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.
You responded before I finished my thought.
I’m not sure how it works in other languages.
Click to expand...
It’s the Latin alphabet I was referring to. The lower case wasn’t developed until the Middle Ages so I wonder how the ancients would have distinguished God vs god. It looks like the early Church had no small-t tradition. 🙂
traditions, with a lower case t, are not the Word of God. An example would be the devotion of the stations of the cross. This was not revealed to the Church directly from God. It’s not inerrant.
Click to expand...
Traditions can not change. traditions can. (The capitaliziation convention DOES get rather annoying and sometimes confusing when you want to start a sentence with a non-sacred tradition)
Click to expand...
So then “tradition” (with a lower-case) is as derogatory as “modernism?” Is there a comparable “Modernism” vs “modernism” ? :confused::confused:
 
My point stands; they probably had another term for it. But the whole tradition bs Tradition discussion was around even in the Bible, because I’m pretty sure that’s what Paul and Peter had dialogue over.
 
ProVobis said:
Okay but I don’t think it should be a matter of request. The Latin Rite Mass (both forms) is in Latin. The Church doesn’t suppress its own language. That would be like France banning French.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you however the use of the vernacular in the Mass was to be determined by needs of the faithful. I think the problem we see today is the result of the amount of freedom given to those in authority regarding what they can change based on the “needs of the faithful.” This freedom has allowed others to introduce their own hidden agenda’s into the Liturgy and its practice.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
Pope Benedict XVI had done a HORRIBLE disservice to the church by bringing back the past like he has. The next Pope will most likely have to undo Benedict’s reversions, and this will cause even more upheaval and unhappiness.
Click to expand...
The current Pope was at the Council. That he has done what he has done is significant. Every Catholic should have access to a Mass said according to the mind of the Church on a Sunday.

The changes which annoy traditionalists could be dropped tomorrow and only those laypeople who have roles in the sanctuary because of them would be ‘deprived’.

A Mass is primarily directed at God. That laypeople can understand every word is not essential to it. So the vernacular could go too. It would add to the sense of the sacred.

I can see the fruit of the Council in churches I’m familiar with. When you learn how things should be and then see local invention, one thinks Pope Ben’s interventions are none too soon.

But if, long term, people really want table altars, married priests, women more prominent in the Church, vernacular Masses, folk hymns and a tolerant pastorality, I know how it could be done.
 
InquisitorMax said:
The current Pope was at the Council. That he has done what he has done is significant. Every Catholic should have access to a Mass said according to the mind of the Church on a Sunday.

The changes which annoy traditionalists could be dropped tomorrow and only those laypeople who have roles in the sanctuary because of them would be ‘deprived’.

A Mass is primarily directed at God. That laypeople can understand every word is not essential to it. So the vernacular could go too. It would add to the sense of the sacred.

I can see the fruit of the Council in churches I’m familiar with. When you learn how things should be and then see local invention, one thinks Pope Ben’s interventions are none too soon.

But if, long term, people really want table altars, married priests, women more prominent in the Church, vernacular Masses, folk hymns and a tolerant pastorality, I know how it could be done.
Click to expand...
A lot of what you are saying could be applied back when they did such modern inventions like using Latin within the Mas in the first place though, not to mention why we have several different Rites and Forms within the Catholic faith. If things started with COTH, that means COTT was at one point a modern invention. When were stained glass windows invented? When was the organ invented? The printing press? Microphones? Using some of the logic given regarding “inventions” makes me wonder why we just don’t replicate the Last Supper to a “t”.

I’ll freely admit some of these seem like strawmen arguments. But really though, there has been items added to the Mass over the last several years, and I’m sure people complained then.
 
What do the following have in common:

Versus populum;
Vernacular;
Lay lectors;
CITH;
Removal of altar rails;
Folky hymns;
Stripped down texts?

Answer:
  1. They put much more focus on the particpants;
  2. They’re weren’ t demanded by the Council;
  3. They were added all-at-once, in historical terms.
The argument seemed to be: if there’s some historical precedent, in some rite, and it’s not forbidden in writing, we can do it. Never mind that it’s Roman Catholicism that’s operating on itself, in the late 20th Century.

This echoed the “Power To The People” meme that was rushing around the world at the time.

I find if you think of, say, Hellenic worshippers of Aphrodite making such changes to their religion all-of-a-sudden, you’d think, “Hmmph, clear case of iconoclasm, there”.
 
Ah, but if they did it in the Early Church could one not say that it is early Church tradition? Or is tradition solely defined by what “traditionalists” define it to be?
 
Melchior said:
A lot of what you are saying could be applied back when they did such modern inventions like using Latin within the Mas in the first place though, not to mention why we have several different Rites and Forms within the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Modern? There is evidence Latin was used in the first century in the liturgy. The Church didn’t haphazardly choose codifed and Christianized Latin as the “modern” language for the Mass. I don’t need to hear any more such contempt for the Church. Meet St. Ignore.
 
I propose all trads begin the practice of referring to our adversaries as … …contemporary “catholics”…

until they drop the parenthesis when referring to us
 
ProVobis said:
Modern? There is evidence Latin was used in the first century in the liturgy. The Church didn’t haphazardly choose codifed and Christianized Latin as the “modern” language for the Mass. I don’t need to hear any more such contempt for the Church. Meet St. Ignore.
Click to expand...
I realize this. What I’m saying is that it wasn’t the first language, thus it was added later. There is also evidence that the vernacular was used for some time as well until Latin became the standard (and even then, the vernacular was still used in some parts of the world and also the Eastern Churches). Further, some people say “COTH is a modern invention!” yet there has been some reports saying that was around in the early Church as well.

I’m going to address the rest of you post in a PM, as there’s no need to air the laundry in public.
At_Trent said:
I propose all trads begin the practice of referring to our adversaries as … …contemporary “catholics”…

until they drop the parenthesis when referring to us
Click to expand...
Considering the amount of people who call those who prefer the vernacular and/or the OF “modernists” or “Novus Ordo Catholics” and the like, we might as well start buying/selling quotation marks to help feed the poor 🙂
 
Melchior said:
Ah, but if they did it in the Early Church could one not say that it is early Church tradition?
Click to expand...
In the context of what that change meant to generations who were taught that CITH would be abhorrent, the answer is no. CITH was superceded centuries ago and no good reason has been yet given for re-introducing it in the Roman rite.

What does it mean, in terms of symbolism, to introduce CITH, standing, after hundreds of years of COTT, kneeling?

a) Mere meddling;
b) Makes a nice change;
c) The bread is now less holy;
d) The receivers are now more so;
e) COTT was wrong;
f) COTT is inconvenient;
g) Any two or more of the above?
 
At_Trent said:
Sr. Mary Catherine would smack my knuckles with her ruler if she were here !

🙂
Click to expand...
I’m glad I went to a Franciscan school run by brothers 😉

Then again, the lay teachers were tougher than the nuns I know 😦
 
Council of Trent, Session 22:
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Just saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top