Myth regarding Traditionalists and the “Fear” of Change

[pataburd]

I would personally rather wait a little longer if it meant receiving communion from someone in the clergy. I always sit on the left side because that is the side that the priest and deacon at my church go on when they distribute communion, and the EMHCs are on the right. So, I suppose this is a convenience for those people who like to choose who they receive from.

At the local Parish, at the Novus Ordo Mass, ALL are EMHC who distribute the Body and Blood of Jesus, while the “celebrating” priest remains seated and his assistant, the designated Parochial Vicar priest, often stays in the rectory. In times past the second priest has been in the congregation, but still did not come forward to assist!

 

[TrueLight]

At the local Parish, at the Novus Ordo Mass, ALL are EMHC who distribute the Body and Blood of Jesus, while the “celebrating” priest remains seated and his assistant, the designated Parochial Vicar priest, often stays in the rectory. In times past the second priest has been in the congregation, but still did not come forward to assist!

As comedian Chris Rock would say, “That ain’t right”!

 

[InquisitorMax]

I’m a Traditionalist. I don’t want to go back to the 1950’s.

I want to go back to the 1920’s!

 

[SBroxson]

Um…no, we do not ALL agree that there has been a ‘betrayal’ from within the Church…
There have always been men and women in the Church who sin. It happens. Sometimes it happens a lot. Take the example of Judas…this is not something new. It is not something new that only happened after the Council.

You directly contract yourself.

ALL sin is a betrayal–without exception. All humans sin. The Church Militant is made up of humans. Therefore, all members of the Church Militant betray Christ. Bishops, Priests, chancery officials, etc., are also members of the Church Militant and so are “within the Church” (as was your specific example of Judas). In fact, they have special authorities, obligations, and responsibilities by virtue of being part of the hierarchy representing Christ.

I was explicit that such problems occur throughout history, but it is also unquestionable that the amount and the effect of sin within the Church Militant varies: for example, the contrast between the corrupt Renaissance Popes and the many holy Popes throughout history.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to have the idea that the real betrayal comes from the Church not listening to the ‘promptings’ of the Holy Spirit, at the Council, and afterwards.

• Although “Church” is regularly used as a short hand term, where the speaker assumes that the listener understands the meaning, I thought that I was clear that the betrayals that I was discussing was limited to the Church Militant. Specifically INDIVIDUALS–albeit sometimes forming alliances with others of like minds–within the Church Militant.
• ALL sin is from Satan: no exceptions. The promptings of the Holy Spirit are ALWAYS to pursue perfect holiness, and avoid all sin. As noted earlier, all humans sin, and bishops (etc.) are humans: therefore, they ALL sometimes reject the promptings of the Holy Spirit–as do we.

Here are the actual points of possible disagreement:

1. All sin has its origin Satan, and the rejection of Christ, but to what extent (if any) can sin be attributed to the outside influences of the greater society? Would that not deny both the power of the Cross and the lessons of history? The Church has been able to withstand a society’s corruptions, but only when it is prudent about the extent to which it is open to that society–especially during periods of unusual corruption. (And evangelization was sometimes the most successful during periods in which the Church was seemingly insular.)
2. With regard to the Church Militant, and it’s mission to evangelize the world and save souls, are PRUDENTIAL errors the result of sin? Pride, vanity, etc.?

My view is that God ALWAYS wants the Church Militant to succeed perfectly: to save the maximum possible number of souls, and to transform the society to maximum amount possible. That doesn’t happen because of free will, which runs into the matter of His permissive will. But I think that the Holy Spirit is always prompting Bishops (and all of us) to perfect clarity, courage, wisdom, holiness, and authenticity. I also believe that the Holy Spirit is always prompting Bishops to protect the souls of the flock: including the prompt and effective exercise of discipline.

In other words, I don’t think that the Holy Spirit ever falls silent in connection with God’s permissive will. It is just that the Holy Spirit will not respect free will–in some sense-- when it comes to error in teachings concerning faith and morals. Somehow or other, the Holy Spirit will stop that from happening; but the Holy Spirit will not stop prudential error…just warn against it…with the still quiet voice which often requires holiness to hear.

In the above post, you’ve mentioned the Holy Spirit many times…but you’ve not mentioned Our Lord Jesus Christ even once.

Short answer: please re-read my post–you are entirely mistaken.

You are intentionally trying to make trads look extreme. But you do not speak for us.

Before you claim to know my internal intentions, I would appreciate it if you would read carefully what I have actually said. I would be happy to continue this conversation, but not if you continue to both ignore and misrepresent my actual words.

 

[SBroxson]

Discussion concerning traditionalist matters often get irrational. Although that is very frustrating and regrettable, I think it is perfectly understandable.

1. We are talking of life’s most important issues, and the stakes are eternal. It is no wonder that we sometimes get excited.
2. There are truths that are almost too hard to bear. Who can maintain their balance over the horrific betrayals of various types that have come out during the scandal? Only the holy, and few of us are holy.
3. There are principles which sometimes seem to clash. For example, all through Church history, hierarchy is been understood to be both good and necessary, and obedience a path to holiness–often even when the superior is wrong.

And yet it is also clear that there have been individuals in office who have been very sinful, and we are not to obey instructions to sin. (Not even children–again, the scandal.)

1. As a related matter, we are to love and honor our Bishops, Priests, Religious: the fact that they sometimes lead their flocks to fields of poison is almost too hard to bear. (For example, some specific actions during the scandal, as well as overt denials of some of the teachings of the faith about which you can read every day on Catholic Culture.org, EWTN, or any good Catholic news source.)
2. Tradition and authority should always be in harmony: but sometimes it just isn’t. For example, Pope Benedict has referenced specific decisions which were not traditional, and which he states were not warranted. (Tradition always grows and changes gradually, but there should not be unwarranted ruptures.)

So, traditionalists are not afraid of change (generally), but all orthodox believers (traditionalist or non-traditionalist) are having a difficult time keeping their balance. It’s happened before, and it will happen again unless Christ returns soon: but whenever it happens it is difficult. Very difficult indeed.

 

[Denise1957]

SBroxson, you are shifting the goal posts and not addressing directly the comments and complaints that I was making regarding your posts. You move the subject off to a different direction. I don’t see the point in commenting further, except for one exception.

You said that ALL sin is from Satan: no exceptions. But this is not, to my knowledge, what the Church teaches. Can you point to official Church teaching which says that ALL sin is from Satan?

 

[Denise1957]

I’m a Traditionalist. I don’t want to go back to the 1950’s.

I want to go back to the 1920’s!

Was the 1920’s a good time to be a Catholic? I don’t know anything about how things were for Catholics then, or the state of the Church at that time. I suppose it depends on what part of the world Catholics lived in back then.

I’m not trying to be difficult - I really do want to know! Thanks.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m a Traditionalist. I don’t want to go back to the 1950’s.

I want to go back to the 1920’s!

Given that the American economy hasn’t recovered yet and is set to go back into recession, you’ll be in the 1920s (Great Depression) in no time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Getting rid of the kneelers makes no sense, UNLESS you also get rid of the pews (which are a relatively recent innovation in historical terms as well). There are still some Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches without pews.

During the time the Philippines was a Spanish colony (1570s - 1898), there were only pews at the front 1/4 of the church. The rest had no pews. The Spanish nobility got to sit and us Filipinos got to go to Mass Byzantine-style.

The pewless Byzantine Churches is not about pews being a “modern innovation”. The tradition in the East has been always to stand for the entire Divine Liturgy. If you are standing all the time, why do we need pews for?

 

[InquisitorMax]

Was the 1920’s a good time to be a Catholic? I don’t know anything about how things were for Catholics then, or the state of the Church at that time. I suppose it depends on what part of the world Catholics lived in back then.

I’m not trying to be difficult - I really do want to know! Thanks.

It was before Bugnini’s 1955-56 missal. I think the 1920 edition was the last before he became involved. Also, I think there was some experimentation going on in the 40’s.

The 1920’s were after WW1 and before the Crash, so it might have been a good time, generally.

 

[SBroxson]

SBroxson, you are shifting the goal posts and not addressing directly the comments and complaints that I was making regarding your posts. You move the subject off to a different direction. I don’t see the point in commenting further, except for one exception.

I made two posts yesterday. The first one directly quoted you, and addressed your comments with specificity. The admitted difficulty in doing so is that your “comments and complaints” did not address what I actually wrote at all. The second post did not quote you, and was not intended to directly address to your comments–it did indeed move off in another direction.

To be sure, this is a difficult subject. For over 40 years, there has been a debate between traditionalists and non-traditionalists: much of this debate has been in writing. There are countless books on the matter, as well as articles and more recently internet websites. Once you hear and read many thousands of words of this debate over a period of many years, one is in a position to attempt to distill the debate and opine as to the underlying (and perhaps even unstated) assumptions. I have broadly outlined my view (and you have proposed no alternative).

However, this subject cannot be dealt with clearly in less than 40 pages (and I am now on page 30 on a paper that I’m writing), and this is an internet forum. In forums, one has two choices regarding such matters: remain silent; or offer food for thought for those who my have an extensive enough understanding of the issues to comprehend one’s meaning–whether or not they agree. You you have strongly disagreed, but not with me.

I assure you that I did not move the goal posts: I was attempting to clarify for you the gross misimpressions that you were displaying concerning my meaning. Everything that I have written on this subject is totally consistent…but the issue is complex and multifaceted.

Still, that does not excuse responding without carefully reading: and we can be absolutely certain that you did in that you claimed that I did not mention Our Lord Jesus Christ even once in a post in which I mentioned Him more than once–and I have not even gotten into the nature of the Holy Spirit and the DIRECT connection with the Church and what I was discussing. Further, the Trinity is one: we do not pit the Persons of the Trinity against each other; nor imply that mentioning one is to neglect another. Moreover, you personalized your imagined disagreements with me–even claiming to know my interior intentions.

It does not appear to me that you understand the debates that I’m addressing: if so, there would be no shame in that! However, I’m not interested in continuing a discussion if it is based upon careless incomprehension.

You said that ALL sin is from Satan: no exceptions. But this is not, to my knowledge, what the Church teaches. Can you point to official Church teaching which says that ALL sin is from Satan?

I’m not sure that I follow you: I’m referring to everything ever written on sin and Satan in Scripture, the Councils of the Church, the Catechisms of the Church, and the writing of the Saints–all of which is consistent.

We do not believe in multiple gods: on the supernatural level, there is only God and the rejection of God–Satan who is the head of all fallen angels (demons). If you look at the definition of sin in any orthodox source, it is a rejection of God: and so has a critical supernatural dimension. There is no supernatural dimension apart from God other than Satan and those that he leads.

Perhaps you are referring to temptation which may be triggered by direct temptation verses sin which is triggered by concupiscence? Concupiscence comes from the fall, and the fall was the result of the direct temptation of Satan.

Back to the overall issue (the underlying disagreements in the debates between traditionalists and those who disagree). I’ve pondered these matters for many years. On rare occasions I have posted some summary here. Some have expressed appreciation, but never have I encountered such gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation in the past. I do not think this discussion is fruitful, I have neither the time nor the inclination to address careless strawman arguments, and I strongly recommend that we end the discussion.

 

[SBroxson]

The tradition in the East has been always to stand for the entire Divine Liturgy.

I have only limited knowledge of Eastern Catholicism, but only one of the Byzantine churches here locally lacks pews and kneelers–and even then they put them in during one season.

At that church, we were told that the reason for omitting both pews and kneelers was that they prostrate themselves during the liturgy during all seasons except Easter. They could not do that with pews, and prostration goes beyond mere kneeling–making kneelers pointless.

Again, I claim no expertise in this area.