The future of traditional Catholicism 2

[marthaferretti]

I failed to make the point I was hoping to in my previous post so I thought I’d try restating my thoughts/questions and see what other people think.

In my previous post I cited the example of a younger pastor who changed the character of his parish by introducing many traditional practices to the Mass and pieties to his church. My understanding is he did this because he thought it was the right thing to do, not because his parishioners were asking for it.

Several commenters on my original thread opined that the growth of the traditional movement in the Church will be dependent on the level of demand from the laity. I would suggest otherwise for the following reasons.

1. The new order of Mass was established in the life of the Church from the top down because that’s the way the Church is ordered. How much demand was there from the laity in the late 60’s for a new order of Mass to be promulgated? I would suggest none since Catholics had never experienced a new order of Mass so they couldn’t demand something that didn’t exist.

Would it not make sense that some of the growth in traditional Catholicism would also start from the top (bishops/dioceses, priests/parishes) and not because it’s what the laity is requesting?

1. If the trend of more traditional seminarians/priests continues, shouldn’t Catholics expect similar situations as the one I described above where a priest introduced the TLM w/o demand from his parishioners? Isn’t that what happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s when the manner in which the Mass was celebrated changed because priests introduced these changes to their parishes - in many cases outside what the Church prescribed?
2. Is it reasonable to expect that traditional Catholicism will be limited to those areas (dioceses, regions, countries, continents) where growth has happened in the last 20 years? I’ve seen several videos from Church Militant in which Mr. Voris describes his personal experience with the growth of traditional Catholicism from around the world (Australia, Philippines, South America, Europe etc.)

Could it not be the case that these parts of the world are where the US was 20 years ago when it comes to growth of traditional Catholicism? Just because there has not been a large demand in the past in certain areas, does that mean there won’t be demand in the future? How much will the internet and instant info speed the growth of traditional Catholicism since Catholics have means of information that didn’t exist 20 years ago?

 

[Lawrence178]

1. The new order of Mass was established in the life of the Church from the top down because that’s the way the Church is ordered. How much demand was there from the laity in the late 60’s for a new order of Mass to be promulgated? I would suggest none since Catholics had never experienced a new order of Mass so they couldn’t demand something that didn’t exist

I only know anecdotes, I don’t have hard numbers.

But I’ve met many old people and been told about many more (such as my grandparents) that have said that they didn’t want the changes, that they preferred the Old Mass.

My priest and other priests have also told me that support for the changing of the liturgy was almost universal in their seminary classes.

 

[Cat]

I failed to make the point I was hoping to in my previous post so I thought I’d try restating my thoughts/questions and see what other people think.

In my previous post I cited the example of a younger pastor who changed the character of his parish by introducing many traditional practices to the Mass and pieties to his church. My understanding is he did this because he thought it was the right thing to do, not because his parishioners were asking for it.

Several commenters on my original thread opined that the growth of the traditional movement in the Church will be dependent on the level of demand from the laity. I would suggest otherwise for the following reasons.

1. The new order of Mass was established in the life of the Church from the top down because that’s the way the Church is ordered. How much demand was there from the laity in the late 60’s for a new order of Mass to be promulgated? I would suggest none since Catholics had never experienced a new order of Mass so they couldn’t demand something that didn’t exist.

Would it not make sense that some of the growth in traditional Catholicism would also start from the top (bishops/dioceses, priests/parishes) and not because it’s what the laity is requesting?

1. If the trend of more traditional seminarians/priests continues, shouldn’t Catholics expect similar situations as the one I described above where a priest introduced the TLM w/o demand from his parishioners? Isn’t that what happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s when the manner in which the Mass was celebrated changed because priests introduced these changes to their parishes - in many cases outside what the Church prescribed?
2. Is it reasonable to expect that traditional Catholicism will be limited to those areas (dioceses, regions, countries, continents) where growth has happened in the last 20 years? I’ve seen several videos from Church Militant in which Mr. Voris describes his personal experience with the growth of traditional Catholicism from around the world (Australia, Philippines, South America, Europe etc.)

Could it not be the case that these parts of the world are where the US was 20 years ago when it comes to growth of traditional Catholicism? Just because there has not been a large demand in the past in certain areas, does that mean there won’t be demand in the future? How much will the internet and instant info speed the growth of traditional Catholicism since Catholics have means of information that didn’t exist 20 years ago?

I don’t know, marthafarretti, In our area, several of the young priests have tried implementing more traditional practices in the OF Masses (chant, eliminating the four hymns, eliminating all instruments except the organ, kneeling to receive Holy Communion, pressure to receive Holy Communion on the tongue instead of the hand, more Latin, etc.)

The response was not only negative, it was loudly negative. Essentially, the parishioners demanded that the bishop change their priest back to a more up-to-date priest.

The changes were made, and the young priests were moved to other parishes or to administrative positions.

I was not Catholic back during the time of Vatican II (I was Evangelical Protestant), and I was also just a child. You say “I would suggest none since Catholics had never experienced a new order of Mass so they couldn’t demand something that didn’t exist.”

But it DID exist in the Evangelical Protestant churches, which were experiencing many changes back during Vatican II. Most of the Evangelical Protestant churches dumped much of the traditional liturgy and introduced glorious praise music, more lively gospel hymns, and eventually, rock music into the worship services. The pastors worked to preach sermons that were not just expositions of the Bible, but were “life lessons” applicable to daily life of the members. And in the children’s and youth programs, the old “Sunday School curricula” was replaced with “Activity Centers,” where we sang, made crafts, did service projects, had Sword Drills, and heard teaching that was relevant to our young lives.

And our churches were growing! I can still remember how exciting it was to see dozens of new people in our church EVERY WEEK! And many of the churches either had to move out of their old downtown church buildings and build new, modern buildings in the growing subdivisions, OR the churches that were already in the subdivisions built additions to accommodate the new people.

Here’s the thing, marthaferretti–a LOT of those visitors to our churches were CATHOLICS. Oh, my goodness, not a week went by but that we didn’t have a testimony from yet another Catholic who had left their “old, out-of-touch church” to become “real Christians” at our church.

So IMO, your theory that “there was no demand” is incorrect. My theory is that there was growing restlessness and great demand among Catholics who wanted to see their churches “livelier” just like the Evangelical Protestant churches.

Interestingly, I do remember that after those changes were made and the OF Mass was up and running in our city, our pastors made friends with and met regularly with the Catholic priests in the city, and there were joint service projects between our church and the closest Catholic church. I never remember any anti-Catholicism from my pastors and my Evangelical Protestant church. Most of us thought that Catholics were “real Christians” who just kept a lot of their ancient traditions in their Mass. So I think that the OF Mass actually helped relationships between Catholics and Protestants, and I think that the OF Mass brought us closer to an eventual re-unification. I pray that it will happen during my lifetime!

 

[RPRPsych]

1. The new order of Mass was established in the life of the Church from the top down because that’s the way the Church is ordered. How much demand was there from the laity in the late 60’s for a new order of Mass to be promulgated? I would suggest none since Catholics had never experienced a new order of Mass so they couldn’t demand something that didn’t exist.

Would it not make sense that some of the growth in traditional Catholicism would also start from the top (bishops/dioceses, priests/parishes) and not because it’s what the laity is requesting?

1. If the trend of more traditional seminarians/priests continues, shouldn’t Catholics expect similar situations as the one I described above where a priest introduced the TLM w/o demand from his parishioners? Isn’t that what happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s when the manner in which the Mass was celebrated changed because priests introduced these changes to their parishes - in many cases outside what the Church prescribed?

These are very good points. If we have less of the “God-Our-Father-And-Mother” kind of theology (I’m not singling out any individual priest - I blame the formation, or lack thereof) and more orthodoxy, then things will gradually move in a more “traditional” (i.e. orthodox) direction. Whether this will lead to the TLM or merely to a “traditional OF” (especially in parts of the world where cultural attachment to Latin is relatively less) is a matter of debate, though.

1. Is it reasonable to expect that traditional Catholicism will be limited to those areas (dioceses, regions, countries, continents) where growth has happened in the last 20 years? I’ve seen several videos from Church Militant in which Mr. Voris describes his personal experience with the growth of traditional Catholicism from around the world (Australia, Philippines, South America, Europe etc.)

Could it not be the case that these parts of the world are where the US was 20 years ago when it comes to growth of traditional Catholicism? Just because there has not been a large demand in the past in certain areas, does that mean there won’t be demand in the future? How much will the internet and instant info speed the growth of traditional Catholicism since Catholics have means of information that didn’t exist 20 years ago?

I think it depends a lot on how Traditional Catholicism is presented in other cultures.

As long as it is presented authentically, as part of the Church’s heritage, and shorn of political trappings, there is hope.

But if it becomes the sort of thing I’ve seen on other forums (“Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus! Oh, wait, except for my favourite politician / author / soapboxer! And by the way, I really don’t like Francis the Modernist!”) then I don’t think it’ll catch on, particularly in Asia. Asians are used to hypocrisy and have a low threshold for detecting it, even if they’ll put up with a lot of it when forced to.

 

[EphelDuath]

I think the lay movement for traditionalism is quite unique and unheard of. The greatest fruit of Vatican II, bar none, is that now there’s a global and widespread love of the traditions of the Church, rather than only a handful of liturgical scholars knowing much about it. There’s some talk that traditionalist laypeople is just a reaction against the “spirit of Vatican II” clergy, but I disagree – I think they’re here to stay.

There was no Rorate Caeli, Corpus Christi Watershed, Latin Mass Society, New Liturgical Movement, Fr. Z, and what not in the '70s, and there is absolutely no anti-traditonalist equivalent to them; the people that grumble about traditions are either aging and swiftly approaching irrelevance, OR young, maleducated, and unorganized. The former are going to reach retirement soon and stop infecting the Church, and the latter are more than likely going to abandon Catholicism altogether as soon as they can stop profiting from it. Meanwhile, there’s a whole new crop of well-formed, tradition-loving, and stubborn youth coming up that won’t turn from the Church no matter what. It will take a few more decades before people who grew up loving the TLM like no other generation in history reaches the age to be ordained bishop. Then we might see the fruits of laypeople defending tradition.

 

[severus68]

I think the lay movement for traditionalism is quite unique and unheard of. The greatest fruit of Vatican II, bar none, is that now there’s a global and widespread love of the traditions of the Church, rather than only a handful of liturgical scholars knowing much about it. There’s some talk that traditionalist laypeople is just a reaction against the “spirit of Vatican II” clergy, but I disagree – I think they’re here to stay.

There was no Rorate Caeli, Corpus Christi Watershed, Latin Mass Society, New Liturgical Movement, Fr. Z, and what not in the '70s, and there is absolutely no anti-traditonalist equivalent to them; the people that grumble about traditions are either aging and swiftly approaching irrelevance, OR young, maleducated, and unorganized. The former are going to reach retirement soon and stop infecting the Church, and the latter are more than likely going to abandon Catholicism altogether as soon as they can stop profiting from it. Meanwhile, there’s a whole new crop of well-formed, tradition-loving, and stubborn youth coming up that won’t turn from the Church no matter what. It will take a few more decades before people who grew up loving the TLM like no other generation in history reaches the age to be ordained bishop. Then we might see the fruits of laypeople defending tradition.

A rather cynical and insulting post.

No, not everyone, not most Catholics, love and want all of the traditions as opposed to Tradition. Those who don’t love all traditions should not be labelled “irrelevant”, “maleducated” or any other insulting term.

Your spiritually is your own and you are free to love what traditions you like. That applies to everyone else.

 

[JReducation]

I think the lay movement for traditionalism is quite unique and unheard of. The greatest fruit of Vatican II, bar none, is that now there’s a global and widespread love of the traditions of the Church, rather than only a handful of liturgical scholars knowing much about it. There’s some talk that traditionalist laypeople is just a reaction against the “spirit of Vatican II” clergy, but I disagree – I think they’re here to stay.

There was no Rorate Caeli, Corpus Christi Watershed, Latin Mass Society, New Liturgical Movement, Fr. Z, and what not in the '70s, and there is absolutely no anti-traditonalist equivalent to them; the people that grumble about traditions are either aging and swiftly approaching irrelevance, OR young, maleducated, and unorganized. The former are going to reach retirement soon and stop infecting the Church, and the latter are more than likely going to abandon Catholicism altogether as soon as they can stop profiting from it. Meanwhile, there’s a whole new crop of well-formed, tradition-loving, and stubborn youth coming up that won’t turn from the Church no matter what. It will take a few more decades before people who grew up loving the TLM like no other generation in history reaches the age to be ordained bishop. Then we might see the fruits of laypeople defending tradition.

Whoah! Slow down here. I happen to belong to that older generation. I do not consider myself irrelevant, maleducated, nor an infection in the life of the Church. I hope others here don’t think of me in those terms either.

This kind of rhetoric is precisely why traditionalists like me never refer to ourselves as traditional Catholics, but simply as good Catholics and good Franciscans. We don’t want to be associated with an expression of Catholicism that is arrogant, unjust, judgmental, prideful, callous in its commentary, and feels that it can get away from eternal judgment; therefore, it’s OK to condemn others.

I think you do Catholic tradition a great disservice by speaking at all. Silence is a virtue and at times it is a moral obligation if one has nothing uplifting to say about one’s brothers and sisters.

This is where I shut up.

 

[otjm]

;This post suffers from the same issue which the previous post did, and to go back to my high school Jesuit teachers, can be corrected by their constant dictum; “Define your terms!”.

What exactly do we mean by a return to “traditions”? Use of the organ as opposed to the piano? Gregorian chant (which was a tradition that was having problems, as in a decrease in use, prior to Vatican 2)? Use of Latin and Greek for the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei? All Latin in the OF? Use of incense at Sunday Mass (done in my local Trappist abbey every Sunday, and not done in my parish pre-Vatican 2 - so questionable as to “tradition”)? Novenas of Mother of Perpetual Help on Tuesdays? Rogation days (done now in my archdiocese)? First Fridays? First Saturdays?

Or are we talking about the EF?

Nothing in Summorum Pontificum indicated that priests were to introduce the EF as a public Mass on their own initiative, at least as far as I have read both SP and Benedict’s accompanying letter. And as one poster noted, a priest coming into a parish and making rapid changes on his own initiative, particularly if this is a parish not particularly open to those changes, may find that he and his bishop are going to be sitting down and having a chat; and the poster is not the only person who has seen a priest do so and soon be sent packing.

Benedict posited that the OF could be influenced by the EF, and the EF by the OF. Given his comments, it will be some time before that takes place as the Church is slow to make changes. There is anecdotal information concerning the EF itself, often given with a great deal of enthusiasm by those who esteem it, and not often put into context. That, too, along with a lack of definition of terms, muddies the waters.

Will there be more parishes offering the EF? I have no doubt whatsoever, given that SP was written not that long ago and it takes time for training priests in the rubrics. Will it spread to the majority of parishes? I seriously doubt that, as from all appearances, current attendance is limited even where it occurs. Will there be further changes to the OF? Most likely. But there is no evidence to support an opinion that it will change radically.

 

[GangGreen]

“Define your terms!”.

OK: While, I would love to have the EF in every parish and not have to travel for a high mass, this may take a long time if ever. However, I’ll take some of yours suggestions regarding the OF Mass and add a few more:

Use of the organ as opposed to the piano? Yes

Gregorian chant (which was a tradition that was having problems, as in a decrease in use, prior to Vatican 2)? Yes, any problems with Gregorian chant are due to not enough people being taught it. Does every single Mass need to use chant? I don’t think so, but every parish should offer at least one Mass every Sunday with chant.

Use of Latin and Greek for the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei? Yes, this would be nice, again, maybe including this in one or more Masses every Sunday is a great start.

All Latin in the OF? See above

Use of incense at Sunday Mass (done in my local Trappist abbey every Sunday, and not done in my parish pre-Vatican 2 - so questionable as to “tradition”)? There’s a reason why reform was needed pre-Vatican 2. There were MANY abuses and lax attitudes towards the rubrics even before Vatican 2. So yes, incense which have been used from the beginning of Christianity and back into Judaism and mentioned in many places in the Bible should be used every Sunday.

Some more:

How about Ad Orientem posture during the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

How about the reintroduction of the sotto voce Canon?

How about the use of Eucharistic Prayer I for all Sunday Masses and Feasts and reserving EP 2, 3, 4 for weekdays?

How about bringing back communion rails and having people receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling?

All of these things are currently allowed in the OF (except maybe the sotto voce Canon), but are not used.

Better yet, how about all of the symbolism in the EF? The 9-fold kyrie which is sung three times each to each person in the Trinity to symbolize the Trinity? Same goes for ringing the bells 3 times during consecration and 3 times saying the Domine non sum dignus. How about the amount of times that the priest makes the sign of the cross in the EF (52 times)? One of the biggest crimes (so to say) of the OF is the stripping away of the great symbolism that is drenched in the EF.

So yes, reintroduce these traditional things into the OF. That’s what I ask for at least.

 

[Denise1957]

Would it not make sense that some of the growth in traditional Catholicism would also start from the top (bishops/dioceses, priests/parishes) and not because it’s what the laity is requesting?

1. If the trend of more traditional seminarians/priests continues, shouldn’t Catholics expect similar situations as the one I described above where a priest introduced the TLM w/o demand from his parishioners? Isn’t that what happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s when the manner in which the Mass was celebrated changed because priests introduced these changes to their parishes - in many cases outside what the Church prescribed?

Your question about growth in traditional Catholicism starting from the top (bishops/dioceses, priests/parishes) is a good one. I don’t know of any TLM’s that were started from the top, except for the one you mentioned, but maybe there are quite a few. Actually, I think that Archbishop Cordileone may have stated one in San Francisco, just because he loves the TLM (as does Archbishop Alex Sample of Portland, OR). I think that there will be a growth in the areas where the bishop is sympathetic to the TLM.

I think you may be right, though, that we may see more offered from the top in the future, due to more young priests and even bishops being interested in the TLM and older devotions. But it will be a slow growth, IMO. It’s interesting that Mr. Voris saw a trend toward tradition in other countries.

 

[felsguy]

Whoah! Slow down here. I happen to belong to that older generation. I do not consider myself irrelevant, maleducated, nor an infection in the life of the Church. I hope others here don’t think of me in those terms either.

This kind of rhetoric is precisely why traditionalists like me never refer to ourselves as traditional Catholics, but simply as good Catholics and good Franciscans. We don’t want to be associated with an expression of Catholicism that is arrogant, unjust, judgmental, prideful, callous in its commentary, and feels that it can get away from eternal judgment; therefore, it’s OK to condemn others.

I think you do Catholic tradition a great disservice by speaking at all. Silence is a virtue and at times it is a moral obligation if one has nothing uplifting to say about one’s brothers and sisters.

This is where I shut up.

Ditto for me…except for the part about being a Franciscan (still hoping to get to heaven though ) …and maybe the part about shutting up

.