Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

[hoop0826]

It’s funny that you should connect the Benedictines with the EF. The Tridentine form of Pope Pius V came from Franciscan tradition, not Benedictine. Pope Pius embellished a form that was made popular by Francis of Assisi.

QUOTE]

Thanks again JReducation for the education. I found this website www.franciscan-archive.org with this tidbit of information, though I left some out for brevity sake -

“St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite, since, at the time of the foundation of his Order, on account of his desire to live the same religious life that the Apostles lived with Christ Jesus, the three years before He was Crucified and Died for our salvation, he petitioned Pope Innocent III to take as the rite of his Order, the ancient Rite of the Roman Church, which was held to be the “Rite of St. Peter the Apostle”. During the reign of Innocent III, this rite was only used on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in the private papal Chapel, for the so-called Gallican Rite was universally employed in the Diocese of Rome. In addition only 3 known copies of the liturgical books of this ancient rite were still extant in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope Innocent III granted St. Francis’ request and gave him one of the good, still extant copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary, Rituale and other books.”

This is leading me to believe that the Extraordinary Form as we know it today almost died out close to 800 years ago if not for the Franciscan Order. Then, like today, there are certain groups who find great value in this particular form of the Mass. Who knows what kind of history it had before this time as well?

 

[ProVobis]

This is leading me to believe that the Extraordinary Form as we know it today almost died out close to 800 years ago if not for the Franciscan Order. Then, like today, there are certain groups who find great value in this particular form of the Mass. Who knows what kind of history it had before this time as well?

Nothing against Franciscans but the question then would be what would have the EF as we know it have been replaced with 800 years ago? Something in Old English which would have been immutable?

 

[JReducation]

Nothing against Franciscans but the question then would be what would have the EF as we know it have been replaced with 800 years ago? Something in Old English which would have been immutable?

I’m a strong believer that speculating backward is never going to more than speculation. We just can’t know what would have happened if Columbus had not rediscovered the Americas, but if it had been someone else sailing under another flag. The same is true here.

What was true at that time are several salient points.

1. There were many forms of the mass.
2. The Mass of St. Peter, which is what evolved into the Tridentine Form was used, just not often.
3. Our Seraphic Father did not select this form of the mass for any particular reason. He objected to the form that was used in the Diocese of Assisi, because it required several books. The pope provided him with a mass that used only one book. The friars preferred this form of the mass, because as itinerants, carrying only one missal and a one volume breviary was much easier than using the liturgical books in use at the time. It was really a matter of portability.
4. When the Council of Trent adopted this form of the mass as the ordinary form for the Latin Church, it never abrogated the other Latin Rites. They continued to exist to this day.
5. When Pope Pius decreed that the revised from the Tridentine mass was to be used or be anathema, he did not apply the decree across the board. Here is an important piece of information.

Many believe that it was Pope Pius’ V intention to declare that the Tridentine Form was doctrinally binding. If that were the case, it would have to be binding on everyone. Doctrine binds all believers, not just some.

Pope Pius never bound his own religious order to the Tridentine Mass. They continued to use the Dominican Rite. Carmelites and Carthusians continued to use their rites. Spaniards used the Mozarabic Rite. Some Italians used the Ambrosian Rite. The Franciscans were using the Roman Rite as it was when the original missal was given to St. Francis, long before the Council of Trent. Even though the Council and later Pope Pius reformed the Roman Rite and the Tridentine form was born, the Church never demanded that the Franciscans adopt the Tridentine Form. Nor did the Church ever demand that the Franciscans adopt Gregorian Chant. Nor did the Church ever demand that the Franciscans use only Latin or abandon the dialogue mass that they had been given by the Holy Father.

Obviously, we’re not talking about doctrine here, but about liturgical law that bound a part of the Church, but not the entire Church. What would have happened if none of this had taken place? Who knows?

We can only account for what did happen.

 

[hoop0826]

I’m a strong believer that speculating backward is never going to more than speculation. We just can’t know what would have happened if Columbus had not rediscovered the Americas, but if it had been someone else sailing under another flag. The same is true here.

What was true at that time are several salient points.

1. There were many forms of the mass.
2. The Mass of St. Peter, which is what evolved into the Tridentine Form was used, just not often.
3. Our Seraphic Father did not select this form of the mass for any particular reason. He objected to the form that was used in the Diocese of Assisi, because it required several books. The pope provided him with a mass that used only one book. The friars preferred this form of the mass, because as itinerants, carrying only one missal and a one volume breviary was much easier than using the liturgical books in use at the time. It was really a matter of portability.
4. When the Council of Trent adopted this form of the mass as the ordinary form for the Latin Church, it never abrogated the other Latin Rites. They continued to exist to this day.
5. When Pope Pius decreed that the revised from the Tridentine mass was to be used or be anathema, he did not apply the decree across the board. Here is an important piece of information.

Many believe that it was Pope Pius’ V intention to declare that the Tridentine Form was doctrinally binding. If that were the case, it would have to be binding on everyone. Doctrine binds all believers, not just some.

Pope Pius never bound his own religious order to the Tridentine Mass. They continued to use the Dominican Rite. Carmelites and Carthusians continued to use their rites. Spaniards used the Mozarabic Rite. Some Italians used the Ambrosian Rite. The Franciscans were using the Roman Rite as it was when the original missal was given to St. Francis, long before the Council of Trent. Even though the Council and later Pope Pius reformed the Roman Rite and the Tridentine form was born, the Church never demanded that the Franciscans adopt the Tridentine Form. Nor did the Church ever demand that the Franciscans adopt Gregorian Chant. Nor did the Church ever demand that the Franciscans use only Latin or abandon the dialogue mass that they had been given by the Holy Father.

Obviously, we’re not talking about doctrine here, but about liturgical law that bound a part of the Church, but not the entire Church. What would have happened if none of this had taken place? Who knows?

We can only account for what did happen.

I am thinking that we as catholics cannot put our faith in liturgical forms, or at least not develop disordered attachments to liturgical forms.

 

[JReducation]

I am thinking that we as catholics cannot put our faith in liturgical forms, or at least not develop disordered attachments to liturgical forms.

I believe that if we simplify the way we speak, speak only what is asked of us concerning tradition and traditional practices, give the answers with great humility admitting that we don’t really know the answers, but think we know, because we’ve memorized a few things, and we direct others to look to the Holy See for guidance, we should have very few problems with mainstream Catholics. I certainly don’t experience any.

I’ve experience problems with extremists on the left and right. But that’s part of living in this world.

 

[TimothyH]

Is it a misconception that traditionalists don’t read the Bible? I’m not talking about a general devotion to the written word of God. What I mean is daily reading, formal group study and lectio.

I have somehow come to think that it is generally the case that daily Bible reading of some kind is not part of the traditionalism movement. I don’t know where I came upon the idea. Maybe I just assumed it.

I ask in all sincerity. Am I wrong in believing this?

-Tim-

 

[Megan7]

I have the kids for two years. In grade 6 they learn Catholic Culture. In grade 7 they study Christology. But we do Christology from the bible. They don’t read the bible sequentially. They read it thematically.

For example, this year the grade 7 kids studied the Messianic prophecies all the way until Christmas. The last thing that they studied was what Mary’s reality said about Jesus. For that, we use Scripture. They learn the Immaculate Conception, Immaculate Procession, hypostatic union and virgin birth together. They pull it all together to make a statement about the entrance of the Logos into human history.

Next, they will begin to study what Jesus says about himself against what the OT says about him. We look at the covenants of the OT and then at Jesus’ claims that the covenant is fulfilled, that he is the Kingdom of God, that no one goes to the Father but through him and so forth.

We look at the miracles of the OT and the miracles of the NT and how both sets of miracles tell us something about who Jesus is. But you can’t understand the NT miracles unless you look at the OT miracles.

During Lent we go into the prophecies on the Suffering Servant and the passion narratives. The question on the table is whether or not the man crucified in Jerusalem is the one of whom the prophets spoke when they said that none of his bones would be broken. If he is, then who is he? We know that his historical name is Yeshua bar Yosef. But who is Yeshua bar Yosef?

This is going to be revealed to the kids after Easter when we cover the literature of Glory in the NT and the book of Kings in the OT. Finally, the covenant with Moses and the covenant with Peter to understand how Jesus projects himself into the world through his people. So that when God tells Pharaoh, “Let my people go.” He’s speaking to sin and death saying, “Let my people go.” But the people must still travel through the desert and the Church will lead them.

That’s the end of the two year program that I do. It’s very simple, but the kids like it and I think that it offers them a little bit of grounding in Catholicism without bullying them with rules and memorizations of things that they don’t understand.

At some point, they will think back on everything they learned in the early grades about sacraments, morals and dogma and then think about Catholic culture. At some point, some will say, “I get it.” Others will say, “I don’t understand it all, but then again I don’t understand the Constitution of the United States either and I have no desire to leave the country.” In other words, “I can let go and let others deal with it. I just have to do what is before me today.”

 

[ProVobis]

I ask in all sincerity. Am I wrong in believing this?

I believe you are. There were indulgences for spending time reading the Bible. Are you basing your question on the fact we only had one (or two) English versions of the Bible prior to Vatican II?

 

[jackxowen]

When Sunday school children have no idea how Immaculate Mary goes…it’s a really sad and upsetting situation.

To think that nearly 18 centuries of young Catholics never heard those words. Its a wonder the Church survived.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Well, some parishes wrongly use Praise and Worship music in the Mass. Praise and Worship music even if Catholic composed, is not intended for the Mass. It is not liturgical music. Perhaps your mom was reacting to the abuse of using incorrect and inappropriate music in the Holy Mass.
Some musicians believe that if the music “moves” them it’s ok for use in the Liturgy. Not.
There’s so much beautiful music in our history, that our children are not familiar with it. It’s a shame. When Sunday school children have no idea how Immaculate Mary goes…it’s a really sad and upsetting situation.

Those traditional hymns are little catechisms set to music. We sang them over and over which is a wonderful way learn and remember the church’s teachings.

 

[Cojuanco]

I believe you are. There were indulgences for spending time reading the Bible. Are you basing your question on the fact we only had one (or two) English versions of the Bible prior to Vatican II?

There still is such an indulgence IIRC.