Seminarians (parishioners) “traddy cliques”? Be careful. [Fr. Z]

[Catholic_Opinion]

There was a good comment in another entry (it doesn’t matter which).

A seminarian, who will remain anonymous, made some very good points which many might take to heart. I have in mind especially some of his fellow seminarians. But this also might apply to some lay people in parishes.

My emphases and comments.
Comment by Anonymous Seminarian – 15 October 2007 @ 9:23 pm

Personally I have a very deep love for and attachment to the Extraordinary Form. The beauty of the Mass, even a simple Low Mass, is breath-taking and the meaning behind all the words and actions is amazing. As a diocesan seminarian, and (God-willing) future priest, nothing would make me happier than to see a greater overall appreciation for this Mass.

It’s no secret to anyone that in most seminaries it’s taboo to speak openly about your attachment to the Extraordinary Form. Is it because the faculty members are a bunch of raging heretics who would love to snuff out every last bit of Catholicism present in a young seminarian’s heart**?** Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, at least from my experience, the seminarians who speak openly about their love for the Traditional Latin Mass don’t stop there…it goes deeper. They put on a facade of sorts…they “play” the formation game but secretly distrust it. They avoid going to the community Mass and Divine Office whenever possible. They’re not interested in helping out at community events or fostering a house-hold sense of community period. Rather they are interested solely in developing their “underground traddy cliques” which usually consists of a bunch of guys who do nothing but complain about the terrible situation the Church is in. Is it any wonder to anyone then why talking about the Traditional Mass behind the walls of the seminary has become taboo? More often than not it’s accompanied by an agenda…a prideful agenda that is very contrary to the mind of the Church. As much as I personally absolutely love the Traditional Mass, I too would be concerned with seminarians who demonstrate such tendencies.

In saying this, those of us who love the Traditional Latin Mass have to remember not to make it look as if we have some sort of agenda. … Sure, we can encourage people to attend and help in any way necessary, but we need to be very careful not to isolate ourselves from the rest of the Church. Our Catholic Church is a very big church with many different people in it…as hard as it may be to live with, not everyone moves to the beat of the same drum. Let’s be firm but gentle in defending our Faith, but when it comes to the Extraordinary vs. Ordinary Rite, let’s be even more gentle. Some people just are not there yet…and they may not be for a long time.

If seminary formation has taught me anything thus far it’s this: we all, especially priests and seminarians, must think with the mind of the Church. We must breathe as She breathes and believe what She believes. To do this requires a tremendous amount of humility…something I think we all can stand a little more of.
I think this was a very good set of observations. His experience of some seminarians, and the faculty who responds to them and who are charged with forming them, present some food for thought.

At the same time, I think seminarians also have the right to seek the necessary tools they will need in their ministry. That will include what it take to say the older form of Mass. That doesn’t give seminarians the right simply to blow off the formation program. However, since they are in that position, *under *others who have a great deal of power over their lives, those who are in charge of the program need to be all that much more open and sensitive to the more traditional seminarians who are setting up the the plate in numbers that will only be increasing.

However, I think the thing to take away from this is the need to integrate well in the whole life of a parish (or seminary) and thus the rest of the Church.

Don’t create a ghetto mentality, or any elitism – even if you are absolutely convinced and can argue confidently that the older form of Mass is superior to the newer. Don’t be snobs. Don’t be jerks. Be careful and exercise thoughtful charity.

Full entry…

 

[JuanCarlos]

I think this is actually a good thing- we need more traditionalists in modernist seminaries, so that they can implement traditionalism from within- instead of practicing traditionalism outside of diocesan seminaries, in which case they would have no influence.

And if they do band together, it will be easier in the future to know who is loyal to the traddy cause and who is not

 

[PatienceAndLove]

There is nothing wrong with traditionalism, but it is the isolationist mentality that is detrimental to the Church. It borders on Protestant heresy to break off and form a different Church because you aren’t happy or things aren’t happening fast enough.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I think this is actually a good thing- we need more traditionalists in modernist seminaries, so that they can implement traditionalism from within- instead of practicing traditionalism outside of diocesan seminaries, in which case they would have no influence.

And if they do band together, it will be easier in the future to know who is **loyal to the traddy cause **and who is not

What does being loyal to the “traddy cause” mean? What is the traddy cause and how does it differ from wanting the serve the Church and advance the whole Church’s cause? Exactly that is the kind of comment that makes me very concerned about traditionalists.

 

[JuanCarlos]

In a generation of Fr McBriens and Hans Kungs, traditionalism must stay cliquey- otherwise, how will it survive? There are too few. and if tehy do band together, maybe they can make a difference.

BTW, I attend a NO Mass and am a Eucharistic minister. So don’tr mark me as a fanatic Traddy.

 

[JuanCarlos]

EMHC, I should say. force of habit

 

[Matas]

And if they do band together, it will be easier in the future to know who is loyal to the traddy cause and who is not

I attended a licit, traditional Mass a while ago. Despite not being familiar with it, I felt “right at home.” I accepted it the way I accept the NO masses that I usually attend. The ink of the MP is hardly dry yet, and is it reasonable to expect everyone to embrace it with open arms? I think not. Take a “chill pill” and relax. Breathe the fine incense, and be at peace. If anyone feels so strongly about this “cause,” then invite people lovingly to an expression of Catholic devotion that really is very beautiful. And if they don’t want to, let it be. This “underground cause mentality” evinced in the quote seems absurd to me. An “us versus them” stance will lead to nothing good.

 

[otjm]

Reading through all the comments in Fr. Z’s blog was interesting. The whole issue has a feeling, to a certain extent, of being in a deep, deep fog; one can hear sounds but not get a clear bearing on their source; in short, one does not know where one stands in relation to those making the sounds.

It amuses me to no end that I have friends - close friends - some of whom consider me to be somewhere to the right of Attila; and others to the left of Trotsky.

Reading the comments left me wondering where some of the posters in these fora would land on a given spectrum. Having read a number of posts in the Traditional fora, I have no problem identifying some who, according to where I stand, fit well within the description of the original seminarian poster in the blog of other seminarians he has observed (although the posters herein appear to be laity); they are elitists with an agenda.

Several times I have been flamed for giving some statistics or asking for some statistics to statments made; the milder ones consider me a wet blanket on the party. However, it is my perception that many herein are well under 40, and may be well under 30; and I say that because I sense a youthful lack of real world experience beyond their immediate day to day life.

There may well be seminarians who are eletists and borderline radical Traditionalists who will be ordained by managing to stay under the radar; but I truly wonder where they will be and what they will be like after 10 or 15 years of parish life. It is the ultimate of hubris to presume that the parish they might be assigned to will feel as they do, or respond to their view of liturgical life. And if they hit the wall of the average parish out there - full of people who have not shared their love for the EF, I truly wonder for their spiritual life. The Pope himself has said that he does not forsee this spreading rapidly throughout the world, both because of practical issues - a priest qualified to say the EF - and due to the fact that parishes are filled with people who are not liberal Modernist heretical liturgical experimenters, but simply people who prefer the OF. If that is the Pope’s view, and he is considered to be one of the brightest theologians around today, and has been around for a tad bit longer than the average seminarian, then I wonder how they will survive when reality hits - assuming that the Pope has a grip on reality (and I do believe he does; a tight grip at that).

 

[palmas85]

Reading through all the comments in Fr. Z’s blog was interesting. The whole issue has a feeling, to a certain extent, of being in a deep, deep fog; one can hear sounds but not get a clear bearing on their source; in short, one does not know where one stands in relation to those making the sounds.

It amuses me to no end that I have friends - close friends - some of whom consider me to be somewhere to the right of Attila; and others to the left of Trotsky.

Reading the comments left me wondering where some of the posters in these fora would land on a given spectrum. Having read a number of posts in the Traditional fora, I have no problem identifying some who, according to where I stand, fit well within the description of the original seminarian poster in the blog of other seminarians he has observed (although the posters herein appear to be laity); they are elitists with an agenda.

Several times I have been flamed for giving some statistics or asking for some statistics to statments made; the milder ones consider me a wet blanket on the party. However, it is my perception that many herein are well under 40, and may be well under 30; and I say that because I sense a youthful lack of real world experience beyond their immediate day to day life.

There may well be seminarians who are eletists and borderline radical Traditionalists who will be ordained by managing to stay under the radar; but I truly wonder where they will be and what they will be like after 10 or 15 years of parish life. It is the ultimate of hubris to presume that the parish they might be assigned to will feel as they do, or respond to their view of liturgical life. And if they hit the wall of the average parish out there - full of people who have not shared their love for the EF, I truly wonder for their spiritual life. The Pope himself has said that he does not forsee this spreading rapidly throughout the world, both because of practical issues - a priest qualified to say the EF - and due to the fact that parishes are filled with people who are not liberal Modernist heretical liturgical experimenters, but simply people who prefer the OF. If that is the Pope’s view, and he is considered to be one of the brightest theologians around today, and has been around for a tad bit longer than the average seminarian, then I wonder how they will survive when reality hits - assuming that the Pope has a grip on reality (and I do believe he does; a tight grip at that).

I don’t know. The Pauline spread pretty rapidly although that was basically our fault I guess. We just kind of rolled over and played dead while corn tortillas got “consecrated” and prayers were offered to the earth Mother all in the name of inclusiveness and political correctness. I think those days are numbered though and while you may think that some or many traditionalists are elitists, I can tell you that at least in my experience they are not.

many of those of my age have finally figured out what happened, how it happened and what needs to be done to get it right. Hey, we gave the Pauline a fair shot, we did, I did and so did many others. What did we get? Barney blessings, radicalized parishes where homosexuality is exalted and adherance to Tradition is scorned and ridiculed. I’m will not blame the Pauline Rite for these things, no, but its very looseness, its ability to adapt to whatever sprang up led to an acceptance of just about anything as long as it called itself catholic.

And yes, I believe the Holy Father has a tight grip on reality. That is exactly why he issued the Motu Propio. He knows which way the wind is blowing.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know. The Pauline spread pretty rapidly although that was basically our fault I guess. We just kind of rolled over and played dead while corn tortillas got “consecrated” and prayers were offered to the earth Mother all in the name of inclusiveness and political correctness.

I must admit you have seen some radical “Masses”. And yet, as radically liberal as Oregon is, I have never experienced any such abberations, nor have I ever spoken first had to anyone who has.

Interestingly, it is the younger set - those in their 20’s who have the smallest or lowest rate of attendance at any Mass. and that is generally related to catechesis and secualrism, not to the form of the Mass.

Perhaps it is because we have not experienced the corn tortillas or the earth Mother Masses that there seems to be such a bland response around these parts for the EF. No one seems to be beating down any doors; no one seems (it could be factually otherwise, but it isn’t making the news) to be patitioning Rome for a denial of the EF.

Again, I speak for the local scene as I am not widely traveled. But I truly do wonder what will happen, for instance, if one of the “traddy cliques” seminarians were to pass under the radar of Moutn Angel Seminary to be ordained, and then sent to a parish around here that simply is showing no interest in the EF. Repeatedly, I hear the comments that all we have to do is bring it on and there will be SRO. But I look around, and I am nust not seeing it. I went to St Patrick’s in Portland when it was offering the OF in Latin on Saturday night, with a schola which sounded as if they picked from the best professional voices in Portland (granted, not a major metropolis, although it has such pretentions). It wasn’t a bushel-bsket Mass; it was in the Sentinal and not at all hard to get to, and it was not SRO or even close in the times I took my RCIa groups there. And while St Briggita’s has the EF by indult, it isn’t being exactly overwhelmed either (although I will grant it is farthe to get to, agian it is not a complicated drive). So I don’t see the days nunmbered around here. As I say, the silence seems deafening. I would think that if a “traddy cliqu” were to be ordained and inserted into one of the parishes, he might find himself facing a parish that has a very different concept of spirituality than he envisions, and not one of Barney blessings, radical homosexual sash wearers, or Mother Earth worshipers. Just people who prefer definitely the OF. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them out there, and they are not liberals. The are just people contending with life and trying to follow Christ.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Having read a number of posts in the Traditional fora, I have no problem identifying some who… are elitists with an agenda.

… I sense a youthful lack of real world experience beyond their immediate day to day life.

… but I truly wonder where they will be and what they will be like after 10 or 15 years of parish life. It is the ultimate of hubris to presume that the parish they might be assigned to will feel as they do, or respond to their view of liturgical life. And if they hit the wall of the average parish out there - full of people who have not shared their love for the EF, I truly wonder for their spiritual life.

…I wonder how they will survive when reality hits…

Heh, spoken like a true elitist.

(Kind of like humility, as soon as you realize you got it, you lost it.)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[otjm]

Heh, spoken like a true elitist.

(Kind of like humility, as soon as you realize you got it, you lost it.)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Well, if being a centrist is being elite, then I will be so charged; however, it is hard to be elite when you are in the middle of the pack.

 

[JDK]

Yes, the Extraordinary Form is beautiful, it is also not the norm. That is just a fact. Seminarians may be idealistic about the Latin Mass, rightly so, but I think they are misguided to view the Novus Ordum as somehow inferior.

I think it is very important at this point to reform the liturgy practices of the Novus Ordum and to restore a sense of reverence and sanctity among the faithful.

Also, proper Catechism and formation should be a much more important priority than which form of Mass is emphasized. If we don’t start doing a better job of teaching the faith, there will not be enough people left to sustain the church, regardless of the dominant form of liturgy.

 

[DustinsDad]

Well, if being a centrist is being elite, then I will be so charged; however, it is hard to be elite when you are in the middle of the pack.

I must be a 1907 centrist. Methinks somebody moved the center .

 

[ncjohn]

There may well be seminarians who are eletists and borderline radical Traditionalists who will be ordained by managing to stay under the radar; but I truly wonder where they will be and what they will be like after 10 or 15 years of parish life. It is the ultimate of hubris to presume that the parish they might be assigned to will feel as they do, or respond to their view of liturgical life.

We have a substantial group of exactly what you note, and what that seminarian described, in our diocese. At priestly gatherings they segregate themselves and talk about nothing more meaningful than the weather with the rest of the priests.

The description given in the article

Unfortunately, at least from my experience, the seminarians who speak openly about their love for the Traditional Latin Mass don’t stop there…it goes deeper. They put on a facade of sorts…they “play” the formation game but secretly distrust it. They avoid going to the community Mass and Divine Office whenever possible. They’re not interested in helping out at community events or fostering a house-hold sense of community period. Rather they are interested solely in developing their “underground traddy cliques” which usually consists of a bunch of guys who do nothing but complain about the terrible situation the Church is in.

hits right on the money. They refuse to promote diocesan events since “the diocese is known to be full of heresy” despite a very conservative bishop. They use their own faith formation programs which ignore or downright denigrate Vatican II, and mostly instruct catechists that they are not to discuss Vatican II even if questioned as everything wrong in the world and the Church is because of Vatican II. The hew to the “radical traditionalist” line is unmistakable.

I have no problem with the EF and was consistently on the side of making it as available as possible for those who desire it. But I do have an issue with those who have the agenda of bashing the Church and implying that anyone who believes in the Vatican II vision is a “modernist” as the term is so loosely thrown out by some, including some here.

Quite frankly, they are no asset to the “traddy cause” as they are turning people off left and right by the very elitism and Church bashing that the article mentions. Of course if the “traddy cause” is really to destroy the Church as it exists, which has to be done as an underground movement from within, maybe they are exactly what some are looking for. If however the “traddy cause” is really to bring back a love for the EF and some of the traditions and customs that went by the wayside, trying to cram those things down people’s throats is most certainly not the way to accomplish that.

As a centrist who appreciates both forms, I am deeply saddened when I see the Church being torn apart the way it is. Yes, the EF was slighted greatly but we don’t correct that by crushing the OF. If the EF won’t stand on its own beauty, it certainly won’t stand by driving away those who are being fed in other ways.

Peace,

 

[DustinsDad]

…I do have an issue with those who have the agenda of bashing the Church and implying that anyone who believes in the Vatican II vision is a “modernist”…

What exactly* is* the Vatican II vision? Would it be the “vision” as practiced by a Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Mahoney - or more along the lines of the “vision” as practiced by ArchBishop Raymond Burke? Or are both “approaches” correct?

I’m wondering if seminarians from the Archdiocese of St. Louis share your concerns.

What you see as bashing the Church, I’m sure the traditionalist minded folks (and seminarians) see as defending the Church - it all depends on how one views the current situation the Church is in. Is it a healthy robust “New Sprigtime” that requires all faithful Catholics to “get on board”? Or are we living in a deep and widespread crisis where the ongoing battle for souls ain’t goin’ so well - in which case inaction and complacency itself could be a sin of ommision?

Serious questions here.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Dempsey1919]

I agree with what this seminarian has said. I love the Tridentine Mass and it would be great if all Catholics did aswell. However, I think that many people within the traditional movement do more harm than good. The way to promote the Tridentine Mass is to show that we are not extreme schismatics but that we are simply orthodox, faithful Catholics.

We must be 100% loyal to the Magesterium and try to avoid schismatic groups that could bring scandal. We should show other Catholics that we love the Tridentine Mass because of it’s beauty and not because we are pushing an agenda. The liberals have an agenda. We are simply loyal to the Pope.

 

[palmas85]

I must admit you have seen some radical “Masses”. And yet, as radically liberal as Oregon is, I have never experienced any such abberations, nor have I ever spoken first had to anyone who has.

Interestingly, it is the younger set - those in their 20’s who have the smallest or lowest rate of attendance at any Mass. and that is generally related to catechesis and secualrism, not to the form of the Mass.

Perhaps it is because we have not experienced the corn tortillas or the earth Mother Masses that there seems to be such a bland response around these parts for the EF. No one seems to be beating down any doors; no one seems (it could be factually otherwise, but it isn’t making the news) to be patitioning Rome for a denial of the EF.

Again, I speak for the local scene as I am not widely traveled. But I truly do wonder what will happen, for instance, if one of the “traddy cliques” seminarians were to pass under the radar of Moutn Angel Seminary to be ordained, and then sent to a parish around here that simply is showing no interest in the EF. Repeatedly, I hear the comments that all we have to do is bring it on and there will be SRO. But I look around, and I am nust not seeing it. I went to St Patrick’s in Portland when it was offering the OF in Latin on Saturday night, with a schola which sounded as if they picked from the best professional voices in Portland (granted, not a major metropolis, although it has such pretentions). It wasn’t a bushel-bsket Mass; it was in the Sentinal and not at all hard to get to, and it was not SRO or even close in the times I took my RCIa groups there. And while St Briggita’s has the EF by indult, it isn’t being exactly overwhelmed either (although I will grant it is farthe to get to, agian it is not a complicated drive). So I don’t see the days nunmbered around here. As I say, the silence seems deafening. I would think that if a “traddy cliqu” were to be ordained and inserted into one of the parishes, he might find himself facing a parish that has a very different concept of spirituality than he envisions, and not one of Barney blessings, radical homosexual sash wearers, or Mother Earth worshipers. Just people who prefer definitely the OF. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them out there, and they are not liberals. The are just people contending with life and trying to follow Christ.

I think what will happen is that the younger Priests might start to celebrate the Traditional Mass without permission from, consulting with or even telling the Liturgical director, the readers, the extraordinary ministers and everybody else who really does have an agenda. Will there be an outcry? You better believe it. The hordes of extraordinary ministers will howl, the readers will howl, the cantors will howl, the music directors will howl, the Parish Liturgical Directors will howl and all the other assorted hangers on will scream bloody murder. In fact, some may even schism off into their own little groups, although I truly don’t believe they will last too long… I really don’t believe that the Pauline Mass has a lot of staying power as did the Traditional.

Once the outcry has died down I would wager that most people will still be in the pews still trying to contend with life and follow Christ.

 

[DustinsDad]

…We must be 100% loyal to the Magesterium and try to avoid schismatic groups that could bring scandal. We should show other Catholics that we love the Tridentine Mass because of it’s beauty and not because we are pushing an agenda. The liberals have an agenda. We are simply loyal to the Pope.

Agreed to an extent, with the caveot that not all groups that bring scandal to the Church are schismatic - and sometimes the “liberals with an agenda” are running the seminaries (if not the diocese). In that case, what does the seminarian do? “Get on board” or “get in the trenches”?

It’s not such an easy black and white situation, I would guess, for many seminarians.

Just offering a few rambling thoughts.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ncjohn]

What exactly* is* the Vatican II vision? Would it be the “vision” as practiced by a Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Mahoney - or more along the lines of the “vision” as practiced by ArchBishop Raymond Burke? Or are both “approaches” correct?

To most of the ones I am familiar with it makes no difference, as the constant rallying cry is “Vatican II is the worst thing that ever happened to the Church.” Any reference to the actual documents of the Council is dismissed out of hand.

What you see as bashing the Church, I’m sure the traditionalist minded folks (and seminarians) see as defending the Church - it all depends on how one views the current situation the Church is in.

SOME traditionalist minded folks do indeed see it that way. And the term “remnant Church” is often heard on their lips, apparently believing that they are the only true remaining Catholics and that the rest of us are just misguided apostates. It is those to which I refer and which the article describes. People whose primary intent is to undo Vatican II in its entirety and who believe that anyone who found it to be exactly what the Church needed to be the “modernists” as I previously noted.

Yes, we are entitled to believe that some of what crept in after Vatican II is not healthy and to seek correction where that is found. That is a far cry though from what the article’s seminarian or I am describing, which is really an interest in squashing Vatican II and the OF. As one very reasonable traditionalist described it in another thread, many “traditionalists” are not the least bit interested in simply getting the EF back. They will not be happy until they have their foot on the throat of the OF and see it gasping its last breath.

While I fully respect anyone’s preference for the EF and the older traditions, I will fight to the death to not have the OF taken away just as those who wanted the EF were willing to fight for it.

Peace,