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.
I do think there is a difference in perspective: although we ALL agree that the Holy Spirit is often the author of change, and yet that not all change is automatically good.

Typically (but not always), non-traditionalists view the current problems of the Church as having EXTERNAL origins: the Bride of Christ was mugged by the secular world.

Traditionalists tend to see the betrayal as WITHIN the Church: the Church has always been able to flourish when, and only when, she rejects the fads of the age. In this view, the Bride of Christ had a bout of self-mutilation.

Of course, I’m speaking primarily on a natural level: sin is ALWAYS from the outside–i.e., Satan–on a spiritual level. And we are only talking about the Church Militant.

Anyway, for the non-traditionalist, anything new is from the Holy Spirit until proven otherwise, for the Holy Spirit would always send the Church aid! Antidotes to the external poison.

For the traditionalist, the problem is that the Holy Spirit was rejected within the Church by many, and so new developments are suspect until proven otherwise DURING THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD OF HISTORY. The poison came from within, and the antidote was there all along.

No rational person is absolutist regarding either possible view: we are just talking about a temporary initial assumption pending the manifestation of the fruits of a practice.
 
SBroxson said:
I do think there is a difference in perspective: although we ALL agree that the Holy Spirit is often the author of change, and yet that not all change is automatically good.

Typically (but not always), non-traditionalists view the current problems of the Church as having EXTERNAL origins: the Bride of Christ was mugged by the secular world.

Traditionalists tend to see the betrayal as WITHIN the Church: the Church has always been able to flourish when, and only when, she rejects the fads of the age. In this view, the Bride of Christ had a bout of self-mutilation.

Of course, I’m speaking primarily on a natural level: sin is ALWAYS from the outside–i.e., Satan–on a spiritual level. And we are only talking about the Church Militant.

Anyway, for the non-traditionalist, anything new is from the Holy Spirit until proven otherwise, for the Holy Spirit would always send the Church aid! Antidotes to the external poison.

For the traditionalist, the problem is that the Holy Spirit was rejected within the Church by many, and so new developments are suspect until proven otherwise DURING THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD OF HISTORY. The poison came from within, and the antidote was there all along.

No rational person is absolutist regarding either possible view: we are just talking about a temporary initial assumption pending the manifestation of the fruits of a practice.
Click to expand...
Very astute. I like pretty much everything you said here.
 
Very thoughtful comments all around.

Talk of “modernisim” didn’t spring out of nowhere, although many faithful Catholic might have never heard of the word. I never really had until recent years:

Read this:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

and listen to this:

AudioSancto.org/auweb/20110731-Modernism-is-Still-Scourging-the-Church.mp3

Newer is not better. Older is not better. Holier is better. The Truth is better. We are all blessed that God has revealed Himself to us that we might find holiness and Truth in Him.

Pax and God Bless.
 
SBroxson said:
I do think there is a difference in perspective: although we ALL agree that the Holy Spirit is often the author of change, and yet that not all change is automatically good.

Typically (but not always), non-traditionalists view the current problems of the Church as having EXTERNAL origins: the Bride of Christ was mugged by the secular world.

Traditionalists tend to see the betrayal as WITHIN the Church: the Church has always been able to flourish when, and only when, she rejects the fads of the age. In this view, the Bride of Christ had a bout of self-mutilation.

Of course, I’m speaking primarily on a natural level: sin is ALWAYS from the outside–i.e., Satan–on a spiritual level. And we are only talking about the Church Militant.

Anyway, for the non-traditionalist, anything new is from the Holy Spirit until proven otherwise, for the Holy Spirit would always send the Church aid! Antidotes to the external poison.

For the traditionalist, the problem is that the Holy Spirit was rejected within the Church by many, and so new developments are suspect until proven otherwise DURING THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD OF HISTORY. The poison came from within, and the antidote was there all along.

No rational person is absolutist regarding either possible view: we are just talking about a temporary initial assumption pending the manifestation of the fruits of a practice.
Click to expand...
Quotes:

“Traditionalists tend to see the betrayal as WITHIN the Church: the Church has always been able to flourish when, and only when, she rejects the fads of the age. In this view, the Bride of Christ had a bout of self-mutilation.”

“For the traditionalist, the problem is that the Holy Spirit was rejected within the Church by many, and so new developments are suspect until proven otherwise DURING THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD IN HISTORY. The poison came from within, and the antidote was there all along.”​

You wrote that traditionalists tend to see the betrayal as WITHIN the Church. While there are indeed traditionalists who take an extreme view such as this, those who attend and support a diocesan-approved EF do not, in my experience, tend to take this view. Priests who celebrate a diocesan-approved EF also do not take this view; certainly it is not preached from the pulpit, nor is it advocated in written form (though there may be a few exceptions to this).

Regarding the idea that traditionalists believe that the 'Holy Spirit" was rejected by many, so new developments are suspect until proven otherwise during this period in history, I would say that in the years that I’ve attended a TLM/EF, I’ve never seen it put into terms such as this - that the problem stems from the rejection of the Holy Ghost by many. In the last forty years or so, there have been so many new developments that it’s been a bit overwhelming for trads. But to say that it’s a belief among trads (leaving out the more extreme variety) that the “poison came from within” isn’t accurate, IMO.
 
ProVobis said:
Sure, at your own risk.
Click to expand...
Canon 20 of the Council of Nicaea I:

Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
 
I totally agree.

A common misconception I’ve seen is that traditionalists want to “go back to the 50s.” While in some individual cases this may be true, I think it isn’t what the issue is about.

The 50’s had its problems, and we have ours. This isn’t only about a Mass in Latin, women wearing veils, pining for incense, or eating fish on Fridays. These are only the surface hallmarks of much deeper theological issues.
 
Paxvobis said:
A common misconception I’ve seen is that traditionalists want to “go back to the 50s.” While in some individual cases this may be true, I think it isn’t what the issue is about.
Click to expand...
I say this in a somewhat light-hearted way but perhaps it might have been better to “go back to the 40’s.” The reform of the liturgy was well under way in the 50’s, change in fast, Holy Week, etc.
 
“it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.”

In today’s environment, pity the small guy who’ll never see the altar. All for uniformity? At least no anathemas. Just saying.
 
ProVobis said:
“it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.”

In today’s environment, pity the small guy who’ll never see the altar. All for uniformity? At least no anathemas. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to see the altar? In the Philippines there are churches that are huge and packed and most people stand outside for Mass because there’s literally no more space inside (and we do not have fire codes like here in North America so really more people than there should be inside). Does that make Mass any less? And if you’re short then kneeling won’t help because you’ll even be shorter when kneeling down. Where does it say that you have to see the altar? 🤷
 
In later 20th Century, Western, Roman Catholicism, changing from kneeling to standing makes no sense.

Unless you want to make people feel less humility. Or to say “Kneeling is no longer necessary”. Or “Kneeling was wrong before”. Or “we made a mistake about kneeling”.
 
InquisitorMax said:
In later 20th Century, Western, Roman Catholicism, changing from kneeling to standing makes no sense.

Unless you want to make people feel less humility. Or to say “Kneeling is no longer necessary”. Or “Kneeling was wrong before”. Or “we made a mistake about kneeling”.
Click to expand...
Or to say “we don’t want people to trip on each other in the communion line.” :rolleyes:
 
Yes. It’s important not to slow down the Mass.

'Though the Orthodox can go on for 3 hours, I hear.
 
In later 20th Century, Western, Roman Catholicism, changing from kneeling to standing makes no sense.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A relative of mine gave another a three piece suite as a present. It was made out of wood taken from pews. I thought I got a smell of incense from them. It was sad.
 
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.
 
Denise, I am not claiming that anybody else has put the matter in this way: these are my conclusions from decades of observation. Also, I am not talking about teachings regarding faith and morals.

Both traditionalists and non-traditionalist commonly rue such things as: poor catechesis; timidity in defending the faith among some priests and bishops; some modern church architecture; dissent among clergy, theologians, and religious being addressed slowly if at all. Need I go on?

We ALL agree that the Church is a monarchy–not a democracy. On earth, the Pope rules in a visible way on behalf of Christ, and the Bishops are beneath him. Bishops have authority over their staffs, priests, and institutions. Religious orders have a central authority which reports to a higher authority (the Pope or the Bishops). All have an obligation of obedience, and most have taken an oath to God of obedience. All discipline operates under Cannon Law, but the hierarchy of the Church has TOTAL control over Cannon Law, and can make any changes needed to protect the faith and the faithful.

Furthermore, we ALL agree that there has been betrayal from within the Church: this is not an extreme position, but rather a simple fact. To take a very clear example: the scandal. Need I go on?

We ALL agree that such internal evil was not the results of the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but rather a rejection of them…and the embrace of the promptings of Satan.

We also ALL agree that ALL of the problems referenced above occurred within the context of hierarchal authority and responsibility–of those acting, or failing to act, in their official capacity and office representing Christ.

Our only disagreements concern:
  1. The extent of the betrayal. For example, was the ambiguity in Vatican II a “betrayal”? Is our God a God of confusion? (The Bible says not.) Is it possible that the ambiguity came form the promptings of the Holy Spirit in light of subsequent problems that demonstrated that greater clarity would have been helpful in certain areas? (The Holy Spirit knows the future.) If the ambiguity was not a gift of the Holy Spirit, but rather a prudential error, is the Holy Spirit the author of damaging prudential error? So did the Holy Spirit did not prompt at all in these particular areas, or did the Bishops reject the promptings: the only two reasonable options. (Council documents are only protected from doctrinal error: there is no guarantee of prudential wisdom–but the Holy Spirit is present at ALL times.)
  2. Focusing now on the original issue, and setting aside any issues about Vatican II: most fundamentally, what is the underlying cause of the internal betrayals discussed above? Was the primary cause the influences of the greater society, which perhaps cannot be fully resisted, or internal decay?
On this, we can ALL agree: history shows that the Church has periodically gone through periods of decay, and has needed renewal (which always comes); and the Church does have a great ability to withstand external pressures–even widespread martyrdom. But the specifics regarding recent decades are in dispute.

Returning now to Vatican II. In a way, it is absurd that we are still discussing the issue at all! But we can’t help ourselves.

Generally, to the non-traditionalist, Vatican II is a precious gift of the Holy Spirit that provides a precise and detailed solution to our present problems. Perfectly tailored! Scripture, prior councils and documents, and the writings of the saints, are still very important! And we do not get to heaven through faith alone in Vatican II alone! But it is only Vatican II which shows the way forward–with specifics–for the Church as a whole during this particular period of history. To question even the prudence of any part of Vatican II is to insult the Holy Spirit! Almost blasphemy.

To the traditionalist (generally), once the Pope’s agenda for the Council was rejected, there was at least an element of pride and rebellion at the Council. Even the unprecedented flood of words suggested possible spiritual problems of pride and vanity. There are parts of the documents that have proven to be problematic in retrospect, and the Holy Spirit operates in retrospect. Other Councils have been prudential failures according to such people as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and George Weigle–and other prominent non-traditionalists have claimed prudential errors in some of the Vatican II wording. But, the Holy Spirit is not the author of even prudential error nor is it a gift of the Holy Spirit. It originates, shall we say, elsewhere? So, in this view, those who view the Council as the only possible way forward, are actually betraying the Holy Spirit and claiming a perfection for councils that both Church teachings and history indicate do not exist (again, regarding the prudential).

(I cannot understand the hang up about religious freedom among some traditionalists. The change appears to me to be NOT a teaching on faith and morals, but rather a prudential social teaching: and it a world in which almost all governments are hostile to the Church to at least some degree, why would we want to argue against religious freedom?)

And so, we continue to argue about Vatican II–even some 50 years later–even though it is largely a waste of time at this point. Because the internal logic of our basic assumptions do not permit compromise. IMHO.
 
Quote from SBroxson:

“Furthermore, we ALL agree that there has been a betrayal from within the Church: this is not an extreme position, but a simple fact. To take a very clear example: the scandal. Need I go on?”
Um…no, we do not ALL agree that there has been a ‘betrayal’ from within the Church. You yourself may believe that, but please don’t assume that others here do. You mentioned in the previous post that traditionalists believe that the ‘poison’ came from within the Church. You are intentionally trying to make trads look extreme. But you do not speak for us.

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.

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. In the above post, you’ve mentioned the Holy Spirit many times…but you’ve not mentioned Our Lord Jesus Christ even once. The Third Person of the Holy Trinity is very important, but our Church is based on Our Lord Jesus Christ…our Redeemer.
 
The way I read “betrayal from within the church” is this:

Most of the traditional teachings that have been done away with that trads bemoan are disciplines, traditional devotions, lack of reverence, etc.

All of those things are decisions based within the Church.

So in that case, no one from the outside made those decisions. They came from within.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top