The traditionalist and the modernist.

[Stephentlig]

Hi all, recently I had a discussion with Catholic apologist john salza, who by the way is one of my favourite apologists out there at the moment. I almost have all his books on every subject.

There is something that worries me about both the traditionalist and modernist. I told him that I feel both have separated themselves from the oneness of the church. The trads by their disobedience to Vatican II and the modernists by their misinterpretation of vat II.

He of course seems to think that the new mass has ruined the church. I contended that Christ moves with his church. and if the church has the authority to change the mass from the liturgy of chrysostom and progress from there to the new mass then we must follow it. obedience is very important as is ecumenism.

When I hear these two groups argue I’m reminded of what Archbishop fulton sheen once said that the church is more fundamental than the fundamentalist and more modern than the modernist.

therefore we are either catholic or we are not? which is it? John seems to think that to take the ‘‘middle road’’ isnt good enough. However I fail to see his logic.

I recently wrote about this topic on my blog, so if you wish to get a more well-rounded view of my thoughts on this subject you can view its post at: loyaltothemagisterium.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/traditionalism-and-modernism/

whats your stance? am I in the wrong?

Pax
Stephen

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree with you. While I see the value of holding on to tradition, I think many traditionalists or at least those I come across has the wrong understanding of what holding on to tradition means. Oftentimes it does seem that there is just a desire to hold on to something for the sake of holding on to something instead of valuing what the tradition really means and what it brings. Holding on for the sake of it is also harmful as it prevents organic development. Understanding the essence of tradition will let you develop the Liturgy and keep it within the tradition.

For modernists, it goes without saying. They only think with emotion and leave reason behind. Every change should be done well with both emotion and reason. Changes in Liturgy should have the same goal, to make people Holy and not just to make them happy. Holiness gives eternal happiness, happiness on earth is temporary.

 

[Stephentlig]

I agree with you. While I see the value of holding on to tradition, I think many traditionalists or at least those I come across has the wrong understanding of what holding on to tradition means. Oftentimes it does seem that there is just a desire to hold on to something for the sake of holding on to something instead of valuing what the tradition really means and what it brings. Holding on for the sake of it is also harmful as it prevents organic development. Understanding the essence of tradition will let you develop the Liturgy and keep it within the tradition.

For modernists, it goes without saying. They only think with emotion and leave reason behind. Every change should be done well with both emotion and reason. Changes in Liturgy should have the same goal, to make people Holy and not just to make them happy. Holiness gives eternal happiness, happiness on earth is temporary.

Constantine, you said it better than I ever could thank you. The church has a living tradition and we must move with this. We can celebrate the liturgy of St.John, the Latin new mass as proposed and set up by the church since vatican II and the new mass and learn to enjoy the whole orchestra.

the modernists though seem to be at a height within the church and are damaging the church greatly with their teachings that women can be priests and their unorthodox teaching upon scripture amongst other important abc’s of our faith. I can sympatize with the trads but it seems that both have fallen from the narrow path that leads to christ. I do not claim to be on that narrow path, its something I struggle to travel but I’m sure you know what I mean.

Pax
Stephen

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, you said it better than I ever could thank you. The church has a living tradition and we must move with this. We can celebrate the liturgy of St.John, the Latin new mass as proposed and set up by the church since vatican II and the new mass and learn to enjoy the whole orchestra.

the modernists though seem to be at a height within the church and are damaging the church greatly with their teachings that women can be priests and their unorthodox teaching upon scripture amongst other important abc’s of our faith. I can sympatize with the trads but it seems that both have fallen from the narrow path that leads to christ. I do not claim to be on that narrow path, its something I struggle to travel but I’m sure you know what I mean.

Pax
Stephen

Yes, like I said its all emotion. The emotion of society today says gays should be granted equal rights and women should be able to do what men does. So they want women priests for the sake of political correctness, thats all thinking with emotion but not reason. There is a reason why women are not priests. Many of the arguments doesn’t even argue about the value of a priest, just the desire to see a woman at the altar. One comment I read is, “I cannot accept a faith that won’t even allow the Blessed Virgin Mary or Mother Theresa to become a priest.” That is emotion talking there. They didn’t even argue the merits of what a priest is and does. They just want saintly women to be priests, thats it. I’m pretty sure the Theotokos and Mother Theresa never wanted to become priests and they understand why. Modernists should learn that reason.

Yes, the path is indeed narrow. A narrow path simply means that a little deviation from it means you’re already walking outside the path of Christ. Think of the scale of modernism and traditionalism as the angles on a protractor. We should all be walking straight, 90-degrees if you hold the protractor in front of you. An ounce too much of modernism or an ounce too much of false traditionalism would deviate you, even if you’re walking 89-degrees or 91-degrees, we’re already outside the path.

 

[Stephentlig]

Yes, like I said its all emotion. The emotion of society today says gays should be granted equal rights and women should be able to do what men does. So they want women priests for the sake of political correctness, thats all thinking with emotion but not reason. There is a reason why women are not priests. Many of the arguments doesn’t even argue about the value of a priest, just the desire to see a woman at the altar. One comment I read is, “I cannot accept a faith that won’t even allow the Blessed Virgin Mary or Mother Theresa to become a priest.” That is emotion talking there. They didn’t even argue the merits of what a priest is and does. They just want saintly women to be priests, thats it. I’m pretty sure the Theotokos and Mother Theresa never wanted to become priests and they understand why. Modernists should learn that reason.

Yes, the path is indeed narrow. A narrow path simply means that a little deviation from it means you’re already walking outside the path of Christ. Think of the scale of modernism and traditionalism as the angles on a protractor. We should all be walking straight, 90-degrees if you hold the protractor in front of you. An ounce too much of modernism or an ounce too much of false traditionalism would deviate you, even if you’re walking 89-degrees or 91-degrees, we’re already outside the path.

Constantine, I am surely blessed to have met you. I praise God for such great faith I wish I had that in me too. archbishop fulton sheen said that humans have a habit of saying ‘‘their is a crisis in morals’’ rather than ‘‘there is a crisis in the human’’ who fails to apply himself to the morals. thus modernists are trying to bend the morals to suit the weakness of the people and win their approval rather than helping the people overcome that weakness- through Gods Grace- and apply themselves to the moral discipline.

for example: a mathematician is teaching a student that 2+2=4. The student however keeps coming up with a sum of 2+2= 5. Does the math teacher bend the law of physics and allow the child to come up with the wrong sum just to suit his weakness? or does he to the contrary try and help the student over come his weakness and get the sum right?

right now many are changing the unchangable truths of our faith to suit the weakness of society and it is a tragedy.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Stephen,

Here are my thoughts.

I disagree with your contention that “Christ moves with the church”. I am not sure what you use as a premise for that, other than it is just your feeling. Christ IS the church and vice versa. The church, as the Mystical Body, does not conform to the world or current sympathies.

As far as organic changes to the Mass, most traditionalists would argue that organic growth has always been a part of the Mass over the centuries with additions and alterations made to perfect, as it were, the Holy Sacrifice in some way. What happened in the span of a few years to the Mass was much more radical than organic. It is not surprising for someone who has only ever assisted at the New Mass to think, when exposed to the TLM, that they are seeing the ceremony of another religion (which was actually the reaction of a relative of mine in that situation).

I don’t believe that the New Mass ruined the church. If he considers that the church is ruined because only 30% of professed Catholics attend weekly Mass or any of the other maladies that afflict the church, I believe that is more due to a deviation from both the theology and the discipline characteristic of the church which began a decline as early as the turn of the century but accelerated significantly after WWII, culminating in a church that puts more emphasis on a man-centered ethos - that is, the church, our beliefs, our practices, and even our morality to a certain extent (i.e. Catholics For Choice) must evolve with the changes in society and the human condition.

The bottom line, as you said, is that we all need to be Catholic, united in thought and practice. Our Blessed Mother promised that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph. So we do have that to look forward to.!

 

[Iotaunum]

I dont think there is a middle road between traditional Catholic Theology and Modernism. The problem is that (as I stated in another thread) that the terms have been redefined. What was denounced as Modernism by Pope St Pius X is modernism -period. Thus, one cannot say the syllabus “no longer applies” without being a modernist, as st Pius X explained in his encyclial. Very few liberals and Modernists are willing to admit that they are so. They prefer to be called “progressive” and “neo -conservative”, as if conservatism could be redefined (as the modernists are wont to do).

You will probably consider me a rebel bacuase I hold Catholic teaching as it has been constantly taught for up until the second Vatican Council. I am willing to discuss with anyone any aspect of Vatican II which overturned traditional Catholic teaching, and understand their point of view -however I do not like to be called a rebel, because I worship and believe as my grandparents and their parents and the Saints did.

On a related point, I see on your blog “Anne the lay Apostle” books being reccommeded. Her stuff I would consider liberal and modernist. (I have spoken to her and researched her material indepth). I wrote about this on another thread.

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephen,

Here are my thoughts.

I disagree with your contention that “Christ moves with the church”. I am not sure what you use as a premise for that, other than it is just your feeling. Christ IS the church and vice versa. The church, as the Mystical Body, does not conform to the world or current sympathies.

As far as organic changes to the Mass, most traditionalists would argue that organic growth has always been a part of the Mass over the centuries with additions and alterations made to perfect, as it were, the Holy Sacrifice in some way. What happened in the span of a few years to the Mass was much more radical than organic. It is not surprising for someone who has only ever assisted at the New Mass to think, when exposed to the TLM, that they are seeing the ceremony of another religion (which was actually the reaction of a relative of mine in that situation).

I don’t believe that the New Mass ruined the church. If he considers that the church is ruined because only 30% of professed Catholics attend weekly Mass or any of the other maladies that afflict the church, I believe that is more due to a deviation from both the theology and the discipline characteristic of the church which began a decline as early as the turn of the century but accelerated significantly after WWII, culminating in a church that puts more emphasis on a man-centered ethos - that is, the church, our beliefs, our practices, and even our morality to a certain extent (i.e. Catholics For Choice) must evolve with the changes in society and the human condition.

The bottom line, as you said, is that we all need to be Catholic, united in thought and practice. Our Blessed Mother promised that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph. So we do have that to look forward to.!

but this is it, Our Lady of Fatimas crisis in which she talked about is being lived out in both the trad and the modernist. Both who attack the church and yet fail to see it.

The changing of the mass was not radical, it has brought about a great conversion in the church. What was radical was the trads and the modernists who, like the two blind men in the Gospe,l are leading the faithful away from the fruits of Vatican II and into the pit of error and its a tragedy.

Neithers views are accepted by rome.

Pax
Stephen

 

[Stephentlig]

What I forgot to mention was about Christ moving with his church.

Christ moves with his church for Christ promotes Holy obedience. All the saints down through the centuries stressed Holy Obedience. Jesus loves holy obedience. this is what I mean when I say that ‘‘Christ moves with his Church’’ that church being the one that the trads and modernists have failed to move with.

 

[Student09]

I told him that I feel both have separated themselves from the oneness of the church. The trads by their disobedience to Vatican II and the modernists by their misinterpretation of vat II.

Not all traditionalists are disobedient to the Church (my impression is that most *are *obedient). Can you explain what you mean by “disobedience to Vatican II”? I just don’t understand the phrase. A specific example would be helpful.

 

[Stephentlig]

I dont think there is a middle road between traditional Catholic Theology and Modernism. The problem is that (as I stated in another thread) that the terms have been redefined. What was denounced as Modernism by Pope St Pius X is modernism -period. Thus, one cannot say the syllabus “no longer applies” without being a modernist, as st Pius X explained in his encyclial. Very few liberals and Modernists are willing to admit that they are so. They prefer to be called “progressive” and “neo -conservative”, as if conservatism could be redefined (as the modernists are wont to do).

You will probably consider me a rebel bacuase I hold Catholic teaching as it has been constantly taught for up until the second Vatican Council. I am willing to discuss with anyone any aspect of Vatican II which overturned traditional Catholic teaching, and understand their point of view -however I do not like to be called a rebel, because I worship and believe as my grandparents and their parents and the Saints did.

On a related point, I see on your blog “Anne the lay Apostle” books being reccommeded. Her stuff I would consider liberal and modernist. (I have spoken to her and researched her material indepth). I wrote about this on another thread.

it is not my job to pass judgement my brother, the church is meek with those erring but vicious with the error. it is up to you to search for truth and I shall have you in my prayers and request that you do the same.

Ann the lay apostle? well I’ve yet to meet a trad or modernist that accepts Ann, Vassula Ryden, Medugorje or Garabandal. Probably because all revelations/prohecies are not to their conveinence. For both have a biased interpretation of Church teaching.

Pax
Stephen

because all apparitions/revelations seem to challenge both

 

[Stephentlig]

Not all traditionalists are disobedient to the Church (my impression is that most *are *obedient). Can you explain what you mean by “disobedience to Vatican II”? I just don’t understand the phrase. A specific example would be helpful.

Not accepting the new mass and latin as laid laid down by Vatican II their attack on religious liberty and ecumenism also as laid down by the Church.

Pax
Stephen

 

[OraLabora]

I agree with you. While I see the value of holding on to tradition, I think many traditionalists or at least those I come across has the wrong understanding of what holding on to tradition means. Oftentimes it does seem that there is just a desire to hold on to something for the sake of holding on to something instead of valuing what the tradition really means and what it brings. Holding on for the sake of it is also harmful as it prevents organic development. Understanding the essence of tradition will let you develop the Liturgy and keep it within the tradition.

For modernists, it goes without saying. They only think with emotion and leave reason behind. Every change should be done well with both emotion and reason. Changes in Liturgy should have the same goal, to make people Holy and not just to make them happy. Holiness gives eternal happiness, happiness on earth is temporary.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Moreover I think a critical analysis of Vatican II would show that “tradition” wasn’t thrown overboard, and in fact in some cases we reverted to a more traditional approach. A good example is the Latin hymns for the Liturgy of the Hours.

Over time the words of many hymns had changed. When Liber Hymnarius was released in 1983 as the new collection of approved Latin hymns for both the Roman and Monastic versions of the Divine Office, many of the centuries-old original texts were restored for the hymns. Even today, in the Divine Office, the monks of Solesmes, who largely are responsible for the Gregorian chant hymns and antiphons, do painstaking research of the original manuscripts to ensure that the hymns (in usable square note notation) are as close as they can discern to the originals, in their interpretation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, I am surely blessed to have met you. I praise God for such great faith I wish I had that in me too. archbishop fulton sheen said that humans have a habit of saying ‘‘their is a crisis in morals’’ rather than ‘‘there is a crisis in the human’’ who fails to apply himself to the morals. thus modernists are trying to bend the morals to suit the weakness of the people and win their approval rather than helping the people overcome that weakness- through Gods Grace- and apply themselves to the moral discipline.

Thank you for the complement. I do have my moments when I am argumentative and sometimes for its sake throw reason out. We are all human.

I agree, morals don’t change and there is never a crisis in morals, only in our morality. Although many people will argue that morality is determined by society, that is a dangerous precept.

for example: a mathematician is teaching a student that 2+2=4. The student however keeps coming up with a sum of 2+2= 5. Does the math teacher bend the law of physics and allow the child to come up with the wrong sum just to suit his weakness? or does he to the contrary try and help the student over come his weakness and get the sum right?

While a mathematician or physicist cannot change the laws of math and physics, an accountant can make 2+2=5

(du-dum-ching!)

right now many are changing the unchangable truths of our faith to suit the weakness of society and it is a tragedy.

They want the faith to adopt instead of adopting to the faith.

A few years ago I realized something, when at the time I was in danger of falling off the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church holds such strict and high standards in morality, higher than where our current society is. For me, religion is supposed to make me better. How can going to a faith that conforms to me and lets me do what I want to do make me better? If I need someone to reinforce the crazy things I want, I should look for an enabling best friend, not religion. Religion is supposed to make us better. I hope people realize that.

 

[Student09]

Not accepting the new mass and latin as laid laid down by Vatican II their attack on religious liberty and ecumenism also as laid down by the Church.

Again your language is vague. So preferring a Latin Mass that has been approved by the Church is now “disobedience”? And what do you mean by “ecumenism,” because that word gets used in different ways and some are in line with Church teaching and some are not.

Also, if you are so “loyal” to the Church, then why are you promoting unapproved apparitions such as Medjugorje and Garabandal? How can that be a litmus test for faithfulness? Medjugorje in particular has been associated with a lot of disobedience towards the local bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Moreover I think a critical analysis of Vatican II would show that “tradition” wasn’t thrown overboard, and in fact in some cases we reverted to a more traditional approach. A good example is the Latin hymns for the Liturgy of the Hours.

Over time the words of many hymns had changed. When Liber Hymnarius was released in 1983 as the new collection of approved Latin hymns for both the Roman and Monastic versions of the Divine Office, many of the centuries-old original texts were restored for the hymns. Even today, in the Divine Office, the monks of Solesmes, who largely are responsible for the Gregorian chant hymns and antiphons, do painstaking research of the original manuscripts to ensure that the hymns (in usable square note notation) are as close as they can discern to the originals, in their interpretation.

Yesterday I was watching a video of a Ukrainian Catholic Priest making a speech about “Why English?” I wanted to share it here but I’m sure some people won’t even bother with the message and just dismiss it as, “its Eastern Catholic, its not Roman Catholic.” But I think what he said is wonderful, and this is coming from a priest of a Byzantine Parish who by standards here is very traditional. They’ve gotten rid of all Latinizations (no pews in the parish), the architecture of the entire parish is 100% Byzantine, everything conforms to Byzantine Tradition. But they are welcoming of English. In fact, the priest even mentions he’s not 100% in agreement with it but does so out of obedience of their bishops. But then he proceeds to explain why there is a need for English and how it actually upholds tradition instead of breaking it. Here’s the video:

youtube.com/watch?v=qzp_XbFRhd0

Here’s the text, highlights are mine

Some 20 years ago, our bishops gave us a new (Ukrainian) translation, and with obedience,** if not with great pleasure, but with obedience**, we introduced it into our form of prayer. And it is through this obedience to our bishops that we do things a little differently here.

Secondly, some would ask, “But why in English?”

It is only in this—You new immigrants (to Canada), that which you are, we, 50 years ago, once were.

But that which we, one-time immigrants, now are, you too will be. And so that your grandchildren and great-grandchildren could better understand our prayers when they become like us, we have a need to do it in English.

God understands not only English and Ukrainian, but also all languages–the language of the heart and sincere prayer. I thank you today for your active participation.

“Therefore, by their fruits you will know them. (Matt 7:15-20)”

 

[Stephentlig]

Again your language is vague. So preferring a Latin Mass that has been approved by the Church is now “disobedience”? And what do you mean by “ecumenism,” because that word gets used in different ways and some are in line with Church teaching and some are not.

just show me one trad or modernist that agrees with ecumenism and we shall progress from there. The sspx mass does not conform to the Vatican II Latin Mass they are both different.

Also, if you are so “loyal” to the Church, then why are you promoting unapproved apparitions such as Medjugorje and Garabandal? How can that be a litmus test for faithfulness? Medjugorje in particular has been associated with a lot of disobedience towards the local bishop.

Because the church has condemned neither. Whom are you to get on your high horse, take the chair of Peter and decide what is true and what is false? I simply accept the simple messages until my good conscience would force me otherwise. Anns bishop sees nothing wrong with the messages, neither do I. I listen to the Church.

If Medugorje was false and the Church thought disobedience was something to look at and thought disobedience rendered such apparitions as false, then the church would of condemed it a long time ago. notwithstanding, if the church thought the apparition to be false, they would not even break a sweat in sending a commission over there to make a final decision upon it.

Again I do not listen to rumours, I listen to the church.

Pax
Stephen

 

[Student09]

just show me one trad or modernist that agrees with ecumenism and we shall progress from there

First you need to define “ecumenism.”

The sspx mass does not conform to the Vatican II Latin Mass they are both different.

Not all traditionalists are SSPX. There are MANY traditionalists who attend the EF Mass (a.k.a. Extraordinary Form, Traditional Latin Mass) said by the FSSP or ICK or a diocesan EF Mass. I personally attend OF Masses on weekdays and an approved EF Mass on Sunday. Access to the EF is limited here, so depending on my schedule I may also attend an OF Mass on Sunday.

Because the church has condemned neither. Whom are you to get on your high horse, take the chair of Peter and decide what is true and what is false?

The Church has not told me to accept these apparitions, nor has it approved them. I will wait for the approval of the Church, precisely so that I do not have to decide what is true and what is false with regard to these matters. I believe in the validity of such apparitions as Lourdes and Fatima, but my faith does not depend on them, they are still optional and I would never make belief in these apparitions a litmus test for another Catholic’s obedience to the Church, even though these are actually approved.

 

[Stephentlig]

First you need to define “ecumenism.”

The Church has already done so, if it is your wish, go and do some research. Thats what I did.

Not all traditionalists are SSPX. There are MANY traditionalists who attend the EF Mass (a.k.a. Extraordinary Form, Traditional Latin Mass) said by the FSSP or ICK or a diocesan EF Mass. I personally attend OF Masses on weekdays and an approved EF Mass on Sunday. Access to the EF is limited here, so depending on my schedule I may also attend an OF Mass on Sunday.

if trads enjoy the new mass and latin one as proposed by the Vatican II council then they are ‘‘Catholic’’ not ‘‘tradtionalist’’. My advice to you is to avoid such childish and immature labels to oneself. Most of which comes from america. there is nothing worse than watch them give political labels to church members such as ‘‘hard line conservative’’ or ‘‘liberalist’’. The Church is not a political structure, it is a spiritual one.

I am talking about the extreme trads who are vehement toward vat II mass and Popes etc etc.

The Church has not told me to accept these apparitions, nor has it approved them. I will wait for the approval of the Church, precisely so that I do not have to decide what is true and what is false with regard to these matters. I believe in the validity of such apparitions as Lourdes and Fatima, but my faith does not depend on them, they are still optional and I would never make belief in these apparitions a litmus test for another Catholic’s obedience to the Church, even though these are actually approved.

and yet the church has not told you not to believe in them. you dont want to believe? thats your choice and you are free to do so. because of our rejection of fatima we had world wars etc. this is what happens when we suppress prohecy. for there is a difference in private revelation and prohecy. many bishops contend towards fatima in the 7 years before they approved it. then they approved it and still people say ‘‘I do not want to listen, nor do I have to agree with it’’. When the roman centurion came to Jesus in the Gospel, he did not come with a battery of lawyers and pharisees to examine him. He simply believed and his request was granted.

we can often become so hard in our defense of mother church, like the pharisees, and fail to recognize Jesus when he comes and thus crucify him over and over again.

the sign of a true mystic is persecution always has been.

 

[floresco]

My advice to you is to avoid such childish and immature labels to oneself.

You started a thread using “childish and immature labels” as the subject line. You have defined traditionalist so that it is necessarily a bad thing, ignoring the way that people who identify themselves as traditionalists use it. There are many devout, loyal Catholics who find the word “traditionalist” a helpful way to sum up their views. I cannot see this thread leading to anything other than confusion and bad feeling.