Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

[JReducation]

In this particular case, you may have a point. However, know that the vast majority of Catholics have never heard of the terms Extraordinary Form or Ordinary Form and many parishes still list their Masses as Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass (or just plain Latin Mass). Spanish Mass or English Mass or other vernacular Mass are usually listed as such in the bulletins in multi-lingual parishes.

They should not be using “novus ordo”. Novus Ordo was for a very specific publication of the missal. I was someplace recently where I had to correct the priest, because he referred to our form of the mass as the Novus Ordo. He was teaching Franciscans the EF. It fell on me to correct him, in private, before a group of friars lynched him. To be precise, ours is the Franciscan edition of the Roman Missal or the Franciscan form of the Ordinary Form. I know. It’s a mouthful. That’s why we simply call it the OF or the mass.

The point is that he meant no offense. But Novus Ordo made some people uncomfortable and the superiors present got an earful within a few minutes. This came from men who like the EF, but they don’t like the condescending tone behind the term Novus Ordo. We have to be careful with how we use language.

 

[OldYoungGuy]

One line that always makes my stomach churn is: “You think you’re holier than the pope.”

Its like using the accusation of racism to instantly quash your opponent’s ability to argue. If I recall there were certain saints who charitably corrected popes. Also not every pope has been made a saint. I wonder if this line was used against St. Catherine of Sienna.

 

[JReducation]

I think it’s important to address this one point. Yes there were saints who gave feedback to the popes. They did not offer correction to the popes. No one has the canonical authority or the moral authority to correct a pope, not even his confessor. The confessor corrects the penitent, not the pope.

In addition, it must be made clear that those who have given feedback to the popes did so in private, never in public as we see some people do today. Herein lies the break with tradition. Traditionally, Catholics have treated popes with great respect, even when we disagreed or were angry at the pope. The idea of taking our grievances to the press or as is the case now, to the Internet, would have shocked someone like Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Bonaventure and others who have been close enough to the popes to offer feedback.

Let’s take Catherine. May folks like to hide behind the fact that Catherine corrected the pope or criticized the pope. Those folks don’t know that Catherine’s communications with the pope were not revealed until almost 100 years after her death. During her lifetime, no one knew that she was in contact with the pope, except the person who penned her letters, because she did not learn to read or write until very late in her life.

Catherine’s biographers tell us that she took the switch to those members of the lay Dominican community that she headed, if they dared criticize the bishop or the pope. She would personally apply corporal punishment. Her issue was not that they disagreed. Her issue was that they disagreed in public. This was a violation of the reverence due to the hierarchy. Many people today, forget or don’t know that it’s still in Canon Law that in making our thoughts known to the clergy and hierarchy, we are canonically bound to do so reverently and with discretion. We’re not supposed to go to Rorate Caeli, the New York Times, Catholic Answers Magazine, EWTN, and whatever else is out there and plaster our criticism so that others have something with which to wallpaper their home.

People also misuse St. Paul. Paul did not publicly attack Peter. He was in a council. It was not an attack. He has the floor. He spoke to Peter with reverence, the whole time addressing him by his title, never his name. The fact that he came to the council and did not go out on his own and make his case in the public square says a great deal about Paul’s respect for Peter and for the other bishops. The proceedings of the council were not made public for many years. Luke wrote the Acts long after the Council. Paul’s own reference to it takes place long after. Neither Luke nor Paul suggests what people try to read into it, that Paul admonished Peter. No one admonishes Peter. If we observe very carefully and we look at other documents from that time, Paul was making his case. When a lawyer makes his case, he is not admonishing the other lawyer or the judge, even if he’s suggesting that they are mistaken. It’s not a finger in your face type of address.

 

[RedCaves]

I have been told that, whether you like it or not, the term “Novus Ordo Missae” is a legitimate synonym for the Mass of Paul VI.

Whether or not it has been used as a pejorative, well, what do you expect?

It’s a blanket term for anything that occurs in the Church since the late sixties.

 

[ProVobis]

They should not be using “novus ordo”. Novus Ordo was for a very specific publication of the missal. I was someplace recently where I had to correct the priest, because he referred to our form of the mass as the Novus Ordo. He was teaching Franciscans the EF. It fell on me to correct him, in private, before a group of friars lynched him. To be precise, ours is the Franciscan edition of the Roman Missal or the Franciscan form of the Ordinary Form. I know. It’s a mouthful. That’s why we simply call it the OF or the mass.

The point is that he meant no offense. But Novus Ordo made some people uncomfortable and the superiors present got an earful within a few minutes. This came from men who like the EF, but they don’t like the condescending tone behind the term Novus Ordo. We have to be careful with how we use language.

Okay, we get that, but the Archdiocese of Chicago (I haven’t checked others) have Masses said in 25 languages. They don’t mention either Ordinary Form or the Novus Ordo. It’s not a recent list but under the Latin they don’t distinguish between the OF and EF. The Spanish Mass, not surprisingly, is the most celebrated outside the English Mass. Seems like most just prefer a language, not the form.

parishdirectory.archchicago.org/Masslang.aspx

 

[OldYoungGuy]

I agree, but this accusation is often thrown where no mention of the pope has been made. It often used in rebuttal to strong theological reasons why “traditional folk” cling to certain practices even though no one is accusing the pope of any wrong doing. I know there are those who do.

 

[otjm]

It is wrong. It is permitted, currently, but it is wrong. Vatican II and every Pope in the last century has said that the music of the Roman rite is Gregorian chant, though polyphony and organ both have their places too. Contemporary Christian music, and also contemporary secular music for that matter, do not belong in the Holy Mass.

If it is permitted, then it is not wrong, as in illicit or illegal. It may be wrong according to your opinion, but the Church’s opinion is that it is permitted, and if the Church permits it, then it is not technically wrong.

As to Gregorian chant, I believe what was said is that “all things being equal, Gregorian chant has pride of place” which is a tad bit different than saying that Gregorian chant is “the music of the Roman rite”.

)Please understand - I am not anti-Gregorian chant; I was part of a schola that cut a record, when I was in seminary in the mid-1960’s. I love Gregorian chant, but I hate to see it slaughtered by those who consider themselves choir members, and can’t sing it properly for love nor money.

Gregorian chant was already losing steam well before Vatican 2 came along and attempted to prop it up. That is just the facts; it is solemn, haunting, beautiful, and mostly relegated to history (as is Palestrina, and others who wrote religious music in various centuries past). On a rare occasion one will come across a choir or schola trained in a particular form of music, and they are always well worth hearing. But the vast majority of music directors have not the faintest clue, and all too many choirs are made up of people who were in high school choir or college choir at best, to often 30 or 40 years past (if not more).

 

[otjm]

Your last sentence: It can also mean that to be a traditionalist, you seek doctrinal purity and consistent, dogmatic interpretations.

One does not have to be a traditionalist to do that - just an authentic Catholic.

 

[JReducation]

I have been told that, whether you like it or not, the term “Novus Ordo Missae” is a legitimate synonym for the Mass of Paul VI.

Whether or not it has been used as a pejorative, well, what do you expect?

It’s a blanket term for anything that occurs in the Church since the late sixties.

Actually, Novus Ordo appeared on the inside cover of the Missal of Paul VI. That missal was laid to rest a long time ago. The current missal is the third edition and it’s not by Paul VI. There would be no objection to the term, if it had not been bastardized to use it in a condescending manner.

If it is permitted, then it is not wrong, as in illicit or illegal. It may be wrong according to your opinion, but the Church’s opinion is that it is permitted, and if the Church permits it, then it is not technically wrong.

As to Gregorian chant, I believe what was said is that “all things being equal, Gregorian chant has pride of place” which is a tad bit different than saying that Gregorian chant is “the music of the Roman rite”.

)Please understand - I am not anti-Gregorian chant; I was part of a schola that cut a record, when I was in seminary in the mid-1960’s. I love Gregorian chant, but I hate to see it slaughtered by those who consider themselves choir members, and can’t sing it properly for love nor money.

Gregorian chant was already losing steam well before Vatican 2 came along and attempted to prop it up. That is just the facts; it is solemn, haunting, beautiful, and mostly relegated to history (as is Palestrina, and others who wrote religious music in various centuries past). On a rare occasion one will come across a choir or schola trained in a particular form of music, and they are always well worth hearing. But the vast majority of music directors have not the faintest clue, and all too many choirs are made up of people who were in high school choir or college choir at best, to often 30 or 40 years past (if not more).

I’m going to agree with you here. I’m looking at our breviary. We have several hundred hymns in it and none are Gregorian chant, but 90% of them go as far back as the 1700s. I wouldn’t call Silent Night Gregorian Chant, nor Adeste Fidelis or All Creatures of Our God and King, etc.

 

[EphelDuath]

If it is permitted, then it is not wrong, as in illicit or illegal. It may be wrong according to your opinion, but the Church’s opinion is that it is permitted, and if the Church permits it, then it is not technically wrong.

The Church doesn’t currently sanction me were I to stand on a street corner and shout “2 + 2 = 5!”, but that doesn’t make it right. Again, permitted and correct are not synonymous. The elderly are permitted to not fast on days of obligatory fasting if their health forbids it, but that doesn’t mean the ideal and the norm is to still fast anyway.

As to Gregorian chant, I believe what was said is that “all things being equal, Gregorian chant has pride of place” which is a tad bit different than saying that Gregorian chant is “the music of the Roman rite”.

Once more, that was a poor translation. “Principum locum” does not really mean “pride of place”.

Please understand - I am not anti-Gregorian chant; I was part of a schola that cut a record, when I was in seminary in the mid-1960’s. I love Gregorian chant, but I hate to see it slaughtered by those who consider themselves choir members, and can’t sing it properly for love nor money.

I hear your opinion, but it does not cancel out what every Pope in the past century and Vatican II has said about the glory of Gregorian chant.

Sacrosanctum Concilium was/is not the only document that one needs to look to with regards to liturgy. In fact, Inter oecumenici, which is the instruction for implimention liturgical norms, from September 1864, was written to guide the Church, on how to do those things. As far as ‘ripping altars from walls’, if we can get past the rhetoric & our feelings, pro and con, and read this instruction, discussions like this would not get out of hand and threads would not be closed. Here is what IO says about the altar-

I’m not reading anything there about ripping altars from the walls.

Now, were people’s feelings hurt, yes. Was the change abrupt and disjointed, in some places, yes. Has reverence and respect for one’s surroundings & other’s seem to be less visible, yes. But none of this has to due with VII, SC or the OF vs. EF.

Oh, yes it does, in fact. Because destroying the liturgy and churches in the name of “the spirit of Vatican II” has been such a nightmarish problem in the past few decades, I believe it the duty of every Catholic to actually read those documents and see for themselves what Vatican II taught.

and we should also educate ourselves before we continue to criticize that which the Church has commanded.

Agreed. So saith Vatican II: Latin is to be retained in the liturgy, and Gregorian chant occupies the principle place in the Roman rite. Nowhere did the Council or any Pope recommend all of the liturgical abuses that have happened contrary to those stated foundations.

 

[clem456]

The Church doesn’t currently sanction me were I to stand on a street corner and shout “2 + 2 = 5!”, but that doesn’t make it right.

You’re comparing an absurdity on the one hand, to the prudential judgments that take place in the Church in regard to disciplines, traditions, cultures, preferences, availability of instruments, etc…

 

[EphelDuath]

You’re comparing an absurdity on the one hand, to the prudential judgments that take place in the Church in regard to disciplines, traditions, cultures, preferences, availability of instruments, etc…

Really the only point I was making is that something which is wrong can still be non-sinful or permitted by the Church. The Church says that the music of the Roman rite is Gregorian chant, and Latin is our tongue. So parishes that steadfastly refuse their patrimony are not fulfilling the ideal of the Council and the wishes of the Holy Fathers, although they are not sinning nor will they be sanctioned.

This is true of a lot of things. Ash Wednesday and the Sacred Triduum are not Holy Days of Obligation, but one is permitted to miss them (i.e. does not sin) if they wish. The Church doesn’t prescribe punishment for not studying Holy Scripture in one’s free time, but it is still expected that you will do that. The difference here is between the normative (what it should be) and the legal (what can be without punishment/correction).

 

[shawnbm]

Really the only point I was making is that something which is wrong can still be non-sinful or permitted by the Church. The Church says that the music of the Roman rite is Gregorian chant, and Latin is our tongue. So parishes that steadfastly refuse their patrimony are not fulfilling the ideal of the Council and the wishes of the Holy Fathers, although they are not sinning nor will they be sanctioned.

This is true of a lot of things. Ash Wednesday and the Sacred Triduum are not Holy Days of Obligation, but one is permitted to miss them (i.e. does not sin) if they wish. The Church doesn’t prescribe punishment for not studying Holy Scripture in one’s free time, but it is still expected that you will do that. The difference here is between the normative (what it should be) and the legal (what can be without punishment/correction).

THIS ^

I have never given it much thought until recently, but I feel I am a traditionalist Catholic as more and more time goes by. I believe those of the Roman rite (or any other sanctioned Latin rites) should embrace, revere and uphold it–every bit as much as the Antiochean, Byzantine and Coptic rites churches do for theirs. And why not? It is our patrimony after all, and one grounded in very ancient Tradition.

 

[ccmcmg]

This leaped to my mind after reading the latest discourse in this thread:
Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

I’ve never known such animosity and condescension existed between those that attend different forms of Masses, or that I’m not a ‘traditional’ Catholic since I don’t attend Latin/EF Masses. Y’all do realize that in many parts of the country, EF isn’t available? And even if it is available, it’s still a choice?

 

[EphelDuath]

I’ve never known such animosity and condescension existed between those that attend different forms of Masses, or that I’m not a ‘traditional’ Catholic since I don’t attend Latin/EF Masses. Y’all do realize that in many parts of the country, EF isn’t available? And even if it is available, it’s still a choice?

It’s really only the SSPX-type that looks down upon non-traditionalists. Most of us don’t have a problem with the OF. We’re just promoting, defending, and explaining the traditions of the Church.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I’m not reading anything there about ripping altars from the walls.

Then you obviously didn’t read my whole post or the document I linked to. Paragraph 91 clearly states that the altar should be free-standing to permit walking around it, and for the celebration of Mass facing the people.

ETA: Not sure EphelDuath why you brought my quote over from another thread?

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve never known such animosity and condescension existed between those that attend different forms of Masses

There appears to be more animosity between different languages (such as Spanish and English) within the same form of Mass IMO.

 

[EphelDuath]

Then you obviously didn’t read my whole post or the document I linked to. Paragraph 91 clearly states that the altar should be free-standing to permit walking around it, and for the celebration of Mass facing the people.

I see that it says “The main altar should** preferably** be freestanding”. Doesn’t say anything about this being so important that ancient churches should be deformed to accommodate it. (I’d also like to see if “should preferably” is actually what the Latin says, but I can’t seem to find the original Inter Oecumenici anywhere sadly. So for the moment I’m going off of the EWTN translation.)

ETA: Not sure EphelDuath why you brought my quote over from another thread?

Didn’t even realize that I did that! Mea culpa. I was posting in the other thread the same time I was in this one.

 

[clem456]

Really the only point I was making is that something which is wrong can still be non-sinful or permitted by the Church. The Church says that the music of the Roman rite is Gregorian chant, and Latin is our tongue. So parishes that steadfastly refuse their patrimony are not fulfilling the ideal of the Council and the wishes of the Holy Fathers, although they are not sinning nor will they be sanctioned.

This is true of a lot of things. Ash Wednesday and the Sacred Triduum are not Holy Days of Obligation, but one is permitted to miss them (i.e. does not sin) if they wish. The Church doesn’t prescribe punishment for not studying Holy Scripture in one’s free time, but it is still expected that you will do that. The difference here is between the normative (what it should be) and the legal (what can be without punishment/correction).

I understand what you were trying to say. How you expressed it is important in the context of this thread “Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics”. You compared a simple mathematical formula to the myriad of traditions and disciplines which require human interaction, judgments, prayer, obedience, etc…among billions of people.

A mathematical formula allows for no tolerance of discussion, or tolerance for the preferences, frailties, viewpoints, cultures, etc…of other people. A mathematical formula is a simple hot/cold proposition, one way is right, the other is wrong, one way is valid and useful, the other is wrong and should be dismissed.
“Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics”

 

[edwest2]

There is no such thing as a Traditional Catholic. We are to observe Church teaching, that’s it. Yes, there are those who only partly or selectively observe this or that, but such labeling is divisive. Any issues should be dealt with on an individual basis.

Peace,
Ed