P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
I thought we might make one more try here to have civil (let us place enormous stress on that word) discussion/debate about the issues that some non-traditionalists seem to have with trads, as has been brought up many times in this forum in the recent past.
Previous discussions degenerated quickly and I don’t want to get into the reasons, as I see them, as that’s bound to put us right back at that point off the bat. I have prayed about this topic (meaning the debate itself) and have no desire to do anything but speak Truth and spread Truth - and my perspective as well, of course. I have no desire to feed my ego and sincerely hope to not incite anger in anyone for any reason. I ask that all who participate in this thread take some time out for prayer on the subject and remember this paraphrase of the great Archbishop Sheen - “Instead of reflecting hate, you have to absorb it, to remove it from the world.”
Let’s define ‘traditionalist’ here for the purposes of the discussion. To me, a trad is someone who almost certain prefer the Tridentine rite Mass to the Novus Ordo and who believes that, at least to some extent, the Church took a “wrong turn” after Vatican II in terms of liturgy and teaching. A trad is not, however, a schismatic; he is loyal to the Holy Father and he or she believes that the new Mass is valid - is a valid re-enactment of the Calvary Sacrifice.
Most real trads also believe the Church is now taking a definite turn back to the right path thanks to our new Pontiff.
What I want to do here is address the main argument I see put forth here against the traditionalist movement and trads themselves: That they are disobedient because they are in disagreement with the Church hierarchy on certain matters.
This is not going to be a long post because I must admit that I find this line of reasoning simple to refute. Sometimes disagreement - loyal opposition - is necessary for the health of the Church; there is simply no doctrine or teaching that says that every practical decision all churchmen make is holy, proper, sound, and best oriented towards the all-important, overarching goal of the salvation of souls. (Now, of course, a member of the clergy is bound to obey and direct order given by a superior no matter what it may be unless it is a sinful act, but that is an entirely different matter.)
It seems it is very easy to find periods in Church history where it must have been necessary for faithful, orthodox Catholics to disagree with their priests and bishops substantially.
As I have mentioned myself several times recently, there was the infamous Arian heresy. It is said that at its peak an astonishing eighty percent of bishops were Arians! 80% of the bishops in the Church denying the divinity of Christ! Can you imagine what was going on in parishes at that time? A priest gives a sermon espousing the view that Christ was not begotten from all time by the Father - but he’d sure spin it to sound good (as the devil helps to spread all lies against the faith). The vast majority of the congregation, no doubt, went along with this, because, after all, this man is a priest, and because 80-90% of the populace will generally go along with about anything that is sold to them cleverly. But, no doubt, there were those persnickety few who had to whine about it - who thought they knew better than the priest, than the bishop! The arrogance! How they must have been despised.
Now, there are lots more examples we could talk about, but let’s fast-forward 15-16 centuries to the 2nd half of the 20th century. We know for a fact that at this time many seminaries had strayed so far from orthodox doctrine and practice that they became something like homosexual ‘bathhouses’ that catered to that lifestyle and actively excluded candidates who actually believed what the Church taught. (I would encourage anyone who hasn’t to read ‘Goodbye, Good Men’ for the full story. Hopefully there aren’t really any here unaware of these things and no convincing is necessary.)
Actually, though, these examples are really of a slightly different sort (though closely related) because they involve matters of dogma and doctrine. The questions of the new Mass vs. old, etc., do not involve heresy or really even unorthodoxy (not directly with regard to the Mass, but definitely with regard to a lot of other things) - so what precedent is there for disagreement? Well, there is all kinds, going back to Paul chastising the first Pope in Scripture (“I withstood Cephas to his face”). The Holy Spirit does not offer any charism of perfection to churchmen in practical matters, and the faithful are entirely free to disagree with them. Obediently disagree - that is the key.
[The case of churchmen that have become outright apostates, however, might be somewhat different.]
What are some of the issues trads have with the post-conciliar world and what was done in the post-conciliar environment?
Probably more significantly, the new liturgy itself, though valid, does have some substantial problems in the view of many - meaning just that it’s not as good as it could be:
What I wonder about re: those who really dislike the trad movement is how orthodox and educated about the full history of the Church are they? Are they aware of the history of the implementation of the new Mass and its associated practices? Do they know the ones championing some of those things the most were the same bishops who were clearly, repeatedly, and grossly disobedient to the Holy Father on multiple occasions - and that they were proud of it as well? So, regarding trads and anti-trads - who are the ones championing disobedience? Being disgusted by clerical disobedience, as a matter of fact, is the biggest thing that drove me towards the “traditionalist” movement. (Since I still attend the NO more often than TLM, I’m still not sure if I really qualify as a “traditionalist”.)
Now, I know there are a great many wonderful, devout, orthodox Catholics who have no use for the Latin Mass, and that is just fine. That is great - and I was one of them until my wife & I attended our first EF Mass a few months ago, and I still attend a daily NO and love every single second of it!
But, neither can I imagine such people - I know many of them - having a strong beef with the Trad movement. They know where it comes from. They understand.
So, I admit having to wonder about either the orthodoxy or the knowledge level of the anti-trad element. It seems to me that in order to greatly oppose traditionalists, one of those things - unorthodoxy or ignorance - has to be present to some degree.
Previous discussions degenerated quickly and I don’t want to get into the reasons, as I see them, as that’s bound to put us right back at that point off the bat. I have prayed about this topic (meaning the debate itself) and have no desire to do anything but speak Truth and spread Truth - and my perspective as well, of course. I have no desire to feed my ego and sincerely hope to not incite anger in anyone for any reason. I ask that all who participate in this thread take some time out for prayer on the subject and remember this paraphrase of the great Archbishop Sheen - “Instead of reflecting hate, you have to absorb it, to remove it from the world.”
Let’s define ‘traditionalist’ here for the purposes of the discussion. To me, a trad is someone who almost certain prefer the Tridentine rite Mass to the Novus Ordo and who believes that, at least to some extent, the Church took a “wrong turn” after Vatican II in terms of liturgy and teaching. A trad is not, however, a schismatic; he is loyal to the Holy Father and he or she believes that the new Mass is valid - is a valid re-enactment of the Calvary Sacrifice.
Most real trads also believe the Church is now taking a definite turn back to the right path thanks to our new Pontiff.
What I want to do here is address the main argument I see put forth here against the traditionalist movement and trads themselves: That they are disobedient because they are in disagreement with the Church hierarchy on certain matters.
This is not going to be a long post because I must admit that I find this line of reasoning simple to refute. Sometimes disagreement - loyal opposition - is necessary for the health of the Church; there is simply no doctrine or teaching that says that every practical decision all churchmen make is holy, proper, sound, and best oriented towards the all-important, overarching goal of the salvation of souls. (Now, of course, a member of the clergy is bound to obey and direct order given by a superior no matter what it may be unless it is a sinful act, but that is an entirely different matter.)
It seems it is very easy to find periods in Church history where it must have been necessary for faithful, orthodox Catholics to disagree with their priests and bishops substantially.
As I have mentioned myself several times recently, there was the infamous Arian heresy. It is said that at its peak an astonishing eighty percent of bishops were Arians! 80% of the bishops in the Church denying the divinity of Christ! Can you imagine what was going on in parishes at that time? A priest gives a sermon espousing the view that Christ was not begotten from all time by the Father - but he’d sure spin it to sound good (as the devil helps to spread all lies against the faith). The vast majority of the congregation, no doubt, went along with this, because, after all, this man is a priest, and because 80-90% of the populace will generally go along with about anything that is sold to them cleverly. But, no doubt, there were those persnickety few who had to whine about it - who thought they knew better than the priest, than the bishop! The arrogance! How they must have been despised.
Now, there are lots more examples we could talk about, but let’s fast-forward 15-16 centuries to the 2nd half of the 20th century. We know for a fact that at this time many seminaries had strayed so far from orthodox doctrine and practice that they became something like homosexual ‘bathhouses’ that catered to that lifestyle and actively excluded candidates who actually believed what the Church taught. (I would encourage anyone who hasn’t to read ‘Goodbye, Good Men’ for the full story. Hopefully there aren’t really any here unaware of these things and no convincing is necessary.)
Actually, though, these examples are really of a slightly different sort (though closely related) because they involve matters of dogma and doctrine. The questions of the new Mass vs. old, etc., do not involve heresy or really even unorthodoxy (not directly with regard to the Mass, but definitely with regard to a lot of other things) - so what precedent is there for disagreement? Well, there is all kinds, going back to Paul chastising the first Pope in Scripture (“I withstood Cephas to his face”). The Holy Spirit does not offer any charism of perfection to churchmen in practical matters, and the faithful are entirely free to disagree with them. Obediently disagree - that is the key.
[The case of churchmen that have become outright apostates, however, might be somewhat different.]
What are some of the issues trads have with the post-conciliar world and what was done in the post-conciliar environment?
Code:
- The old Mass was made unavailable though this was not the intent of the Council.
- The norm for the new Mass became facing the people and in the vernacular though this was not the intent of the Council.
- Practices that started as abuses, such as the widespread use of altar girls and communion in the head became commonplace and then allowed though this was not the intent of the Council.
- Thousands of beautiful altars and tabernacles (built at great cost) were destroyed (also at great cost) though this was not the intent of the Council by any means. (These things got as extreme as the case of one midwestern bishop hiring armed guards to keep the protesting parishioners our of their church while his bulldozer did its work inside. Think England during the Reformation feasts of destruction.)
Code:
- There is no doubt that it was intentionally made to look as much as possible as a Protestant community meal service; the sacrificial aspects - its true nature - were toned down significantly. Given that the Reformation started with Luther declaring "Destroy the Mass, destroy the Church", is it any wonder many faithful Catholics aren't happy about this?
- Though the Mass itself is orthodox, there is no doubt that its institution brought along with it *much* unorthodox practice and teaching - and this wasn't entirely a coincidence. It's also a fact that the clerics who strongly pushed the practices that started out as abuses until Rome's hand was forced into accepting them were among the most unorthodox in the world; they were known for disobedience and unorthodoxy, then and now.Now, I know there are a great many wonderful, devout, orthodox Catholics who have no use for the Latin Mass, and that is just fine. That is great - and I was one of them until my wife & I attended our first EF Mass a few months ago, and I still attend a daily NO and love every single second of it!
But, neither can I imagine such people - I know many of them - having a strong beef with the Trad movement. They know where it comes from. They understand.
So, I admit having to wonder about either the orthodoxy or the knowledge level of the anti-trad element. It seems to me that in order to greatly oppose traditionalists, one of those things - unorthodoxy or ignorance - has to be present to some degree.
. I walked into the chapel for mass at 7:30 AM on a Saturday. There were more than 100 people there from ages 5 to 100. There were entire families with their children and teens at a Saturday morning mass. There is something to be said for a parish that inspires people to get up early on Saturday morning during the summer.
