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.
JKirkLVNV said:
I disagree with this contention and I would contend that the Mass IS indeed for us! God needs NOTHING from us. The whole point of the Mass is that it is a propitiatory sacrifice for US. If it wasn’t for us, then Christ need not have died and the Mass need not exist. It is the one bridge between God and us, the only sufficient conduit as it were. Certainly, there has been, in the silly experimentation that followed the council, a far greater emphasis on the horizontal and hopefully the pendulum is swinging back toward a more real balance, but that balance still needs to be maintained between the horizontal and the vertical (like a violin: if the strings are too taut, they snap; if too loose, then they don’t sound as they should).
Click to expand...
I agree 100% and would like to share something that I heard once, can’t remember where, but it made a lasting impression! 😃
The Mass is vertical, and should be, it is all about honoring God.
The Mass is horizontal and it should be,
because it is about coming together as community to share one loaf and one cup.
You can’t have a cross without both beams.
You can’t have the Church without the cross!
Click to expand...
 
Dan_Daly said:
Good discussion.

I would argue that a traditional Catholic isn’t against certain changes, he’s simply aware that they are impossible. A woman can not become a priest. A man can not marry a man. Contraception can not become permissible. And so on. No matter how much some, or even all of us might want something to happen, if it’s impossible it won’t happen.

“progressivism” is more accurately called Modernism. And it’s been condemned as heresy by the Church. Here’s a good sermon on the topic.

audiosancto.org/sermon/20110731-Modernism-is-Still-Scourging-the-Church.html

That doesn’t mean all change is bad. In fact we are all called to continual change- to grow in a life of virtue and become Saints. But change that rejects the Truth is wrong.

Pax.
Click to expand...
Your points are excellent, but that isn’t where “traditionalist” Catholics generally stop. The points you bring up are simply issues of orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy. On the points you mention, if one were to disagree with the Church, one would have simply ceased to be a Catholic (no matter if one continued to loudly proclaim that one was still a Catholic). I seriously doubt that most people who post in these fora in support of (for example) the OF, the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular, or any issues that are generally the focus of this particular forum would disagree on the issue of women’s “ordination,” "gay " marriage, or the licity of artificial contraception. That isn’t “traditional,” it’s merely (and very importantly) orthodoxy. Truth is truth and any departure from it is error.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I am wondering the opinions of modern-minded Catholics on this proposition:

Translate the Latin of the 1962 Missale Romanum into English, Spanish, etc., and offer it alongside the Latin version. The vernacular would retain the rubrics of the Latin. Therefore, the only thing changed, essentially, would be the language.
Click to expand...
Didn’t they do something like this in the 60’s with the transitional Mass with people leaving in droves? It didn’t last too long.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I am wondering the opinions of modern-minded Catholics on this proposition:

Translate the Latin of the 1962 Missale Romanum into English, Spanish, etc., and offer it alongside the Latin version. The vernacular would retain the rubrics of the Latin. Therefore, the only thing changed, essentially, would be the language.

Every church (within reason, ie, tiny churches/missions exempted, but the vast majority of parishes inclusive, obviously not including groups like FSSP) would offer an equal number of these two on Sundays, and for other days, perhaps a rotating schedule could occur or something to the effect that on the other days of the week, the Latin and the vernacular share daily masses equally, perhaps one day Latin, next vernacular, etc, or something.
Click to expand...
I would certainly welcome it. Not sure all those who consider themselves Traditionalists would.
 
I’d actually like to see, and I think a lot of the traditional-minded Catholics would too, an updated missal of the Tridentine Rite. I’d be ecstatic if there was a 2012 Tridentine Missale Romanum in the works. I think that would be the first step in the promotion of this rite. A non-pushy, but also certainly not subtle, hint to the clergy and laypeople. HH Papa BXVI has expressed his desire that the two be presented and celebrated alongside each other at all parishes some time in the future (I believe one of his assistants conveyed that information through an interview).

From somewhere I recall an excellent statement by the pope, something to the effect of that it is not necessary to know and understand every word or phrase being uttered at mass, but that it is of immensely more importance that you truly experience the mystery of it, and that understanding the words is not required for that.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I’d actually like to see, and I think a lot of the traditional-minded Catholics would too, an updated missal of the Tridentine Rite. I’d be ecstatic if there was a 2012 Tridentine Missale Romanum in the works.
Click to expand...
They said that new saints may be added to the old calendar. That means new Latin Collects, etc. 👍
 
YoungTradCath said:
From somewhere I recall an excellent statement by the pope, something to the effect of that it is not necessary to know and understand every word or phrase being uttered at mass, but that it is of immensely more importance that you truly experience the mystery of it, and that understanding the words is not required for that.
Click to expand...
Naturally, we cannot fully understand the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice (we can’t fully understand ANY of the mysteries of our Faith, ie, the Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc.). That doesn’t preclude attempting to do so to the best of our ability, not as academic mastery, but so as to bear fruit in our lives (not that not fully understanding or encompassing something means that our lives won’t bear fruit). If the vernacular Mass (which the same pope has called “helpful”) does that, is it bad?

It’s been reported that the Pope anticipates a “hybrid” of the two forms. I think most orthodox Catholics would accept or submit to that. Would “traditionalists” (not that they aren’t orthodox)?
 
ProVobis said:
They said that new saints may be added to the old calendar. That means new Latin Collects, etc. 👍
Click to expand...
Not sure if you are the right person to ask, but are the Collects like the Tropars in the Divine Liturgy?

Like its variable prayers in Liturgy depending on the Saint celebrated for the day or the Feast Day celebrated. For example for August 6 (Transfiguration), the Troparion would be:

You were transfigured on the mountain, O Christ God, revealing as much of Your glory to Your Disciples as they could behold. Through the prayers of the Mother of God, let Your everlasting light also shine upon us sinners. O Giver of Light, glory to You!

And it is chanted by the cantor or someone assuming that role.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Naturally, we cannot fully understand the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice (we can’t fully understand ANY of the mysteries of our Faith, ie, the Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc.). That doesn’t preclude attempting to do so to the best of our ability, not as academic mastery, but so as to bear fruit in our lives (not that not fully understanding or encompassing something means that our lives won’t bear fruit). If the vernacular Mass (which the same pope has called “helpful”) does that, is it bad?

It’s been reported that the Pope anticipates a “hybrid” of the two forms. I think most orthodox Catholics would accept or submit to that. Would “traditionalists” (not that they aren’t orthodox)?
Click to expand...
No. It certainly is not “bad” to use the vernacular language in mass. I think all this Latin vs. vernacular boils down to what one feels is best for oneself. I personally feel much more in tune when I attend a mass in Latin. Not just because of the language, but because of the atmosphere, the aura, that the mysteriousness of the language commands, whether it’s NO or OF. This aura, one of solemn and submissive/obedient silence and of the anticipation of what is to shortly come, can be attained just as well in a NO vernacular mass.

I think that the pope’s statement that a hybrid will eventually reconcile the NO and the EF is certainly true. But, I think it will be a very long time before it happens. Perhaps hundreds of years, perhaps even thousands. By that time, perhaps there won’t be such a strong NO-lover and EF-lover thing going on, and I really don’t think there will be. The Latin Rite wasn’t finally unified (for the most part) until 1570. What we have now, in having two versions of the same rite, is simply another, re-manifested case of what we had prior to the unification instigated by Trent. It’s interesting to think about when one looks at it that way. We had different versions of the Latin Rite for the majority of its existence, and only for 400 years, from 1570 to 1970, have we had one, (again, generally) unified rite.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Not sure if you are the right person to ask, but are the Collects like the Tropars in the Divine Liturgy?

Like its variable prayers in Liturgy depending on the Saint celebrated for the day or the Feast Day celebrated. For example for August 6 (Transfiguration), the Troparion would be:

You were transfigured on the mountain, O Christ God, revealing as much of Your glory to Your Disciples as they could behold. Through the prayers of the Mother of God, let Your everlasting light also shine upon us sinners. O Giver of Light, glory to You!

And it is chanted by the cantor or someone assuming that role.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it’s the same thing. And in the Latin Rite, the Collect is said/chanted by the celebrant (priest or bishop).
 
YoungTradCath said:
No. It certainly is not “bad” to use the vernacular language in mass. I think all this Latin vs. vernacular boils down to what one feels is best for oneself. I personally feel much more in tune when I attend a mass in Latin. Not just because of the language, but because of the atmosphere, the aura, that the mysteriousness of the language commands, whether it’s NO or OF. This aura, one of solemn and submissive/obedient silence and of the anticipation of what is to shortly come, can be attained just as well in a NO vernacular mass.

I think that the pope’s statement that a hybrid will eventually reconcile the NO and the EF is certainly true. But, I think it will be a very long time before it happens. Perhaps hundreds of years, perhaps even thousands. By that time, perhaps there won’t be such a strong NO-lover and EF-lover thing going on, and I really don’t think there will be. The Latin Rite wasn’t finally unified (for the most part) until 1570. What we have now, in having two versions of the same rite, is simply another, re-manifested case of what we had prior to the unification instigated by Trent. It’s interesting to think about when one looks at it that way. We had different versions of the Latin Rite for the majority of its existence, and only for 400 years, from 1570 to 1970, have we had one, (again, generally) unified rite.
Click to expand...
You comment most sensibly. I would skip the whole process and just impose the EF in Latin and in the vernacular on everybody…which is probably why no one voted for me in the last conclave.:cool:
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Your points are excellent, but that isn’t where “traditionalist” Catholics generally stop. The points you bring up are simply issues of orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy. On the points you mention, if one were to disagree with the Church, one would have simply ceased to be a Catholic (no matter if one continued to loudly proclaim that one was still a Catholic). I seriously doubt that most people who post in these fora in support of (for example) the OF, the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular, or any issues that are generally the focus of this particular forum would disagree on the issue of women’s “ordination,” "gay " marriage, or the licity of artificial contraception. That isn’t “traditional,” it’s merely (and very importantly) orthodoxy. Truth is truth and any departure from it is error.
Click to expand...
I agree. All Catholics are called to be orthodox. Part of orthodoxy is adherene to Sacred Tradition. That’s why I am not completely comfortable with the term “traditionalist”, since all Catholics should be traditionalists. On the other hand the term does describe a certain community, but does so in a vague manner. I attend the EF. Does that make me a traditionalist? If a sedevacantist is a “traditionalist” I hope I’m not. It is a term with some utility but one that also has enough vagueness to get people into trouble.

I have no idea how many on CAF support the impossiblities of gay marriage, female oridnation, licit contraception, etc. I will say that a GREAT many church going Catholics do support those positions. As you’ve said, it isn’t a question of “traditional”. It’s a question of orthodoxy. The pervasiveness of heresy in “non-traditional” parishes, is a main driver that leads orthodox Catholic to band together in “traditional” communities.

Pax.
 
To the point of change, my wife and I have discussed this a good bit.

On one hand we would love to see an updated calendar for the EF come out. Look at someone like St. Maximillian Kolbe- who doesn’t have a feast day on the traditional calendar. Should the EF mass, which he offered, exclude his feast day?

On the other hand, people rightly are wary of opening up something like the calendar for changes, and things getting out of hand, resulting in a final product worse than what you started with.

We live in very interesting times. Will the OF and EF continue side by side? Will the two be snythesized into a new form? Will the OF go the way of the dodo, to be replaced by the EF in all churches (with an updated calendar)? I certainly don’t know.

God does though. He has a plan. And it’s a good one.

Have faith and live it.

Pax.
 
TrueLight said:
As someone coming from Protestantism, I have to say, Catholics, your liturgy is so beautiful. Don’t ever abandon your traditions to adapt to the modern world.

Beautiful post, Credo.
Click to expand...
Every post you make just makes me like you even more!! 👍
 
Dan_Daly said:
On the other hand, people rightly are wary of opening up something like the calendar for changes, and things getting out of hand, resulting in a final product worse than what you started with.
Click to expand...
Adding a saint to the calendar wouldn’t otherwise be noted. It was done quite a bit before Vatican II. Most of the readings on those days are standard, like Propers for a Martyr, Propers for a Pope, etc. It’s usually just the collect that’s added. And the priest is always free to use multiple collects, secrets, and post-communions on a particular day in the EF.

If, of course, it is “advertised” as a change, it might meet resistance from the change purists. 🙂
 
ConstantineTG said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Latin reinforces and is integral to the Extraordinary Form.

There are, I think, significant differences between the EF and OF–independent of the language (Latin v. the vernacular), although I think this is a very important point of departure as well. Watching the progression of the Mass in both forms–without audio–is very telling. While both forms are valid, I would argue that the EF is more efficacious, more rich in the teaching Tradition of the Church.

Also, there IS a vernacular translation of the TLM in parallel with the Latin: it is and has always been in the missal! The post-Vatican II Church has been plagued for decades with defective vernacular translations. The English translation of the “New Missal” for the OF returns to the literal and more reverent cast of what had been in the 1962 Missal already.
 
Dan_Daly said:
I agree. All Catholics are called to be orthodox. Part of orthodoxy is adherene to Sacred Tradition. That’s why I am not completely comfortable with the term “traditionalist”, since all Catholics should be traditionalists. On the other hand the term does describe a certain community, but does so in a vague manner. I attend the EF. Does that make me a traditionalist? If a sedevacantist is a “traditionalist” I hope I’m not. It is a term with some utility but one that also has enough vagueness to get people into trouble.

I have no idea how many on CAF support the impossiblities of gay marriage, female oridnation, licit contraception, etc. I will say that a GREAT many church going Catholics do support those positions. As you’ve said, it isn’t a question of “traditional”. It’s a question of orthodoxy. The pervasiveness of heresy in “non-traditional” parishes, is a main driver that leads orthodox Catholic to band together in “traditional” communities.

Pax.
Click to expand...
I think you’re describing Traditional vs traditional. I can easily say that I am Traditional due to orthodoxy and the like, however I’m certainly not what people here would consider traditional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top