Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

[TimothyH]

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.)

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.

A freestanding altar is actually a monastic altar, an ancient Benedictine tradition which flows out of the idea of the monastic enclosure. The monks are an enclosed group of brothers - family really - who gather around the altar as equals. The priest is only there to serve the sacramental needs of the monastic community but is otherwise an equal, a brother among brothers.

If you go to Mass at a monastic abbey Church with this type of altar today you will probably see the monks gather around the altar as a family while you, who are not part of the enclosed monastic community, stay way back behind the choir stalls in the pew. The monks, priests and non priests, all gather around the altar, in the sanctuary during the consecration, as a community. It is part of the spirituality and theology of enclosure and of cloister.

People who want to talk about the patrimony of the high altar have to give the 1600 year old Benedictine tradition its due.

Others say that this was only for monks, and not for regular every day Catholics, but in many places it was the monastery where people went to Church. A significant number of European cities and universities started as nothing more than a monastery around which commerce and culture developed.

Some detached altars are horrendous. One at a Church near where I live looks like something out of Star Trek. I keep thinking that Spock is going to walk out in a deacon’s stole. But the same can be said of some high altars which are nothing more than a shelf. In general, when I see a detached altar, I see a 1600 year old monastic tradition, not a novelty. I see the Church getting back to her spiritual roots.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

If we stop for a moment an replay the last few posts, I think we’ll see why there are misconceptions about Traditional Catholics.

I think I can say this without fear of being punished by some people, because I’m a Traditional Catholic. However, I don’t care if the altar is freestanding. I don’t like to see beautiful artwork damaged for no apparent reason. I agree with those who feel that some of the old altars and railings were beautiful and should not have been destroyed. I would take down Notre Dame in Paris or St. Patrick in NYC. However, the last time that I was in NYC, I noticed that the freestanding altar is of very good workmanship and blends in with the surroundings. So I don’t mind it at all. People who go on and on about the freestanding altar or the table altar bore even me. I want to reach out and slap them after 20 minutes.

I don’t care that the local priest uses Glory and Praise songs at the LIfe Teen Mass. I notices that he has 800 people at that mass, teens and family. I notice that on Thursday nights, they have about 200 teens kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament, because Thursday night adoration is reserved for the teens. I notice that on Friday night confession, which is also for the teens and their families, they have over 100 people on line and that the teens are very active in the parish and continue to attend religious education until their college years. Two of them have joined our community and one joined the Redemptorists. So I’m sure that the Immaculate is very pleased. Whom I to disagree with her? But those people who go on and one about the glory of Gregorian chant and the horrors of Glory and Praise just drive other people crazy.

As I said before in another thread. We pray the LOTH in Latin and our mass is in Latin. We do not use the 1962 breviary, because it does not fit the Franciscan calendar, nor do we use the Tridentine form on a daily basis. We use it on special occasions and only when the whole community votes for having it. The reason is simple. As a traditional community, we observe the Rule of St. Francis. The brothers must always be on the same page as the Holy See. The Holy See says that the Tridentine Form is extraordinary, then it means that it cannot be our daily bread. The Holy See has said that the current form of the mass is the ordinary form for the Latin church, then tradition says that we submit to that judgment. We do. It’s that simple. When people try to impress upon us the necessity of the Tridentine form in order to be traditional, it gets very annoying. If feels like nagging or whining, sometimes both.

These are some examples of behaviors that cause misconceptions. Traditional Catholics who behave this way need to stop it. We just do our thing and be quiet.

I mean this in a very kind way. I serve in a very large archdiocese. I move around several hundred priests, brothers, sisters and nuns, not to mention over one million Catholics. No one knows that we pray in Latin or that we follow the ancient Franciscan rule or that we have the option to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, which for us is a novelty. We just don’t talk about those things. Nor do people know that one of our brothers, who is also a priest, knows how to celebrate the EF and does so for us once in a while. We don’t tell anyone. It’s probably the best kept secret, without meaning to keep it a secret. It’s not something we deny when asked. It’s just not something that we bring up either. There is no need to do so. People don’t need us spicing up their soup… They need us to serve them.

 

[RedCaves]

If we stop for a moment an replay the last few posts, I think we’ll see why there are misconceptions about Traditional Catholics.

I think I can say this without fear of being punished by some people, because I’m a Traditional Catholic.

I… don’t think you are.

Either that or a “Traditional Catholic” means something entirely different to you…

 

[Sirach2]

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.

You have stated this so many times, and I let it pass thinking each time will be the last statement. You are attempting to pass off as dogma something that is etched in your mind as truth, but which is not at all the ideal of the Council Fathers. Why you are doing this is puzzling to me, other than you have a single agenda that you intend to impose on non-suspecting readers here.

Oneofthewomen gave you documentation that proves the Church has specifically allowed the vernacular, going so far as to say that the translations must be pre-approved with recognito from the Holy See. And. much to your dismay, recognitos were given. Further, permission for the vernacular was also stated in the council document itself. (SC 30)

The Church does not continue to say that priests MUST celebrate in latin, or that the only true music in the Roman rite is Gregorian chant. This is simply not correct, and I call you on it.

 

[shawnbm]

Wow! Folks get mighty touchy around here about Traditional Catholicism and what it means or does not mean. Charity even in differing with one another is a hallmark of any kind of Catholic–whether they person considers themselves traditionalist or not.

 

[JReducation]

I… don’t think you are.

Either that or a “Traditional Catholic” means something entirely different to you…

Let’s see

1. I observe the faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.
2. I am faithful to the Franciscan tradition as it was handed on to us by the Seraphic Father, St.Clare and St. Bonaventure since 1209.
3. I have a deep love and appreciation for the ongoing tradition of the Church from the first century CE to 2000 CE.
4. As has been the tradition of every Franciscan before me, except the heretics, I obey the Holy Father without questions on all matters except sin. Fortunately, no pope has ever ordered me to sin, so that’s not a problem.
5. I accept the Holy Father’s position that both forms of the mass are equally efficacious, that they enrich each other, that both have a place in the liturgical life of the Latin Church and that the Tridentine mass is the extraordinary form and the Pauline Mass is the ordinary form. As is part of Catholic tradition, if it’s not a sin and the pope says so, I acquiesce. I try to understand why he says so and what it means. I always assume that the burden is on me, not on him.
6. I have a profound devotion to the Immaculate and the saints and a love for the Church.
7. I have served the Church for over 40 years, sticking with her through good times and bad times without ever voicing a single complaint. Always understanding that any discomfort is my fault, not the fault of the Church. That’s been part of the Franciscan tradition since our founding in 1209.
8. I subscribe to everything that the Church teaches and I try to understand it in context: historical, social, theological, canonical, liturgical and pastoral, because I am a son of the Church, not part of a parallel Magisterium.
9. I live an intense life of prayer whereby I pray as an individual and as part of the Church in the LOTH and the mass.
10. I make use of the sacraments as is appropriate.
11. I am fluent in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, though this is an external part of being Catholic, not essential. But it is part of Catholic culture.
12. I am aware of being part of a universal Church that is far bigger than the Latin Church, so I have deep respect and strong fraternal feelings toward the other 22 Catholic Churches.

It think this is all part of essential Catholic tradition, don’t you?

 

[shawnbm]

Yes, JReducation, I do too and I am with you, even though I am not a Franciscan brother (although I am discerning a call to the permanent diaconate).

 

[JReducation]

You have stated this so many times, and I let it pass thinking each time will be the last statement. You are attempting to pass off as dogma something that is etched in your mind as truth, but which is not at all the ideal of the Council Fathers. Why you are doing this is puzzling to me, other than you have a single agenda that you intend to impose on non-suspecting readers here.

Oneofthewomen gave you documentation that proves the Church has specifically allowed the vernacular, going so far as to say that the translations must be pre-approved with recognito from the Holy See. And. much to your dismay, recognitos were given. Further, permission for the vernacular was also stated in the council document itself. (SC 30)

The Church does not continue to say that priests MUST celebrate in latin, or that the only true music in the Roman rite is Gregorian chant. This is simply not correct, and I call you on it.

You’re right about this.

I gave an example earlier. We’re about to enter the Christmas season. Most of our most beautiful Christmas music is several hundred years old and it’s not Gregorian chant. Much of it was originally German, not Latin. I have never heard Silent Night in Latin. I’m sure there is a Latin translation, but not used. Christmas music is just one example.

I’ve been to midnight mass at the Vatican and Christmas music is not Gregorian chant. It’s a combination of several modes of music. When Bl. John Paul was alive, the midnight mass was in Italian and Latin, while readings and prayers of the faithful were in other languages. The Gospel was usually in Greek for the benefit of the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, JReducation, I do too and I am with you, even though I am not a Franciscan brother (although I am discerning a call to the permanent diaconate).

I will pray for your discernment, especially during these three weeks left of Advent.

BTW, there is nothing in Franciscanism that is not good for the man in the pew. So you can definitely take it and run with it.

 

[EphelDuath]

Oneofthewomen gave you documentation that proves the Church has specifically allowed the vernacular, going so far as to say that the translations must be pre-approved with recognito from the Holy See. And. much to your dismay, recognitos were given. Further, permission for the vernacular was also stated in the council document itself. (SC 30)

“Much to my dismay”? Where are you getting that from? I have nothing against the vernacular for where it’s appropriate. Read SC from beginning to end and you’ll see that it authorizes the vernacular, but also commends the faithful to learn the ordinary in Latin. That is what I fight for: authentic and full interpretation of the Council. I don’t pick and choose the parts of the Council and Papal documents I wish to follow, I follow all of them in their entirety (except obviously when a newer decree abrogates an older one). If all Catholics did the same this wouldn’t be a problem.

I have never once said that nothing should be in the vernacular. Since you have claimed that this has “dismayed” me, I dare you to demonstrate where I have stated this.

The Church does not continue to say that priests MUST celebrate in latin, or that the only true music in the Roman rite is Gregorian chant. This is simply not correct, and I call you on it.

I have not claimed that priests must celebrate in Latin. Please read my posts more carefully. But SC does say that Gregorian chant occupies the “principum locum” of the Roman rite; commonly mistranslated as “pride of place” but really meaning moreso “principle place”. It also says that sacred polyphony and organ music have their place in the rite, so I am not saying that Gregorian chant is the ONLY music of the Roman rite; but it is THE music, and according to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, all liturgical music in our rite should be modeled upon Gregorian chant.

A freestanding altar is actually a monastic altar, an ancient Benedictine tradition which flows out of the idea of the monastic enclosure.

[et al]

I’m not sure St. Benedict would have been pleased to hear his tradition cited as the justification for destroying ancient churches.

I have nothing against free-standing altars, assuming they conform to the rubrics and guides from the Holy See. What I am clamoring about is “wreckovation”; which is deformation in “the spirit of Vatican II”. Destroying baroque masterpieces and replacing them with wooden tables because “that’s how Jesus would’ve done it”, despite several directives from the Holy See refuting that logic.

 

[ProVobis]

Oneofthewomen gave you documentation that proves the Church has specifically allowed the vernacular, going so far as to say that the translations must be pre-approved with recognito from the Holy See. And. much to your dismay, recognitos were given. Further, permission for the vernacular was also stated in the council document itself. (SC 30)

The Church does not continue to say that priests MUST celebrate in latin, or that the only true music in the Roman rite is Gregorian chant.

And if you don’t understand the vernacular? Or do you think 2013 English will be around forever?

Point is you still have to learn something at some point, whether it’s a language or a song, don’t you? Why not make what the Church prescribes (Jubilate Deo, etc.) part of your study courses? There are no demands, of course.

 

[Sirach2]

EphelDuath:

But SC does say that Gregorian chant occupies the “principum locum” of the Roman rite; commonly mistranslated as “pride of place” but really meaning moreso “principle place”. It also says that sacred polyphony and organ music have their place in the rite, so I am not saying that Gregorian chant is the ONLY music of the Roman rite; but it is THE music, and according to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, **all liturgical music in our rite should be modeled upon Gregorian chant. **

I rest my case.
These posts of yours are very deceptive and are not fully expressing the mind of the Church or the Council fathers. Here are 6 of 29 posts where you allude to the Church being “wrong” and the possibility that people may even sin if they do not promote latin and greg. chant.

1. here The Church says that the music of the Roman rite is Gregorian chant, and Latin is our tongue.
2. here So saith Vatican II: Latin is to be retained in the liturgy, and Gregorian chant occupies the principle place in the Roman rite.
3. here 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,
4. here The Vatican never encouraged one iota of nonsense. The OF celebrated correctly today (Eucharistic Prayer ad orientem, Gregorian chant and polyphony, parts/most of the Ordinary in Latin, etc.) is precisely what the Council Fathers and Pope Paul VI envisioned.
5. here … do you think one is at fault, or even sins, by not encouraging their parish or diocese to try and use Latin and Gregorian chant?
6. here The Council also didn’t prescribe the Eucharistic Prayer versus populem, ripping altars from the wall, or replacing the ancient patrimony of Gregorian chant being phased out for contemporary hymns.
   The answer is: because a handful of people with their own ideas in each Conference of Bishops had their own ideas, that weren’t in line with the Council.

This last reference portrays the bishops as being disobedient, which is highly offensive and basically incorrect.

Beyond this point, I see no value in debating with you, as we have knocked heads in the past with no resolution. When someone posts 29 times about their preference and misunderstanding as you have done, it says “agenda” to me that is not about to relinquish one’s view.

 

[EphelDuath]

I rest my case.

Er, is highlighting a certain part of my response supposed to delete its context? You said: “or that the only true music in the Roman rite is Gregorian chant” (implying that I stated the contrary). I responded: “I am not saying that Gregorian chant is the ONLY music of the Roman rite.”

You then bolded a paraphrase from the Popes of the last century. Perhaps you should read their words and tell me if you’re in agreement with them:

"Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple. The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.” Pope Pius X, Tra le Sollecitudini, 1903

“Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy.” Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 2007

These posts of yours are very deceptive and are not fully expressing the mind of the Church or the Council fathers. Here are 6 of 29 posts where you allude to the Church being “wrong” and the possibility that people may even sin if they do not promote latin and greg. chant.

I actually specifically said one does not sin by not using/promoting Latin and Gregorian chant. See post #50.

I dare you to show me where I have ever said the Church has been wrong.

I stand by everything else I have posted (in context of course), but:

1. here The Council also didn’t prescribe the Eucharistic Prayer versus populem, ripping altars from the wall, or replacing the ancient patrimony of Gregorian chant being phased out for contemporary hymns.
   The answer is: because a handful of people with their own ideas in each Conference of Bishops had their own ideas, that weren’t in line with the Council.

This last reference portrays the bishops as being disobedient, which is highly offensive and basically incorrect.

You don’t think it a bit dishonest that you deliberately bolded “Bishops” and not “people with their own ideas in each Conference of Bishops”, so as to make it appear that I am criticizing our bishops?

Beyond this point, I see no value in debating with you, as we have knocked heads in the past with no resolution. When someone posts 29 times about their preference and misunderstanding as you have done, it says “agenda” to me that is not about to relinquish one’s view.

Whatever agenda I have is in your imagination, and it may evaporate if you cease misquoting or misattributing falsehoods to me.

For all of your criticisms of me being “deceptive”, it seems ironic that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. But here’s my challenge to you: what have I said that’s inaccurate? Set aside all of your bizarre and offensive accusations about me saying we should disobey our Bishops or whatever other nonsense you have supposed me to say. What have I said that’s actually wrong? Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was promulgated almost unanimously by the Council Fathers of Vatican II, says that Gregorian chant holds the principle place (“principum locum”) in the Roman rite, and that Latin should be retained in the liturgy. I’ve not said very much beyond emphasizing those points. Am I wrong? Are you going to make those quotations from the document vanish?

 

[ProVobis]

They should not be using “novus ordo”.

Well, it’s right there in the Archdiocese of Chicago’s directory of non-English Masses.

parishdirectory.archchicago.org/Masslang.aspx

(See under Latin.)

 

[Sirach2]

EphelDuath:

You don’t think it a bit dishonest that you deliberately bolded “Bishops” and not “people with their own ideas in each Conference of Bishops”, so as to make it appear that I am criticizing our bishops?

I repeat that I am not going to debate you, Ephel. Look again at your statement.

The answer is: because a handful of people with their own ideas in each Conference of Bishops had their own ideas, that weren’t in line with the Council.

It can be easily read by anyone whomsoever that you implied it was a “handful of people in the conference of Bishops that had their own ideas.” If that was not your meaning, then you might have worded it more clearly so as to be understood better, such as,
“A handful of people formed their own ideas not in accord with the Conference of Bishops.”

 

[EphelDuath]

So is selectively bolding my words supposed to decrease or increase the likelihood of misunderstanding?

 

[JReducation]

Well, it’s right there in the Archdiocese of Chicago’s directory of non-English Masses.

parishdirectory.archchicago.org/Masslang.aspx

(See under Latin.)

Different context here in this directory

The way that’s it’s used around here is incorrect usage.

 

[CruceSignati]

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

I understand what you mean. Perhaps I should have phrased the original title and question differently.

 

[otjm]

I have not claimed that priests must celebrate in Latin. Please read my posts more carefully. But SC does say that Gregorian chant occupies the “principum locum” of the Roman rite; commonly mistranslated as “pride of place” but really meaning moreso “principle place”. It also says that sacred polyphony and organ music have their place in the rite, so I am not saying that Gregorian chant is the ONLY music of the Roman rite; but it is THE music, and according to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, all liturgical music in our rite should be modeled upon Gregorian chant.

And as I noted, Gregorian chant was well on a downhill slope well before Vatican 2 came around. It made a valiant attempt to breathe a revival into it, and factually, that has failed, except for an occasional flurry of interest starting with some Spanish monks producing a CD of Gregorian chant. The Benedictine monks of Santo Domingo seem to have the most CDs out there, although I noted one from Mt Angel.

and then there is one titled Musica Sacra - Gregorian chant and Buddhist chants (and won’t that make you socks roll up and down!).

In any event, I would not be surprised if there are more CDs out there than parishes which actually can sing it without slaughtering it.

Pride of place is nowhere near so far off the mark as you seem to want to make it. And as an exhortatory remark, it is excellent; as a command, or rule, or regulation, Rome itself has failed to make the point - perhaps a point too subtle for many. It (along with Palestrina) will be taken off the shelf, dusted off, and performed by semi-professional scholas in occasional places. And that is about the sum of it; you may strenuously protest, but as they said in the early 90’s, you are talking to the hand 'cuz the head ain’t listening.

I have nothing against free-standing altars, assuming they conform to the rubrics and guides from the Holy See. What I am clamoring about is “wreckovation”; which is deformation in “the spirit of Vatican II”. Destroying baroque masterpieces and replacing them with wooden tables because “that’s how Jesus would’ve done it”, despite several directives from the Holy See refuting that logic.

Considering the fact that the “wreckovation” as you put it occurred 40 to 50 years ago, perhaps we can all put that one to bed? Perhaps there are issues a little closer in time that we could concentrate on? Can we hear “AMEN!” and move on? Where is a good Evangelical when you need one…

 

[JReducation]

But let me try to ask a simple question here. As I said before, my community is very traditional. However, we never discuss these points outside of our house. We never talk about the destruction of altars that were work of art. Why not? Because discussing it is not going to bring them back. It only sounds like whining.

We never discuss Gregorian Chant. Why not? Because we know that since the 1700s we have had other forms of music in our liturgy that was not Gregorian chant. Franciscans helped write a lot of it themselves, because of our own allergy to Gregorian chant, which dates back to the 13th century. So we know that for at least one million Catholics at any given time, this was not true and is not true. There are one million Franciscans at any given time. I’m sure that there are others for whom this is not true. So why bother making a case for this. As long as we do the liturgy per our rubrics, we’re good.

We never mention to anyone that we pray in Latin or that we know Latin. We never admit to anyone that we require four years of Latin in our formation program, unless you’ve been admitted to our formation program, you have no need to know. Why bother telling people about this? It just sounds arrogant telling people how many languages we speak or we use in prayer.

We have a priest who knows how to celebrate the EF and likes doing it. When the time is right, we give him permission to celebrate it and the rest of the time he serves as the Go To Guy for our pregnancy centers. He’s excellent at what he does and serves with a humble heart and joyful spirit. Others don’t need to know that we have an EF or that he knows how to celebrate it. So when we go anywhere in the diocese or participate in any diocesan function, we don’t mention it unless the subject comes up. The Church has not asked us to market the EF. It has said that we can use it. We just don’t mention it unless it comes up.

We have a good name in the community and in the diocese. No one has any misconceptions about us or who we are. I could say the same for the FSSP, ICRSS and a few others.

My simple question is, can it be that some Traditionalists call too much attention to themselves or to the Traditionalist movement?