]

I am not sure was is meant by reverent music. I was raised in a a parish run by the Jesuit and the music that was played would probably not be considered reverent. It was in no way disrespectful of the Mass, but it was not traditional: however, there wasn’t a person in the church how did not sing, and sing loudly.

When someone got the idea to put a big ornate pipe organ in the Church, most of the parishioner were very upset. The music changed to more traditional songs and now no sings. There is nothing wrong with either type music, but the priest should pay attention to which type of music works for his own parish.

 

[littlenothing]

Quibble but St Gregory the Great did not compose Gregorian chant. Most of the Gregorian chant of today comes from the Carolingian era from approx. the 9th to 12th centuries, with roots in Gallican and Roman chant. Most of the repertory came several hundred years after St Gregory the Great. Some of the repertory, notably the hymns of the Divine Office, come from the time of St Ambrose who predates Gregory by over 200 years.

Well, right. I just assumed the poster was talking about music such as is found in the St. Gregory hymnal.

 

[littlenothing]

Let’s compare one hymn by Haughn and one from the Liturgy of St. James (traditional):

Haughn
Gather us in the rich and the haughty
Gather us in the proud and the strong,
Give us a heart so meek and so lowly,
Give us the courage to enter the song.

St. James
At his feet the six-winged seraph,
cherubim, with sleepless eye,
veil their faces to the presence,
as with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia,
Alleluia, Lord Most High

Which one seems to offer the Almighty extravagant praise? This is what we traditionalists want, generally. It doesn’t matter who wrote chant or how old it is. If someone writes a good song today, that’s great, bring it on. I love music. But so often the songs written by the St. Louis Jesuits and others in that vein are insipid and anemic. I don’t even know what that Gather Us In song means.

Now, sometimes I will sing their songs in the car. Some of them are pretty good for giving you that feeling of love for God, and in that sense, they are good. The melody, sometimes, is all it takes. Haughn’s Shepherd Me, O God is one that I could hear in German (I don’t know any German) and feel moved. But as a whole, these songs don’t offer what many of the older, traditional hymns offer in terms of catechesis and just pure adoration.

No need to get all bent out of shape about traditionalists longing for something we can’t seem to have. Pop culture has won. We’re going to be singing “The Lord of the Dance” and such for a long time.

 

[Francoist]

Let’s compare one hymn by Haughn and one from the Liturgy of St. James (traditional):

Haughn
Gather us in the rich and the haughty
Gather us in the proud and the strong,
Give us a heart so meek and so lowly,
Give us the courage to enter the song.

St. James
At his feet the six-winged seraph,
cherubim, with sleepless eye,
veil their faces to the presence,
as with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia,
Alleluia, Lord Most High

Which one seems to offer the Almighty extravagant praise? This is what we traditionalists want, generally. It doesn’t matter who wrote chant or how old it is. If someone writes a good song today, that’s great, bring it on. I love music. But so often the songs written by the St. Louis Jesuits and others in that vein are insipid and anemic. I don’t even know what that Gather Us In song means.

Now, sometimes I will sing their songs in the car. Some of them are pretty good for giving you that feeling of love for God, and in that sense, they are good. The melody, sometimes, is all it takes. Haughn’s Shepherd Me, O God is one that I could hear in German (I don’t know any German) and feel moved. But as a whole, these songs don’t offer what many of the older, traditional hymns offer in terms of catechesis and just pure adoration.

No need to get all bent out of shape about traditionalists longing for something we can’t seem to have. Pop culture has won. We’re going to be singing “The Lord of the Dance” and such for a long time.

Exactly. I object to music where the congregation stands around singing about itself. The practices I object to are the ones the put the spotlight on the band, on the congregation, etc. The spotlight should only be on Jesus Christ. That is Tradition. It’s Tradition because our way is to love Christ above anyone and anything. It’s very simple.