How important are these traditionalist issues to you?

[YoungTradCath]

Too many people are stuck in what THEY see is the correct way to celebrate the Mass. They have forgotten that over 2000 years much has changed. They focus on what the remember “from the good old days”. As one person said…we are there to worship and receive the Eucharist.

It seems some people also forget that religious’ practices are not going away any time soon, whereas secular parish traditions have been eviscerated, and no one can seem to be able to come up with a good reason why… I have always taken it as a given that these threads talking about “tradition” have been, first and foremost, concerned with average secular parish life. It seems disingenuous to me to whip out a Religious exception for everything* in every thread that talks about “tradition.” I would love to read a well curated thread on the spirituality and liturgical practices of any or many of the groups of religious, and how these two things relate to each other in specific circumstances, but it does not seem that this thread is one of them. I am not saying people with religious backgrounds cannot contribute to “trad” threads–far from it–but I am saying that, just because religious do X and we are talking about Y, Y isn’t somehow invalidated. Again, religious’ traditions are not going to go away any time soon, since they have groups of very committed people tending to them and preserving them. Parish traditions are, on the other hand, in a much more difficult place.

We might consider the freestanding altar, for example. In reality, in a monastic setting in which the brothers do gather around the altar–whether just the priests or all the brothers–this cannot be properly known as “versus populum” anyway. When [priest] brothers are around the altar concelebrating/fraternally participating, Ordinary Form obviously a given, it produces an effect strikingly different from both conventional ad orientem worship and versus populum worship. This seems quite fitting given the nature of the relationship of the brothers: a fraternal communion. However, this relationship does not exist in the same way between a parish priest and his parishioners. In such a situation the priests are there to be, first of all, spiritual fathers for their spiritual children, the parishioners. This naturally precludes the people from standing around the altar, of course. Now, I am not here asserting that versus populum worship should, therefore, be precluded from parish life. I am just saying, prudentially speaking, that it has to be justified on other grounds.

*no snark

 

[BroomWagon]

Oh, Golly, Accusing other people Falsely and telling them to “Leave people alone” and harassing them is not a traditional value I have.

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 3/3
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently 2/3
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 3/3
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 0/3
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al .2/3
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 3/3
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 3/3
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails 3/3
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 2/3
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 3/3
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 3/3
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 2/3
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. 3/3
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 40000000/3
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 3/3
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 3/3 if done well
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 3/3
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 3/3
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they/ were before Vatican II 2/3

 

[YoungTradCath]

Oh, Golly, Accusing other people Falsely and telling them to “Leave people alone” and harassing them is not a traditional value I have.

 

[mburn16]

Sometimes I feel like we spend too much time talking about the form we want Worship to take, at the expense of discussing the purpose and function of the worship itself. It leads too often to a “we should do things this way because its tradition” or even worse, the appearance of “we should do things this way because that’s how I like it”

I’m seeing this quite a bit in the music thread. We’ve now gone through several pages talking about the merits of various types of music, and barely scratched the surface of what we want the music to accomplish.

By all means, these debates are important. But before we take a pen and highlighter to the missal or the hymnal, I think we need to start going a level - or eight - deeper and talk more about the overall goals.

What is it exactly we’re seeking to inspire when we bring someone into a Catholic Mass?

 

[clem456]

Just an informal poll for curiosity’s sake. Copy/paste this list and rank them from 0/3 (“don’t care at all”) to 3/3 (“extremely important to me”). Any comments or qualifications are welcome. This list assumes you are a Latin-rite Catholic, so feel free to make any adjustments relevant to your rite if you are not but want to participate

t) anything else you wish to add

God bless!

Call for an authentic Catholic spirituality based on the life of Jesus Christ, using the Church Fathers, saints and especially martyrs as models of radical conversion. 3

 

[jwinch2]

Too many people are stuck in what THEY see is the correct way to celebrate the Mass. They have forgotten that over 2000 years much has changed. They focus on what the remember “from the good old days”. As one person said…we are there to worship and receive the Eucharist.

That’s all well and good as long as people actually teach what the Church states as how the Mass is to be celebrated. The Church has a hierarchy of preferences for the celebration of the Mass, which very few actually pay attention to. If things were actually done in the way that the Church has stated, you would get far fewer complaints from those who “remember the good old days” as you put it. For many, it is not about what THEY prefer, it is about what the Church herself teaches, which largely goes ignored and unimplemented.

Of course, there would always be those who wish to go back to the EF of the Mass exclusively, I recognize that. However, there is nothing to be done for it. Most however, seem to be concerned with the fact that the OF of the Mass is rarely celebrated according to the mind of the Church. I believe the EF of the Mass will continue to rise in availability to the point that it is offered in every deanery and thus provides ample opportunity for those who prefer it to attend.

Finally, I have heard no one on this thread or elsewhere who is out to mandate to exempt religious regarding how they celebrate Mass. The overwhelming majority of people are concerned with what is going on within their diocesan parishes, not what is happening at the Dominican priory across town or the Benedictine monastery an hour away. The suggestion that we do nothing to the liturgy because it might infringe on the legitimate Traditions of consecrated religious is a false one. The solution is to simply exempt them from the mandate and move on.

Rome could easily allow the Master of the Order to make decisions regarding the Mass for the Dominicans and allow the local Abbot to make decisions for their monastery or if he prefers, to do it in conjunction with their Congregation or the entire Order of Saint Benedict. Additional exemptions could be made for parishes which were founded by certain religious communities. For example, in a parish founded by the Benedictines, it might be commonplace to have the tabernacle in a side chapel rather than behind the altar or elsewhere in the nave. There is no reason that the history of the parish cannot be taken into consideration on certain things like that. However, this exemption need, in no way, prevent the improvement of the liturgy within the parishes of the diocese themselves, where 99% of Catholics go to Mass on a daily or weekly basis.

 

[Corki]

Sometimes I feel like we spend too much time talking about the form we want Worship to take, at the expense of discussing the purpose and function of the worship itself. It leads too often to a “we should do things this way because its tradition” or even worse, the appearance of “we should do things this way because that’s how I like it”

I’m seeing this quite a bit in the music thread. We’ve now gone through several pages talking about the merits of various types of music, and barely scratched the surface of what we want the music to accomplish.

By all means, these debates are important. But before we take a pen and highlighter to the missal or the hymnal, I think we need to start going a level - or eight - deeper and talk more about the overall goals.

What is it exactly we’re seeking to inspire when we bring someone into a Catholic Mass?

I think that’s one of the quirks of places like CAF. Most of the posters here, especially in the Traditional and Liturgy forums, are pretty well educated on the “basics” of the Mass. They don’t really need to discuss the purpose and function of the Mass - that’s a “given”.

While, I agree that it is very important, especially in parish catechesis, to make sure there is a good grounding in the theology behind the liturgy, every discussion doen’t need to start there. Every school day doesn’t start with Kindergarten.

As for music, that’s a whole other ball game. I haven’t met a “music director” yet who understands the purpose of music at Mass.

 

[jwinch2]

As for music, that’s a whole other ball game. I haven’t met a “music director” yet who understands the purpose of music at Mass.

Agreed.

b16schola.org/what-are-the-propers/

If we have been given musical talents and the opportunities to use them in service to the church, shouldn’t her magisterial documents on liturgy (e.g., Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musicam Sacram, Tra le Sollecitudini) be our guide?

 

[OraLabora]

I think it’s easy to forget the influence that religious orders had on parish life. In the case of Benedictines, for instance, St Peter’s abbey in Saskatchewan was a territorial abbey from 1921 until 1998. A territorial abbey is the seat of a de facto diocese and its abbot is an “abbot nullius” that is, he is the ordinary with the same authority as a bishop except tha he cannot ordain. The Benedictines built and staffed the parishes in this territory. Franciscans have built churches and parishes in many places. Same with other orders. For the Benedictines, 11 territorial abbeys remain including Monte Cassino and Subiaco in Italy where St Benedict started. There used to be many more around the world. One hopes that the influence of the Benedictines remains even after the parishes were absorbed by local dioceses.

Even parish life was not as homogeneous as one thought, “back in the day”. This was discussed somewhat at length in the church architecture threads.

It’s important to realize this before we impose a standardized notion of “tradition” even on parishes. I suspect the Vatican does, which is why it is careful about legislating.

 

[JackieMom]

That’s all well and good as long as people actually teach what the Church states as how the Mass is to be celebrated. The Church has a hierarchy of preferences for the celebration of the Mass, which very few actually pay attention to. If things were actually done in the way that the Church has stated, you would get far fewer complaints from those who “remember the good old days” as you put it. For many, it is not about what THEY prefer, it is about what the Church herself teaches, which largely goes ignored and unimplemented.

Of course, there would always be those who wish to go back to the EF of the Mass exclusively, I recognize that. However, there is nothing to be done for it. Most however, seem to be concerned with the fact that the OF of the Mass is rarely celebrated according to the mind of the Church. I believe the EF of the Mass will continue to rise in availability to the point that it is offered in every deanery and thus provides ample opportunity for those who prefer it to attend.

Finally, I have heard no one on this thread or elsewhere who is out to mandate to exempt religious regarding how they celebrate Mass. The overwhelming majority of people are concerned with what is going on within their diocesan parishes, not what is happening at the Dominican priory across town or the Benedictine monastery an hour away. The suggestion that we do nothing to the liturgy because it might infringe on the legitimate Traditions of consecrated religious is a false one. The solution is to simply exempt them from the mandate and move on.

Rome could easily allow the Master of the Order to make decisions regarding the Mass for the Dominicans and allow the local Abbot to make decisions for their monastery or if he prefers, to do it in conjunction with their Congregation or the entire Order of Saint Benedict. Additional exemptions could be made for parishes which were founded by certain religious communities. For example, in a parish founded by the Benedictines, it might be commonplace to have the tabernacle in a side chapel rather than behind the altar or elsewhere in the nave. There is no reason that the history of the parish cannot be taken into consideration on certain things like that. However, this exemption need, in no way, prevent the improvement of the liturgy within the parishes of the diocese themselves, where 99% of Catholics go to Mass on a daily or weekly basis.

I think most people want the Mass celebrated properly. What I don’t understand is why, if Mass is so ubiquitously being celebrated improperly, it is allowed by our bishops. Bishop Curry has come to our parish dozens of times, and the way the Mass is done is enough to make a “traditionalist” swoon. No kneeling at all, full band at Mass including steel drums, no confietor, confession offered on a very limited basis, widespread use of extraordinary ministers even at small Masses, perm. deacons giving homilies, sign of peace is two minutes of people getting out of their seats and chatting, hand holding for the Our Father, church in the round with altar in the center, no other Catholic art or statues (when I married there, there was no statue of Mary to offer flowers), no visible tabernacle, zero head covering women, I have never seen anyone recieve on the tongue…

And he always talks about what a lovely, vibrant parish we have! We don’t get in trouble, we are praised for having such high attendance and donations. If the church is doing it wrong, all the priests and bishops are happy for it to be that way. I wonder how many of our modern practices are wrong, and how many the traditionalists just turn up their nose at.

 

[jwinch2]

I think it’s easy to forget the influence that religious orders had on parish life. In the case of Benedictines, for instance, St Peter’s abbey in Saskatchewan was a territorial abbey from 1921 until 1998. A territorial abbey is the seat of a de facto diocese and it’s abbot is an “abbot nullius” that is, he is the ordinary with the same authority as a bishop except tha he cannot ordain. The Benedictines built and staffed the parishes in this territory. Franciscans have built churches and parishes in many places. Same with other orders. For the Benedictines, 11 territorial abbeys remain including Monte Cassino and Subiaco in Italy where St Benedict started. There used to be many more around the world. One hopes that the influence of the Benedictines remains even after the parishes were absorbed by local dioceses.

Even parish life was not as homogeneous as one thought, “back in the day”. This was discussed somewhat at length in the church architecture threads.

It’s important to realize this before we impose a standardized notion of “tradition” even on parishes. I suspect the Vatican does, which is why it is careful about legislating.

As I noted above, I agree.

Additional exemptions could be made for parishes which were founded by certain religious communities. For example, in a parish founded by the Benedictines, it might be commonplace to have the tabernacle in a side chapel rather than behind the altar or elsewhere in the nave. There is no reason that the history of the parish cannot be taken into consideration on certain things like that. However, this exemption need, in no way, prevent the improvement of the liturgy within the parishes of the diocese themselves, where 99% of Catholics go to Mass on a daily or weekly basis.

However, the suggestion that parishes come into compliance with what is already taught by the Church in regards to liturgy hardly, in my view at least, requires throwing away the traditions of parishes founded by religious. Your points above about con-celebration in a monastery or priory are well taken. However, this problem would not seem to exist in a typical parish setting, regardless of who founded it. In particular since, when it was founded, was probably well before the changes in the liturgy anyway. The founding of parishes by consecrated religious is mostly, not all obviously, but mostly an occurrence which took place prior to Vatican II or at least it is where I live.

 

[mburn16]

church in the round with altar in the center

That one is allowed.

 

[jwinch2]

I wonder how many of our modern practices are wrong, and how many the traditionalists just turn up their nose at.

adoremus.org/SacrosanctumConcilium.html
adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html
adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/
musicamsacram.org/wp-content/uploads/Graduale_or_Missale.pdf
b16schola.org/what-are-the-propers/

Above are some resources highlighting what the Church teaches on the liturgy. I linked both the original sources as well as a couple of articles which highlight certain parts. You tell me whether people are simply turning their nose, or if they have a legitimate point.

 

[anp1215]

3 I feel very strongly that the bishops and Holy See make traditionalists aware of the fact that their view of “traditions” in the Church tends to want to homogenize the Church to look like a snapshot of what parish life looked like at a specific moment in time, at the expense of other long-established traditions such as monastic, mendicant, etc., all of which should be allowed to influence the Church. This is probably due to the fact that these traditions are not well-known by the laity; RCIA and other programs should bring these traditions back to the people so they have a deeper understanding of where the Church came from, and what “traditions” really means.

I love your posts

Just an informal poll for curiosity’s sake. Copy/paste this list and rank them from 0/3 (“don’t care at all”) to 3/3 (“extremely important to me”). Any comments or qualifications are welcome. This list assumes you are a Latin-rite Catholic, so feel free to make any adjustments relevant to your rite if you are not but want to participate

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 0
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently 0
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 1
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 0
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. **1
**f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 3 (though I do enjoy some modern hymns)
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 0 (I receive on the tongue, but I couldn’t care less if someone else chooses to receive in the hand)
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails 1 (I answered 1 not because I think it should be the only option, but because I wish it was an option in more parishes, as I prefer to receive this way)
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 1
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 1
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 0
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 0
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. 2
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 1
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 3
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 2
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 2 (Not 3 because I think there are beautiful churches not in these specified styles)
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 2
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II 0
t) anything else you wish to add
I’m not a “traditionalist” but I still wanted to answer.
God bless!

You too!

 

[Armor_of_Light]

One of the most insightful things I’ve read on CAF. The Church has 2,000 years of tradition and as many years of vocational life behind it. Simply wishing to rewind the clock back to what the parish life and social norms were like in 1950 seems like nostalgia more than anything. I’m sure in 60 years, our kids will be bemoaning their current Church and romanticizing what Mass was like "back in the early 2000s."

First off… 3 for most.

Secondly…That is exactly what scares me about all the frippery run amok that we have seen so far. Is there a logical end to it?

 

[holyfamily1]

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 9/10
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently 8/10
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 10/10
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 8/10
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. 10/10
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 10/10
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 10/10
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails 9/10
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 7/10
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 8.5/10
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 10/10
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 8/10
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. 10/10
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 9/10
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 8/10
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 9/10
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 10/10 As long as the Church isn’t extremely ugly
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 10/10
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II 9/10
t) that only boys can assist the Priest at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and other Liturgical functions 1,000/10

 

[OraLabora]

I think most people want the Mass celebrated properly. What I don’t understand is why, if Mass is so ubiquitously being celebrated improperly, it is allowed by our bishops.

I think this sums up the issue with post-Vatican II excesses nicely. I’m not certain the demand for the EF would be as great if the OF were celebrated properly everywhere as Sacrosanctum Concilium intended.

If monks of the Solesmes Congregation were put in charge of the liturgy everywhere, you’d here few complaints about the OF

Of course other Benedictine congregations would do it nicely as well, but Solesmes is famous for liturgy and is charged with preserving Gregorian chant by the Vatican. Not only would the OF Mass be as SC intended, I bet there’d even be Sunday vespers as well

 

[Elizabeth502]

adoremus.org/SacrosanctumConcilium.html
adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html
adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/
musicamsacram.org/wp-content/uploads/Graduale_or_Missale.pdf
b16schola.org/what-are-the-propers/

Above are some resources highlighting what the Church teaches on the liturgy. I linked both the original sources as well as a couple of articles which highlight certain parts. You tell me whether people are simply turning their nose, or if they have a legitimate point.

Jason,
I think one of the ironies is that those who resist Traditionalism in liturgy are actually opposing Vatican 2. Vatican 2 did not demolish traditional liturgy, at least not intentionally! Vatican 2 welcomed a spectrum of variation, a spectrum which included some of the configurations of celebration we see today, some of which are distortions & misinterpretations of anything ever published by the Council. There was no intent to mandate a radically new & previously unrecognizable way of celebrating Mass, to be enforced worldwide as soon as possible.

The effect, whatever the intent, was that there was an erroneous assumption in the Church of “out with the old.”

Now we have an informal movement in the Church to resist any attempt at preserving what Vatican 2 never suggested we destroy, and this attempt is being made under the cover of “openness.” (Yeah. )

(For the record, I attend, for reasons of commitments, mostly English Masses, most of which include a variety of non-approved elements according to the GIRM and according to various aspects of Church law. I’m hardly a radical. I tolerate and wince and pray real hard while some of this is going on. However, I will join political demonstrations if there is any “movement” to eradicate the existing beautiful traditional architecture of old parishes which remain.

Many people do fine with modern architecture and barely licit Masses. Others depend on a reverential space and a more formal rite for their spiritual health. The Church has never declared the latter to be inferior, unnecessary, or outdated.

 

[OraLabora]

Elizabeth, it’s certainly possible to have a reverential church with modern architecture if it’s well done.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, it’s certainly possible to have a reverential church with modern architecture if it’s well done.

Why do you think I disagree with you? Did you not see my closing sentences?

Let me edit that: Yes, it’s possible to be reverential and modern simultaneously. Too many people, however, associate modernity of architecture with (boorish) modernity of behavior. (‘Hey,let’s all hang out and groove with one another. This is just my big house.’)

In theory I agree with you. In practice, it is less so. I can think of exactly one church in my region which manages to be ultra-modern and ultra-respectful inside. It is definitely the exception.