Myth regarding Traditionalists and the “Fear” of Change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Credo_in_Deum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Credo_in_Deum

Guest
JMJ​

There seems to be this trend going around where some incorrectly view Traditionalist as being afraid of change. Well I would like to be the first to refute such a rumor and hopefully clarify at least my position as a Traditionalist Catholic.

Are Traditionalists afraid of change?

Quite the opposite really. Any Traditionalist that knows the Mass and its origins would never claim that the Tridentine Mass has always been the same. We know, believe, and accept that changes to the Liturgy will happen but it’s how these changes are carried out which will determine how we react to them. With that said not one true Traditionalist would have or has a problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

**What is the “problem” then with Traditionalists and the OF? **

The “problem” isn’t with the OF but with the “spirit” in which some have promulgated the OF: a spirit which called for the eradication rather than the preservation of the Latin Rites identity. Take for example the use of Latin: No one has a problem with using the vernacular however, when the use of the vernacular results in the non-preservation of Latin then Traditionalists like myself see a big problem!

**36. § 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites **-- SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

Now if you do not believe that this so called “spirit of 2VC” had ushered in this wave of destruction which was against even His Holiness’s intentions then please explain why the Church has now in recent years started to form orders that are solely dedicated to the preservation of these things? Heck if the “spirit of 2VC” was actually carried out in the true spirit of the 2VC then the Church wouldn’t have had to have these specific orders for this task of preservation since all these things would have been preserved naturally in the first place. Sadly we can see that was not the case or the intention of many after 2VC.

Wait so basically Traditionalists are about preservation and not anti-change?

Correct! We want to preserve our Latin identity from being eradicated in the name of the 2VC (which didn’t call for this spirit of eradication) and so called “progressivism”! We believe and fight and accept all changes that contain the spirit of preservation for this is the true nature of Catholicism! The type of change we believe in is called Organic Formulation and it is a type of change that has the beautiful ability of meeting the needs of our current age while at the same time preserving our heritage: in other words it is timeless!

"What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too." -Pope Benedict XVI

The Contemporary Church and Latin

Vatican II:
“The use of Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, n. 36)

“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 54)

Pope Paul VI:
“We want to say something very plainly to those whose shallow minds or unthinking passion for the new lead them to
the idea that the Latin language must be totally spurned by the Latin Church. To them we say that it is absolutely clear
that Latin must be held in high honor…” (Address to Latinists, 1968)

“…take away the language that transcends national boundaries and possesses a marvelous spiritual power and the
music that rises from the depths of the soul where faith resides and charity burns – we mean Gregorian Chant – and
the choral office will be like a snuffed candle; it will no longer shed light, no longer draw the eyes and minds of the
people.” (Sacrificium Laudis, 1966)

Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities:
“Thus use of the vernacular must never become the general practice at the expense of Latin. In granting the use of the
vernacular the Church does not intend that clerics think themselves freed from going to the sources or that in their
preparation for the priesthood they neglect even slightly the universal language of the Latin Church.” (Doctrina et
Exemplo, 1965)

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship:
“For liturgical celebrations sung in Latin, Gregorian Chant, as the music proper of the Roman liturgy, should have pride
of place, all other things being equal.” (General Instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours, 1971)

“Pope Paul VI has expressed often, and even recently, the wish that the faithful of all countries be able to sing at least a
few Gregorian Chants in Latin (for example, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei). In compliance, this Congregation
has prepared the enclosed booklet Iubilate Deo, which provides a short collection of Gregorian Chants.” (Voluntati
Obsequens, 1974)

Code of Canon Law (1983):
“The Eucharistic Celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the
liturgical texts have been approved.” (c.928)

“The program for priestly formation is to m ake provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native
language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language…” (c. 249)

Pope John Paul II:
“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must
manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” (Dominicae Cenae, 1980)

I hope what I have stated here has helped others better understand and see that Traditionalists like myself fight to preserve the true spirit of 2VC and the wishes of the the Holy Catholic Church!
 
Nicely put. Micahel Davies has a good snippet on how its traditionalists who are actually more obedient to Vatican 2 than the Novus Ordo goers who accuse them of the opposite.

And it wasn’t just about the Latin language, it was about gutting the Mass of most of its references to Sacrifice and about the removal of prayers. If I remember corectly, Sacrosanctem Concilium stated that prayers were not supposed to be removed unless there was great pastoral benefit in doing so…

So, for one example, in what way did removing the Judica Mei (Introibo ad alter Dei) provide pastoral benefit? The removal of it and other prayers emphasizing sacrifice hasn’t produced pastoral benefit, it has produced a generation of catholics who think of the mass as a meal, like the protestants do.

Often times, these very Catholic prayers that were removed were the exact same prayers that were removed by the protestant reformers in an effort to slowly change the beliefs of Christians, especially in the case of the English reformation with Cranmer’s own “novus ordo.”
 
The vernacular Mass does not exist because of the Second Vatican Council. That does not mean that one can conclude that it doesn’t exist legitimately. It’s true that the Council called for the retention of Latin. It’s true that HH Pope Paul VI promulgated the documents of the Second Vatican Council. However, the Holy See permitted national bishops’ conferences to determine to what extent the vernacular would be used in the Masses in their nations. Those decisions were then forwarded to the SAME Pope Paul VI, who approved (and had the authority to disapprove) those decisions. They were approved by the proper and legitimate authority and so we have the Mass in the vernacular.

I recognize the importance of Latin in the Church. She is an international organization and She would require a universal tongue simply for the conduct of Her business, Her charity, and Her diplomacy (for years, French was considered the language of diplomacy, regardless of one’s native tongue). Further, there are occasions when common worship would dictate the advantage of a common tongue (Papal Masses, international congress, WYD, etc.). On the other hand, I think hearing Mass in their own native tongues, in the tongue in which they think and reason, is also beneficial and fruitful for a lot of people (I count myself among them). We seasonally do the ordinaries of the Mass in Latin, but by and large, our congregation has seemed to prefer the vernacular Mass, judging by comments to our priests and our music director (I’d be willing to bet my pension that the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world feel the same way). Pope Benedict XVI, in an interview with Raymond Arroyo, called the vernacular mass “helpful.” Cardinal Arinze, in an interview, stated that the vernacular Mass would not be going away. Many of us rejoice in that…and we’re still orthodox Catholics.

I’ve often thought that one way to end the liturgy wars, at least among faithful mass goers, would be to simply prune the EF a bit and then offer it alone in every parish of the world in their schedule of Masses, some parochial masses in Latin, other parochial masses in the vernacular.
 
James924 said:
Nicely put. Micahel Davies has a good snippet on how its traditionalists who are actually more obedient to Vatican 2 than the Novus Ordo goers who accuse them of the opposite.

And it wasn’t just about the Latin language, it was about gutting the Mass of most of its references to Sacrifice and about the removal of prayers. If I remember corectly, Sacrosanctem Concilium stated that prayers were not supposed to be removed unless there was great pastoral benefit in doing so…

So, for one example, in what way did removing the Judica Mei (Introibo ad alter Dei) provide pastoral benefit? The removal of it and other prayers emphasizing sacrifice hasn’t produced pastoral benefit, it has produced a generation of catholics who think of the mass as a meal, like the protestants do.

Often times, these very Catholic prayers that were removed were the exact same prayers that were removed by the protestant reformers in an effort to slowly change the beliefs of Christians, especially in the case of the English reformation with Cranmer’s own “novus ordo.”
Click to expand...
I think this is fairly spurious. I was converted from Protestantism and I’ve always understood that the Mass was the Holy Sacrifice. My first Mass as an adult (and it wasn’t the EF) brought me to tears (and I spent five years in “Cranmer’s Church,” so liturgical form was not unfamiliar.

As for the Judica Mei, I was of the understanding that the Council wanted to prune the Mass of some of the things that had crept in and might tend to obscure it. Was not the Judica Mei a vesting prayer or private prayer said by the priest?
 
Its not all about the language though. I would prefer to attend the EF in vietnamese than the Novus Ordo in Latin because of the difference in the actual mass. I think too many people presume that traditionalists cling to the traditional mass because of some childish affinity for the latin language. Thats not to say the universal language isn’t a important part of peoples’ reasons for their preference for the EF, but for many of us, its a small part by comparison. Anyone who is curious about this point of mine might consider placing the two ordinaries of the mass side by side on a desk and go through, prayer by prayer, and make a list of the differences.
 
The vesting prayer is after Asperges Me (if said), before Judica Mei. Judica Mei is a Psalm said before ascending to the Altar. If the Mass isn’t a dialogue Mass, then it probably does seem like a silent prayer between the priest and servers; usually there’s music over it. The Mass of the Catechumens begins after the Judica Mei.

Can the Judica Mei be said in the Ordinary Form of the Mass? Technically it would be before the Mass begins (as is it is in the EF), and I’m not sure what the USCCB gives as guidlines for that. I’ve seen Matins immediately before an OF Mass while the priest is at the Altar, so I’m guessing it could be done. If so, it would greatly improve the OF IMO.
 
I don’t fear change at all; I welcome it. Things are changing back.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I think this is fairly spurious. I was converted from Protestantism and I’ve always understood that the Mass was the Holy Sacrifice. My first Mass as an adult (and it wasn’t the EF) brought me to tears (and I spent five years in “Cranmer’s Church,” so liturgical form was not unfamiliar.

As for the Judica Mei, I was of the understanding that the Council wanted to prune the Mass of some of the things that had crept in and might tend to obscure it. Was not the Judica Mei a vesting prayer or private prayer said by the priest?
Click to expand...
No, it is the opening prayer of the mass.

Also, my point was not that all catholics are intellectually unaware of the sacrificial nature but that they don’t think of it that way as much as they think of it as a meal or supper. Come spend some time at some parishes here in the midwest or in my hometown in tennessee, or in the bay area of California, talk to the people, go to the liturgy committee meetings and listen to the homilies, you’ll see what I mean. This is not necessarily the case with all Novus Ordo parishes, for example, there is an awesome Novus Ordo parish in my city, St Peter’s, that has certainly not lost sight of this primary meaning of the mass and where the Priests preach catholic truth like they used to a couple generations ago. But the fact that its the only one I’ve ever seen like it, out of dozens of parishes all over the country and overseas (military) makes it clear it is the exception to the rule.

With regard to the comment about Cramner being spurious, just put his prayer book and the novus ordo missal side by side and see for yourself. My point is that a lot of the prayers removed match up and that it is not surprising that it has had similar effects on people’s beliefs over the past 50 years.
 
BertBlyleven said:
The vesting prayer is after Asperges Me (if said), before Judica Mei. Judica Mei is a Psalm said before ascending to the Altar. If the Mass isn’t a dialogue Mass, then it probably does seem like a silent prayer between the priest and servers; usually there’s music over it. The Mass of the Catechumens begins after the Judica Mei.

Can the Judica Mei be said in the Ordinary Form of the Mass? Technically it would be before the Mass begins (as is it is in the EF), and I’m not sure what the USCCB gives as guidlines for that. I’ve seen Matins immediately before an OF Mass while the priest is at the Altar, so I’m guessing it could be done. If so, it would greatly improve the OF IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree, it would be a welcome inclusion.
 
James924 said:
Its not all about the language though. I would prefer to attend the EF in vietnamese than the Novus Ordo in Latin because of the difference in the actual mass. I think too many people presume that traditionalists cling to the traditional mass because of some childish affinity for the latin language. Thats not to say the universal language isn’t a important part of peoples’ reasons for their preference for the EF, but for many of us, its a small part by comparison. Anyone who is curious about this point of mine might consider placing the two ordinaries of the mass side by side on a desk and go through, prayer by prayer, and make a list of the differences.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I think about it. It is not about Latin but the mass itself. The difference between EF and OF is pretty big imo. Whenever I attend OF I am shocked by how different it is from the EF and always wonder what the point of the reform was.
 
I think revolution was in the air and the Church got caught up in it.

It should have taken its usual stance: “Vernacular Mass, you say, versus populum, you say? … hmmm… hmmm… we’ll study these ideas … for about 50 years or so …”
 
InquisitorMax said:
I think revolution was in the air and the Church got caught up in it.

It should have taken its usual stance: “Vernacular Mass, you say, versus populum, you say? … hmmm… hmmm… we’ll study these ideas … for about 50 years or so …”
Click to expand...
I don’t usually use these acronyms, but…ROFL
 
James924 said:
Its not all about the language though. I would prefer to attend the EF in vietnamese than the Novus Ordo in Latin because of the difference in the actual mass. I think too many people presume that traditionalists cling to the traditional mass because of some childish affinity for the latin language. Thats not to say the universal language isn’t a important part of peoples’ reasons for their preference for the EF, but for many of us, its a small part by comparison. Anyone who is curious about this point of mine might consider placing the two ordinaries of the mass side by side on a desk and go through, prayer by prayer, and make a list of the differences.
Click to expand...
Thats the thing, some Traditionalists would accept the OF if it was in Latin only and not in the vernacular. I think Traditionalists are split on this view as well. I would love it if we just translated the Tridentine Mass into the vernacular.
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
JMJ​

There seems to be this trend going around where some incorrectly view Traditionalist as being afraid of change. Well I would like to be the first to refute such a rumor and hopefully clarify at least my position as a Traditionalist Catholic.

Are Traditionalists afraid of change?

Quite the opposite really. Any Traditionalist that knows the Mass and its origins would never claim that the Tridentine Mass has always been the same. We know, believe, and accept that changes to the Liturgy will happen but it’s how these changes are carried out which will determine how we react to them. With that said not one true Traditionalist would have or has a problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

**What is the “problem” then with Traditionalists and the OF? **

The “problem” isn’t with the OF but with the “spirit” in which some have promulgated the OF: a spirit which called for the eradication rather than the preservation of the Latin Rites identity. Take for example the use of Latin: No one has a problem with using the vernacular however, when the use of the vernacular results in the non-preservation of Latin then Traditionalists like myself see a big problem!

**36. § 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites **-- SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

Now if you do not believe that this so called “spirit of 2VC” had ushered in this wave of destruction which was against even His Holiness’s intentions then please explain why the Church has now in recent years started to form orders that are solely dedicated to the preservation of these things? Heck if the “spirit of 2VC” was actually carried out in the true spirit of the 2VC then the Church wouldn’t have had to have these specific orders for this task of preservation since all these things would have been preserved naturally in the first place. Sadly we can see that was not the case or the intention of many after 2VC.

Wait so basically Traditionalists are about preservation and not anti-change?

Correct! We want to preserve our Latin identity from being eradicated in the name of the 2VC (which didn’t call for this spirit of eradication) and so called “progressivism”! We believe and fight and accept all changes that contain the spirit of preservation for this is the true nature of Catholicism! The type of change we believe in is called Organic Formulation and it is a type of change that has the beautiful ability of meeting the needs of our current age while at the same time preserving our heritage: in other words it is timeless!

"What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too." -Pope Benedict XVI

The Contemporary Church and Latin

Vatican II:
“The use of Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, n. 36)

“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 54)

Pope Paul VI:
“We want to say something very plainly to those whose shallow minds or unthinking passion for the new lead them to
the idea that the Latin language must be totally spurned by the Latin Church. To them we say that it is absolutely clear
that Latin must be held in high honor…” (Address to Latinists, 1968)

“…take away the language that transcends national boundaries and possesses a marvelous spiritual power and the
music that rises from the depths of the soul where faith resides and charity burns – we mean Gregorian Chant – and
the choral office will be like a snuffed candle; it will no longer shed light, no longer draw the eyes and minds of the
people.” (Sacrificium Laudis, 1966)

Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities:
“Thus use of the vernacular must never become the general practice at the expense of Latin. In granting the use of the
vernacular the Church does not intend that clerics think themselves freed from going to the sources or that in their
preparation for the priesthood they neglect even slightly the universal language of the Latin Church.” (Doctrina et
Exemplo, 1965)

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship:
“For liturgical celebrations sung in Latin, Gregorian Chant, as the music proper of the Roman liturgy, should have pride
of place, all other things being equal.” (General Instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours, 1971)

“Pope Paul VI has expressed often, and even recently, the wish that the faithful of all countries be able to sing at least a
few Gregorian Chants in Latin (for example, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei). In compliance, this Congregation
has prepared the enclosed booklet Iubilate Deo, which provides a short collection of Gregorian Chants.” (Voluntati
Obsequens, 1974)

Code of Canon Law (1983):
“The Eucharistic Celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the
liturgical texts have been approved.” (c.928)

“The program for priestly formation is to m ake provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native
language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language…” (c. 249)

Pope John Paul II:
“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must
manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” (Dominicae Cenae, 1980)

I hope what I have stated here has helped others better understand and see that Traditionalists like myself fight to preserve the true spirit of 2VC and the wishes of the the Holy Catholic Church!
Click to expand...
Bravo…bears repeating

:clapping:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top