Strange Reactions

[ravenonthecross]

I don’t consider a strong love and devotion for the TLM and everything that usually goes with it such as altar rails, communion on the tongue, churches that look Catholic, Gregorian chant, etc. to be radically traditional. I consider it to be normal.

Same here. I desire all that for the NO, you know-------- communion on the tongue, altar rail-in-use, and churches that look Catholic, Gregorian chant. I guess I’ll have to say a prayer for the wider-availablity of both!

OH, yeah And ALL OF IT IN LATIN!!!

 

[cue]

Neither do I consider the TLM and everything that usually goes with it to be radically traditional. I consider it to be beautiful.

~~ the phoenix

Exactly. Now that we have the Motu Proprio, the Pope proclaims what we’ve been saying all along, “It’s not radical; it’s for all.”

 

[Pug]

Father Hardon even notes this with approval in that part of his “Catechism” dealing with ecumenism. One wonders why he does not link this very ecumenism with the changes in the liturgy. Here are his words, page 243:“On the practical level this means that Catholics should avoid any words, judgments or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do. Positively, they should engage in dialogue with separated brethren through discussion, co-operative action, and corporate prayer. Such dialogue presumes study and the desire to learn how the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants worship, what they believe, and how their allegiance to Christ has affected their lives.” The above passage is sad to contemplate.

This really struck me. I do own that book, so I looked at the context to see if that helped any. I found the context unenlightening. I sincerely hope that none of his readers came to believe that they were supposed to behave this way generally. I can detect from my past, though, that I probably picked up such a spirit somewhere for a time in my life.

I think I might have misunderstood what you meant by “ethos”. You pointed me to audiotapes, so perhaps you mean that the best way to figure it out is to watch people who are in the culture as they are being themselves. To me, one reason why I became Catholic is, oh, maybe “devotion”. I admired it, and saw it in some people, so I searched for it. I don’t have it myself, though. I did, however, start to pick something up that mattered by reading St. John of the Cross and other doctors. i.e. people who wrote long ago.

I guess what I meant by recent is,…is there an “ethos” in our current, average Catholic parishes? You know, the basic parish that most American Catholics attend. As you say, it is an ancient faith, so I wondered if the ethos was still there, readily visible. I asked you because I wonder if I am blind to it. If you are sensitive to what it was, perhaps you can see it now?

I do realize that we believe as we pray, so any change in the liturgy is hugely important.

 

[DustinsDad]

I don’t consider a strong love and devotion for the TLM and everything that usually goes with it such as altar rails, communion on the tongue, churches that look Catholic, Gregorian chant, etc. to be radically traditional. I consider it to be normal.

Amen!

Something that was totally normal a few decades ago can’t be “radically” traditional now. As the Holy Father stated…
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
“Radical” liberalism, on the other hand, is not a part of the faith or traditions of the Catholic Church - in fact it has been warned against explicitally. It’s tennants involve rejecting certain dogmas and doctrines of the Church itself (women ordination and contraception to name a few).

To mention “radically traditional” and “radically liberal” in the same breath is to do a disservice to the great traditions of the Catholic Church, and even to borderline misrepresent the Faith itself.

And if one wonders why some or most in the Church are “suspicious” of traditional catholics - it is because this attitude has somehow permeated too much of the Church. The past is now suspect - if not forgotten.

DustinsDad

 

[verdigirl]

Amen!

Something that was totally normal a few decades ago can’t be “radically” traditional now. As the Holy Father stated…
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
“Radical” liberalism, on the other hand, is not a part of the faith or traditions of the Catholic Church - in fact it has been warned against explicitally. It’s tennants involve rejecting certain dogmas and doctrines of the Church itself (women ordination and contraception to name a few).

To mention “radically traditional” and “radically liberal” in the same breath is to do a disservice to the great traditions of the Catholic Church, and even to borderline misrepresent the Faith itself.

And if one wonders why some or most in the Church are “suspicious” of traditional catholics - it is because this attitude has somehow permeated too much of the Church. The past is now suspect - if not forgotten.

DustinsDad

Now, I am a Roman Catholic, orthodox and faithful to the Magisterium, but I am also a feminist and hard worker for the Church’s social justice issues. “Faithful to the Magisterium” and “feminist” are not mutually exclusive terms. Many of you would tar me with the “radically liberal” brush, and I think that kind of label is unfair. It also implies that I don’t have any patience for TLM, and that would be a ridiculous assumption to make.

My experience in this forum so far is that a large percentage of people who prefer TLM are also extremely closed-minded to these social justice tenets of the Church. Many exhibit a lack of charity and a rigidity that makes evangelization and acceptance of TLM needs impossible.

We have doctrine on social justice that stem from norms developed even before Christ himself walked the land. Remember feeding the poor, protecting the marginalized, all seven of the corporal works of mercy? Want to talk about rejection of certain dogmas and doctrines of the Church? You should see how quickly some traditionalists in this forum reject the teachings of the Bishops and of various encyclicals when it comes to social justice issues…issues that shake the foundation of the conservative voting bloc.

I honestly do want those of you who prefer TLM to have a full access to it. In my parish, if I learn of anyone who wants it, I will champion their cause, even though I most likely would not be a regular participant. But what it takes for me to do this, to support you, takes a great leap of faith because there is no reciprocity from your side. I support access to TLM, and support it, and support it, but in my experience traditionalists DO NOT support the other side. All I hear is how terrible the NO is, how irreverant, how difficult it is to adore, about all the liturgical abuses, how bad the music is…nothing ever supportive, and rarely do I read about any traditionalists that actually step out on a limb and become part of the parish community by volunteering as catechists or sacristans or altar server trainers. It’s wearing me down.

Christians, cannot we love one another?

 

[John_Higgins]

Brennan Doherty:

I don’t consider a strong love and devotion for the TLM and everything that usually goes with it such as altar rails, communion on the tongue, churches that look Catholic, Gregorian chant, etc. to be radically traditional. I consider it to be normal.

I guess it’s normal to you. Don’t get me wrong; I agree with Verdigirl, I want you to have your TLM. But please don’t deceive yourselves that there are hundreds of thousands in the US yearning for it. Tain’t so.

Keep in mind something about CAF and this TC forum. This forum is a small traditional piece of a generally conservative board. What seems to be a representative sample just might not be.

Good luck,

John

 

[Grace283]

i think its because in most areas the TLM hasn’t been in use or wasnt well known. Just like someone who is returning home after years of being away, it takes time to get used to the idea of being back and getting comfortable…

if you had asked me weeks ago to go to a TLM i would have been, “why? do i need to?”… and now? im trying to find a church that does it so i can go…hehe

 

[Petergee]

I agree the problem is not opposition to the John XXIII Mass. It’s just that, in spite of the claims of some of its enthusiasts here, there are so few people around who want it. The lady in the bookshop was not being hostile. She had probably never been asked for a 1962 Missal before.

For many years I belonged to a (perfectly orthodox) Catholic organisation which has very few members in my city so few Catholics know of it. I became wary of talking about it to my fellow Catholics because having never heard of it they tended to wonder if it was some new sect-like organisation. (Depending on their prejudices, they suspected it of being either a hotbed of unorthodox “liberal” trendies or a hotbed of dyed-in-the-wool reactionaries stuck in the 19th century.)

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone IRL in the last 20 years who has said that they prefer the old Mass. Certainly not anyone under 50. Most Catholics would be in the same position, the only “traditionalist Catholic” they know is Mel Gibson. (Yes I know he’s actually a schismatic). People may be surprised and suspicious when you first tell them you go to the John XXIII Mass. Once you assure them that you are obedient to the Pope and your bishop and that you endorse Vatican II, and are not into extreme-right-wing political theories, they will see nothing suspicious about your preference.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

To mention “radically traditional” and “radically liberal” in the same breath is to do a disservice to the great traditions of the Catholic Church, and even to borderline misrepresent the Faith itself.

Not so, DD, it’s rather a recognition that there are traditionalists who decry anything post-conciliar, who want nothing to change whatsoever, who don’t want to even discuss modest change of any kind AND to recognize that there are liberals for whom the Church did not start until Vatican II. I do no diservice to the genuine Tradition of the Church nor am I disrespectful, let alone misrepresented the faith. The moderate approach is a CAUTIOUS one.

Further, if you’re concerned that “traditionalists” are mistrusted, you should chat with those traditionalists. The attitude they exhibit toward a great variety of things other than the Mass might go a long way to explaining why they are, as you say, mistrusted and also possibly why they are, themselves, the EF’s worst enemy.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This really struck me. I do own that book, so I looked at the context to see if that helped any. I found the context unenlightening. I sincerely hope that none of his readers came to believe that they were supposed to behave this way generally. I can detect from my past, though, that I probably picked up such a spirit somewhere for a time in my life.

I think I might have misunderstood what you meant by “ethos”. You pointed me to audiotapes, so perhaps you mean that the best way to figure it out is to watch people who are in the culture as they are being themselves. To me, one reason why I became Catholic is, oh, maybe “devotion”. I admired it, and saw it in some people, so I searched for it. I don’t have it myself, though. I did, however, start to pick something up that mattered by reading St. John of the Cross and other doctors. i.e. people who wrote long ago.

I guess what I meant by recent is,…is there an “ethos” in our current, average Catholic parishes? You know, the basic parish that most American Catholics attend. As you say, it is an ancient faith, so I wondered if the ethos was still there, readily visible. I asked you because I wonder if I am blind to it. If you are sensitive to what it was, perhaps you can see it now?

I do realize that we believe as we pray, so any change in the liturgy is hugely important.

Hi Pug,

As far as the ethos of the current Church, for the past 40 years or see it seems as if it has been, “Don’t offend anyone, get along with everyone.”

And yes, I did point you to the audiotapes because I think the people there do display a certain ethos which can be picked up by listening to some of them.

And I agree completely that we believe as we pray and any changes to the liturgy are hugely important.

 

[DustinsDad]

…“Faithful to the Magisterium” and “feminist” are not mutually exclusive terms. Many of you would tar me with the “radically liberal” brush

Why? Unless you promote such things as today’s so-called-feminists promote, that wouldn’t be the case. There is an authentic feminism - just as there is an authentic* femininity*. All in line with the traditional teachings of the Church of course. Which of course would definately not include such things as promoting women priests, contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, etc. - things normally associated with the “radically liberal” catholic.

…"My experience in this forum so far is that a large percentage of people who prefer TLM are also extremely closed-minded to these social justice tenets of the Church. We have doctrine on social justice that stem from norms developed even before Christ himself walked the land. Remember feeding the poor, protecting the marginalized, all seven of the corporal works of mercy? Want to talk about rejection of certain dogmas and doctrines of the Church? You should see how quickly some traditionalists in this forum reject the teachings of the Bishops and of various encyclicals when it comes to social justice issues…issues that shake the foundation of the conservative voting bloc.

You mean to tell me that “a large percentage” of traditional catholics don’t want to feed the poor, protect the marginalized, or practice the corporal works of mercy? With a straight face you are stating this?

They might disagree on the* practical* methods of doing such, but not on the foundational teaching itself. Catholics can disagree on how best to feed the poor, protect the marginalized, or practice the corporal works of mercy and still be 100% rock solid Catholics.

What many traditional Catholics tend to be upset with, is the trumpeting of “certain methods” of practicing corporal works of mercy- treating the political methods themselves as if they were dogma…and the subsequent deafening sound of silence from when it comes to the spiritual works of mercy…

• To instruct the ignorant;
• To counsel the doubtful;
• To admonish sinners;
• To bear wrongs patiently;
• To forgive offences willingly;
• To comfort the afflicted;
• To pray for the living and the dead.

…"I honestly do want those of you who prefer TLM to have a full access to it. In my parish, if I learn of anyone who wants it, I will champion their cause, even though I most likely would not be a regular participant.

That would be mucho appreciated. But do come once in a while !

…"But what it takes for me to do this, to support you, takes a great leap of faith because there is no reciprocity from your side. I support access to TLM, and support it, and support it, but in my experience traditionalists DO NOT support the other side. All I hear is how terrible the NO is, how irreverant, how difficult it is to adore, about all the liturgical abuses, how bad the music is…nothing ever supportive,

Fair enough.

…"and rarely do I read about any traditionalists that actually step out on a limb and become part of the parish community by volunteering as catechists or sacristans or altar server trainers. It’s wearing me down.

There is a divide. Sadly, the Lex Orendi is now different in the two spheres. Would a traditionalist be “forced” to teach ecumanism as it’s currently practiced in the Church? Would he be “forced” to train girl-altar-boys? Or would he/she, by teaching what the Church has always taught as it always taught it, be shown the door? These are real world issues that would pop up in the situations you describe as never seeing…there may just be a reason this sort of thing isn’t common - not all of it the fault of the traditionalist folks.

Let’s hope we still share the* Lex Credendi!* The One True Faith!

Amen and Peace in Christ to you sister!

DustinsDad

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Now, I am a Roman Catholic, orthodox and faithful to the Magisterium, but I am also a feminist and hard worker for the Church’s social justice issues. “Faithful to the Magisterium” and “feminist” are not mutually exclusive terms. Many of you would tar me with the “radically liberal” brush, and I think that kind of label is unfair. It also implies that I don’t have any patience for TLM, and that would be a ridiculous assumption to make.

My experience in this forum so far is that a large percentage of people who prefer TLM are also extremely closed-minded to these social justice tenets of the Church. Many exhibit a lack of charity and a rigidity that makes evangelization and acceptance of TLM needs impossible.

We have doctrine on social justice that stem from norms developed even before Christ himself walked the land. Remember feeding the poor, protecting the marginalized, all seven of the corporal works of mercy? Want to talk about rejection of certain dogmas and doctrines of the Church? You should see how quickly some traditionalists in this forum reject the teachings of the Bishops and of various encyclicals when it comes to social justice issues…issues that shake the foundation of the conservative voting bloc.

I honestly do want those of you who prefer TLM to have a full access to it. In my parish, if I learn of anyone who wants it, I will champion their cause, even though I most likely would not be a regular participant. But what it takes for me to do this, to support you, takes a great leap of faith because there is no reciprocity from your side. I support access to TLM, and support it, and support it, but in my experience traditionalists DO NOT support the other side. All I hear is how terrible the NO is, how irreverant, how difficult it is to adore, about all the liturgical abuses, how bad the music is…nothing ever supportive, and rarely do I read about any traditionalists that actually step out on a limb and become part of the parish community by volunteering as catechists or sacristans or altar server trainers. It’s wearing me down.

Christians, cannot we love one another?

Hi verdigirl,

I found your post to be interesting. I do think there may be a type of conservative Catholic who may come across as a “Republican with a rosary.”

However, I subscribe to a couple of Traditional-minded or Traditionalist publications. One is New Oxford Review which is traditional-minded and one is The Remnant which is definitely a Traditionalist publication.

What is interesting, particularly with the Remnant (and New Oxford Review) is their opposition to the Iraq war, even though a lot of Republicans supported it. In fact, I found out about the books “Neo-Conned” from an ad in the Remnant.

Regarding social issues, I have read a strong critique of capitalism in The Remnant (and conversely strong support for Distributism). I think anyone who considers themselves a Traditionalist should fully embrace the social doctrine of the Church. As another example, a place I would consider a Traditionalist publishing house, IHS Press, has dedicated themselves to publishing books about the social doctrine of the Church:

ihspress.com/index1.htm

Hence, there should be no conflict at all between the social doctrine of the Church and Traditionalism, and I don’t think there is.

One thing that I have found upsetting is that due to the vocations crisis when we have lost so many Priests and monks and nuns, we have also lost many who would have been ministering to the poor or educating the young. And I don’t think the laity is or can make up for that. Thus when I promote the TLM, I also do so because I believe the TLM and all that goes with it like beautiful art and architecture helps attract vocations to religious orders. And these people can in turn help our society in so many ways according to their calling.

God bless.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I guess it’s normal to you. Don’t get me wrong; I agree with Verdigirl, I want you to have your TLM. But please don’t deceive yourselves that there are hundreds of thousands in the US yearning for it. Tain’t so.

Keep in mind something about CAF and this TC forum. This forum is a small traditional piece of a generally conservative board. What seems to be a representative sample just might not be.

Good luck,

John

I don’t know how many are yearning for the TLM. I don’t necessarily think there are hundreds of thousands in the U.S.

I do think the TLM was very effectively repressed for the past forty years and thus many Catholics have never been to a TLM and know very little about it. Thus when they hear of one their first thoughts might be is that it’s old-fashioned and backward. They won’t have heard of any reason why the Mass should be celebrated in Latin, and they won’t understand why the Priest is “turning his back to the people.”

So I would not be surprised if there is not overwhelming interest at this time.

However, I do believe as more people are exposed to the TLM, particularly with Gregorian chant, interest will grow as many people are spiritually thirsty for beauty and transcendence.

 

[Cranch]

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone IRL in the last 20 years who has said that they prefer the old Mass.

This reminds me of that journalist in NYC who wondered “How could Bush have been reelected? I don’t know anyone who voted for him!”

Once you assure them that you are obedient to the Pope and your bishop and that you endorse Vatican II, and are not into extreme-right-wing political theories, they will see nothing suspicious about your preference.

Nothing like a little Christian benefit of the doubt! Just curious, though—what do political theories have to do with this? Or is this an admission that the post-Vatican II Church is truly liberal (that is, right wing = extreme; left wing, not so much).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

… I honestly do want those of you who prefer TLM to have a full access to it. In my parish, if I learn of anyone who wants it, I will champion their cause, even though I most likely would not be a regular participant. But what it takes for me to do this, to support you, takes a great leap of faith because there is no reciprocity from your side. I support access to TLM, and support it, and support it, but in my experience traditionalists DO NOT support the other side. All I hear is how terrible the NO is, how irreverant, how difficult it is to adore, about all the liturgical abuses, how bad the music is…nothing ever supportive, and rarely do I read about any traditionalists that actually step out on a limb and become part of the parish community by volunteering as catechists or sacristans or altar server trainers. It’s wearing me down.

Christians, cannot we love one another?

Like DustinsDad I do think this is a fair critique. However, I would like to point out that there are good critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae which are good and while honest are fairly charitable. My signature link by Dietrich von Hildebrand is one example. There are also works such as “The Heresy of Formlessness” (Ignatius Press) or “Reform of the Reform?” (Ignatius Press) which are well written and thought-provoking. I also think of the works by Fr. Aidan Nichols and Dom Alcuin Reid. Those two are truly gentlemen and scholars and one can learn a lot from them regardless of one’s liturgical persuasion.

 

[Aramis]

Why is do they dislike the TLM so much? And why are they so against it making a big come back?

Those who love the new mass love it for a variety of reasons.

The lack of the vernacular, the rigidity of the posture, the poor pronunciation of Latin, and the rejection of the will of the Bishops are all perceived problems with the TLM.

I know a few who would welcome it. And every one of them welcomes it because they grew up with it, and every one of them can rattle off prayers by rote without inflection (or even word and punctuation breaks) in latin. It’s comfort; it also borders on vain repetition; most of these I have met can’t tell one what the individual words are, let alone what they mean.

Something along the lines of
Paternosterquiesincaelisantificatumomentum. (breath)
adveniatregnumtum fiat voluntastua

etc…

These people, proudly praying in a language they neither understand nor are willing to study, vainly repeating from memory whilst slaughtering the language. These are the people who give the TLM a big black eye, and they are not even part of the TLM movement!

Likewise, the SSPX have given Institute of Christ the King and FSSP a bad image as well. Few laymen in the Roman Church Sui Iuris are aware that there is a difference between these, or even that there are 22 other expressions of Catholicity in the Church.

It’s getting to the point were I don’t like talking to non-traditional Catholics because they have totally different viewpoints to me. I’m not saying that I’m better than anyone, but it seems that we believe in different things.

It is this very dichotomy which prompts me to pray for the Traditionalists to have a separate Latin-Trent Church Sui Iuris.

It would be better for the TLMers, and reduce confusion for the NOers. And would truly make the TLM a publicly valid, and protected from Roman NO Bishops, expression of Catholicity.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by verdigirl
…"and rarely do I read about any traditionalists that actually step out on a limb and become part of the parish community by volunteering as catechists or sacristans or altar server trainers. It’s wearing me down."

There is a divide. Sadly, the Lex Orendi is now different in the two spheres. Would a traditionalist be “forced” to teach ecumanism as it’s currently practiced in the Church? Would he be “forced” to train girl-altar-boys? Or would he/she, by teaching what the Church has always taught as it always taught it, be shown the door? These are real world issues that would pop up in the situations you describe as never seeing…there may just be a reason this sort of thing isn’t common - not all of it the fault of the traditionalist folks.

This is exactly why many Catholics are suspicious. If a “traditionalist” simply prefers the John XXIII Mass whilst acknowledging the authority of his Pope, bishop and parish priest, that is no problem. When he refuses to comply with their ecumenism or their appointment of female altar servers, or claims that what the Church teaches now is not what it has always taught, then yes that is a big problem, so don’t pretend it’s just about the right to prefer a different form of the Mass.

Let’s hope we still share the* Lex Credendi!* The One True Faith!

I hope so, but comments like yours make people wonder.

 

[Petergee]

This reminds me of that journalist in NYC who wondered “How could Bush have been reelected? I don’t know anyone who voted for him!”

Are you suggesting that there are millions of people out there who prefer the old Mass and that I am somehow choosing not to associate with them? I don’t think so.

Nothing like a little Christian benefit of the doubt! Just curious, though—what do political theories have to do with this?

Don’t shoot the messenger. You know as well as I do that “traditionalist Catholicism” is associated in the public mind with far right wing politics, and not without reason. Yes it’s unfair that all “traditionalists” have to bear the stigma of the stereotype created by the behaviour of some of them, but that’s the situation. I didn’t create it, I’m only reporting it.

Or is this an admission that the post-Vatican II Church is truly liberal (that is, right wing = extreme; left wing, not so much).

I not only “admit” but I proudly proclaim, that the Catholic Church has been truly liberal throughout its history.

 

[Pug]

and rarely do I read about any traditionalists that actually step out on a limb and become part of the parish community by volunteering as catechists or sacristans or altar server trainers. It’s wearing me down.

I am not a traditionalist, but I feel that it can be very hard to participate in certain areas at the parish. You mentioned catechists so I’ll mention this. I am on the RCIA team, and part of what we technically have to do is stand there in front of the parish and say that the candidates (catechumens) are pursuing a Christian life. Sometimes you have the unfortunate knowledge that every single one is currently cohabiting. So, you can not show up for the scrutinies, or you can decide that the RCIA team is not for you, or you can accept this reality.

In my experience, things that make you have to make choices pop up all over the place. I don’t know the answer to this type of problem, not off-hand. But some of the hardest part of volunteering is seeing things or being required to do things that are emotionally difficult.

 

[Cat]

Amen! As do the rest of us normal Catholics.

And so, by inference, I am an “abnormal” Catholic?!!

Scotty PGH, please stop to think before you hit the “send.”