Rebutting the charge of 'the angry Catholic traditionalist'

[Matrix_Refugee]

So, by posting an angry rant, you hope to rebut the charge of the “angry Catholic traditionalist”?

If your scenario were to come about, I believe that most faithful Catholics would be surprised, but not angry and rebellious.

When you speak of “conservative” Catholics, do you mean Republicans? Conservative is a political stance, not a religious one. There are only orthodox Catholics and heterodox Catholics.

Why are you trying to divide the Body of Christ?

Glad to see I’m not the only one who thought this, since I read the OP’s item with my head tilted in bewilderment, thinking, “Rebutting the angry traditionalist myth by posting a rant about all the post-Vatican II things that the OP doesn’t like? This has to be some kind Mobius strip form of circular reasoning.”

 

[Joe_5859]

I find it somewhat humorous that some on here accuse me of being ‘angry’ which I think is a result of not being able to discern the inflection/body language in which the original comments were made as well as revealing a certain defensiveness for their own ‘preferences’ when it comes to liturgical matters.

Of course the purpose of the post was to counter the charge of the ‘angry Catholic traditional’ with what would be the possible/probable reaction of many ‘conservative’ Catholics if some of their sacred cows in the Faith were banned. Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church? Look at the reaction of some Catholics when dioceses or individual priests made the decision to no longer train girls to serve as altar boys. The priest at the parish where I sometimes assist at Mass recently decided to no longer use laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass. There was weeping and knashing of teeth among those laymen who deemed it their right to distribute Holy Communion.

It appears that in their haste to respond to my ‘anger’, they missed the point of the OP.

I think that such hypothetical speculation doesn’t accomplish much but to encourage people to imagine would-be reactions that fit exactly with their preconceived notions.

I don’t think we should underestimate Catholics’ obedience to legitimate Church authority. If the Church supressed the charismatic movement, I see no reason to think FUS wouldn’t obey that. Their faculty/administration takes oaths to obey the Church. (And believe it or not, not everyone at FUS is of the charismatic persuasion.)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The liturgy has spoken;

“Prepare the way of the Lord”, “make **straight the path for **the Lord” when every mountain (Conservative) is leveled and every valley (Traditionalists) filled to make straight the path of the Lord.

Conservative, Traditionalist thinking are good for discernment, but ultimately God is in charge when both are faced with Truth (which neither independent from one another possesses the fullness of Truth) leads to “humility”.

No matter how one conserves his/her traditions or how one lives out or changes his/her traditions the “Substance” to both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist will never change because Jesus is the same today, yesterday and forever more…

Happy advent

 

[JRKH]

maryjk
Quote:

Originally Posted by jam070406

Sweet! If we can get more and more people to put their own desires aside we could have a TLM in every Parish in America!
Why? Since the Ordinary Form is already in every parish, why would we need to put the Extraordinary Form in? The reason it would be needed is because it would be wanted. Wanted indicates personal desire. If people put their own desires aside, there would not need to be an EF in every parish.

(See, it works both ways.)

Originally Posted by Boulder257 View Post
I don’t think that was the argument Bob. I don’t think anyone said supporting or liking the EF is prideful. What I think they were inferring was that anytime a person takes a personal preference and tries to force that preference on others despite Church Teaching, well, that is most certainly pride. When people begin to think they know better than the Church, that’s pride.

The problem here is that in all of this the matter is being looked at in basically selfish ways. "What I want and what “I can get or have” instead of what My brother wants and what I can give to him.

So if we reverse these thoughts and ideas away from the self, then the EF and the OF could and would be offered in at least the majority of parishes (or in a manner that makes geographical sense). It would occur because ALL would reach out to the other and ask, “What is your desire?” “How may be best provide a liturgy that is fulfilling to your call to, and path of, spirituality?”

If,as mentioned earlier our own desires are put aside, then the OF and EF are embraced, not because of my desire for myself, but because of my desire to be of service to my brother.

Peace
James

 

[TrueLight]

Sweet! If we can get more and more people to put their own desires aside we could have a TLM in every Parish in America!

 

[jam070406]

The problem here is that in all of this the matter is being looked at in basically selfish ways. "What I want and what “I can get or have” instead of what My brother wants and what I can give to him.

So if we reverse these thoughts and ideas away from the self, then the EF and the OF could and would be offered in at least the majority of parishes (or in a manner that makes geographical sense). It would occur because ALL would reach out to the other and ask, “What is your desire?” “How may be best provide a liturgy that is fulfilling to your call to, and path of, spirituality?”

If,as mentioned earlier our own desires are put aside, then the OF and EF are embraced, not because of my desire for myself, but because of my desire to be of service to my brother.

Peace
James

Exactly! Well stated.

 

[Boulder257]

I’m not speaking about only my personal experience. I’m speaking about many others.

What you have said makes it sound like most parishes now have a solemn ad-orientem Novus Ordo mass with chant every Sunday, with just a few deviating from that norm. Whereas the majority now have most of the novelties Traditionalists detest.

Try this mental exercise:

Imagine a Sunday, sung Mass at your local parish Church in 1930. Then fast forward mentally to 2011.

Frankly, if a pious Catholic had such a vision in the 1930’s they’d have wondered if they were viewing the same religion!

If the ‘reforms’ were allowed to continue at the same rate, in another 40 years we would be Protestant: no belief in transubstantiation and each local church doing their own thing.

e.g. Why are people now allowed to touch the host if it’s so special?

What people don’t get is that this was coming for a long time before the Council; the Council just provided the excuse.

Also, I don’t see why Traditionalists have to apologise for being angry. Go to TLMs for three months, then go back to the N.O. Read up on what the purpose of a Mass is. See how calm you are then.

PS: What is the Truth, in the context of this argument?

You are correct about someone from now looking back wondering if they were looking at the same thing, but that doesn’t make one thing right or wrong. Times change. If you or I looked at the first masses that were ever held we would wonder where was the reverence? Where is the kneeling? Why is there no agnus dei? etc. etc. Heck, they passed bread around to each other and drank out of the same cup, passing it one to another. Point doesn’t hold water because certainly disciplines and small t traditions change with time. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Dogma, Doctrine, and Tradition of the Church has not changed and those are the things that are not to change.

You don’t need to attack my personal intelligence of the matter either. I have read up on the Mass. Quite extensively. I would also attend the TLM. Now I attend both. Let’s not forget the TLM is 500 years old, not 2000…The Mass and the way it has been practiced has always been changing.

 

[Boulder257]

The problem here is that in all of this the matter is being looked at in basically selfish ways. "What I want and what “I can get or have” instead of what My brother wants and what I can give to him.

So if we reverse these thoughts and ideas away from the self, then the EF and the OF could and would be offered in at least the majority of parishes (or in a manner that makes geographical sense). It would occur because ALL would reach out to the other and ask, “What is your desire?” “How may be best provide a liturgy that is fulfilling to your call to, and path of, spirituality?”

If,as mentioned earlier our own desires are put aside, then the OF and EF are embraced, not because of my desire for myself, but because of my desire to be of service to my brother.

Peace
James

EXACTLY

 

[robbie20]

You’re not doing a very good job of rebutting the charge, because you seem pretty angry. You’re doing a much better job of justifying why you’re angry though!

(Although nuns in lay clothing may be by design, as religious were called to go back to the vision of their founders, and some of their founders originally wanted them in lay clothing (so the habbits were actually the wrong thing, and the lay clothing was them going back to tradition).

And there was a shortage of priests for awhile leading up to Vatican II, but it was covered up as Bishops asked religious to run parishes. Again, once they were asked to go back to the original vision of the founder, several of them were pulled from parishes (like how Franciscans were pulled from middle class parishes, as they work with the poor).

Children leaving the faith also has something to do with parents who stopped teaching them, and several people deciding to not follow HV, so they started following society instead.)

I don’t blame people for getting upset. I do think some of the misconceptions and anger that some traditionalists have is misguided though.

There’s lots of nuns who have ditched the penguin suits… The sisters of mercy are one…

 

[DavidPalm]

I do think the OP has a point that perhaps is getting obscured. In the face of genuine injustices some anger is a normal, if imperfect, reaction. In such cases it’s not really helpful simply to deny that anybody should be angry at all.

Palestinians who get shoved into refugee camps have a tremendous rage over their plight. Yes, sometimes it drives them to do awful things. But if one has any empathy at all it’s more helpful to see if perhaps that rage is grounded in genuine injustices and whether, even if one is horrified at the actions, one can at least understand the rage. Then one might even be moved to help address the injustice. It’s less than helpful to simply say, “Get over it.”

Now, let’s suppose that there are Catholics who have been put into a kind of ecclesiastical refugee camp and feel angry about it. Yes, some of their expressions might be less than completely charitable. But again, some empathy might prompt one to see if perhaps that anger is grounded in genuine injustices and whether, even if the actions aren’t the best, one can at least understand the anger. You might even be moved to help address the injustice. Happily, our Holy Father has already done a great deal along these lines, both to recognize injustices and to remedy them.

Does this example help?

 

[Boulder257]

I do think the OP has a point that perhaps is getting obscured. In the face of genuine injustices some anger is a normal, if imperfect, reaction. In such cases it’s not really helpful simply to deny that anybody should be angry at all.

Palestinians who get shoved into refugee camps have a tremendous rage over their plight. Yes, sometimes it drives them to do awful things. But if one has any empathy at all it’s more helpful to see if perhaps that rage is grounded in genuine injustices and whether, even if one is horrified at the actions, one can at least understand the rage. Then one might even be moved to help address the injustice. It’s less than helpful to simply say, “Get over it.”

Now, let’s suppose that there are Catholics who have been put into a kind of ecclesiastical refugee camp and feel angry about it. Yes, some of their expressions might be less than completely charitable. But again, some empathy might prompt one to see if perhaps that anger is grounded in genuine injustices and whether, even if the actions aren’t the best, one can at least understand the anger. You might even be moved to help address the injustice. Happily, our Holy Father has already done a great deal along these lines, both to recognize injustices and to remedy them.

Does this example help?

I think it does help, at least it helped me. Thanks for sharing!

 

[maryjk]

My misunderstanding, thanks. Of course there is the little notion by maryjk that desiring the EF is prideful. So which is it, is the Pope off base or is there a bit of false accusation going on?

Ummm, where did I say that?

 

[felsguy]

One frequently hears the charge from conservative Catholics that**** ‘traditional’ Catholics**** are angry, Pharisees, rad trads etc.

My guess based on what I’ve already observed when some of these things have been implemented is that ’conservative’ Catholics can certainly show their colors and then some when they don’t get their way and that traditional Catholics have not cornered the market on being angry.

above quoted from the OP

I certainly do not support throwing labels around helter-skelter, but please help me understand the terminology that is being used in the discussion on this thread. I would have thought that “traditional” and 'conservative" implied very similar, if not identical, attitudes and/or preferences and not polar opposites. And I am not assigning any value judgment to either term, simply trying to have a clearer understanding.

 

[DavidPalm]

I certainly do not support throwing labels around helter-skelter, but please help me understand the terminology that is being used in the discussion on this thread. I would have thought that “traditional” and 'conservative" implied very similar, if not identical, attitudes and/or preferences and not polar opposites. And I am not assigning any value judgment to either term, simply trying to have a clearer understanding.

I don’t claim to have any authority to define the terms of the discussion, but when I call my self a “traditionalist”, here’s what I personally mean by it:

What is Traditional Catholicism?

 

[felsguy]

I don’t claim to have any authority to define the terms of the discussion, but when I call my self a “traditionalist”, here’s what I personally mean by it:

What is Traditional Catholicism?

That you for that. However, my quick read of the article you provided supports that the terms traditional and conservative are used to convey the same thing and not extreme opposites as their use in the original post here seems to imply. Hence, my confusion remains.

 

[DavidPalm]

That you for that. However, my quick read of the article you provided supports that the terms traditional and conservative are used to convey the same thing and not extreme opposites as their use in the original post here seems to imply. Hence, my confusion remains.

I hear you and basically agree with what you’re saying. The caveat, as I mention in the article, is that there are any number of self-styled “conservatives” who don’t conserve anything–they basically jump on the bandwagon in support of any innovation, provided that it comes backed with, for them, sufficient authority–and hence are not really “worthy” of the name. This happens in both secular and Catholic circles. It seems that you and I are on the same page here.

 

[felsguy]

I hear you and basically agree with what you’re saying. The caveat, as I mention in the article, is that there are any number of self-styled “conservatives” who don’t conserve anything–they basically jump on the bandwagon in support of any innovation, provided that it comes backed with, for them, sufficient authority–and hence are not really “worthy” of the name. This happens in both secular and Catholic circles. It seems that you and I are on the same page here.

If I understand, your use of 'conservative" in quotation marks euphemistically describes those whose approach more straightforwardly might be labeled “authoritarian.” However this is not the sense in which I understood the OP’s use of the term.

Also, I’m sensitive here about my not highjacking this thread, the gist of which has to do with levelling and refuting charges of being angry.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

You are correct about someone from now looking back wondering if they were looking at the same thing, but that doesn’t make one thing right or wrong. Times change. If you or I looked at the first masses that were ever held we would wonder where was the reverence? Where is the kneeling? Why is there no agnus dei? etc. etc. Heck, they passed bread around to each other and drank out of the same cup, passing it one to another. Point doesn’t hold water because certainly disciplines and small t traditions change with time. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Dogma, Doctrine, and Tradition of the Church has not changed and those are the things that are not to change.

Ah, this is classic antiquarianism. ‘We can/must return to year 0’. It’s a mistake. It’s also a backhanded slur upon all those generations who said the old rite: ‘there was something wrong with it so we must drastically edit it’.

1. We’re not sitting with the apostles at a seder meal, with Jesus as priest. We don’t know the specifics of what they did, so people make things up. But it’s a handy way to play down the sacrifice of Calvary element, if you’re so minded; emphasise the meal. Let the laity handle the Body of Christ, just like they (might have done) at the Last Supper. Oh, hang on, they weren’t lay people, they were the first bishops!
2. The Mass developed over the centuries, to glorify God. The ‘accretions’ the modernist decry were beautiful things.
3. This is exactly what the Protestant Reformation did.

[Note, I’m not saying you are saying things, but these are classic arguments re. the old rite, so, for the benefit of other readers, I’m ‘cutting to the chase’]

 

[MartyrForJesus]

You don’t need to attack my personal intelligence of the matter either. I have read up on the Mass. Quite extensively. I would also attend the TLM. Now I attend both. Let’s not forget the TLM is 500 years old, not 2000…The Mass and the way it has been practiced has always been changing.

It’s 1500 years old.

 

[Boulder257]

It’s 1500 years old.

I thought the Tridentine Mass was published in 1570?