The traditionalist and the modernist.

[stevusmagnus]

Yesterday I was watching a video of a Ukrainian Catholic Priest making a speech about “Why English?”

With all due respect to the Ukranian Priest, I wonder how he’d feel about a Roman Rite priest lecturing him as to why he should say his Mass in Latin. It is frankly none of the Eastern Rite’s business how we say our Mass and none of our business how they say their Mass.

The Traditional Roman Rite has been in Latin for century upon century and developed that way under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I’m certain if He wanted it differently it would have happened that way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the universal language of the Church (which unites us) in the Mass. It is a dead language which is a good thing because the meaning of its words do not change over time.

 

[TEPO]

I’m somewhat sympathetic to your argument. I do understand where you’re coming from and the concern about divisions in the Church. And as I said, I do identify as “Catholic.” I don’t think I have ever used the term “traditional Catholic” to describe myself when I was not on the internet. My profile simply says “Catholic” without other description.

But what is “mainstream Catholicism”? I mean, there are people with whom I attend OF Masses whom I believe to be good and faithful Catholics, probably better Catholics than myself, they are a good example to me in many ways, and yet I would not consider them to be ‘traditional Catholics’ and I doubt they would identify as such. I think and hope that we have more in common than not, but at the same time, I’m pretty sure they do not share certain views that I have on liturgical practices that would be considered traditionalist views. Does that make sense?

Sometimes I feel like a trad, sometimes I feel like a mod… Does that make me a modernitionalist? I’m confused about my liturgical orientation…

 

[Student09]

Sometimes I feel like a trad, sometimes I feel like a mod… Does that make me a modernitionalist? I’m confused about my liturgical orientation…

LOL. You’d have to be more specific about which issues you feel which way about … before we can help you sort out your orientation …

 

[roveau]

We are all Catholics, or Roman Catholics if you insist.

To write ‘Traditional Catholic’, for example, would be suggesting a different church. Like those who define themselves as being part of the Traditional Anglican Communion, or Traditional Anglican Church, they are no longer part of the Anglican Church and are outside the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

To convey to others your own leanings, you only need to add a few words after ‘Catholic’. Like I might say, I am a Catholic with traditionalist leanings. Then in conversation I might go on about what I mean by the word ‘traditionalist’. In my case this means that though I love the Latin Mass, I mostly attend and love the Ordinary Form. I generally use all the old forms of our most common prayers in private prayer, and stick to many of the old usages in personal worship. I eat fish on Fridays but mostly because it is a more convenient way of doing something penitential on a Friday. I like to pay attention to the Church Calendar and mark the seasons (though this is actually not nostalgic and that is really one old tradition that hasn’t been changed much… but not many Catholics take advantage of these seasons of grace as they used to).

So the way I use the word traditionalist just indicates that I am a little stuck in the past - and this is fine with the Church.

But I certainly would not like to be lumped in with those who are in disobedience with Rome as it is now and after Vatican II because obedience plays a central role in Catholicism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

With all due respect to the Ukranian Priest, I wonder how he’d feel about a Roman Rite priest lecturing him as to why he should say his Mass in Latin. It is frankly none of the Eastern Rite’s business how we say our Mass and none of our business how they say their Mass.

The Traditional Roman Rite has been in Latin for century upon century and developed that way under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I’m certain if He wanted it differently it would have happened that way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the universal language of the Church (which unites us) in the Mass. It is a dead language which is a good thing because the meaning of its words do not change over time.

You completely missed the point of the video.

The point of the priest was this. He was reluctant to use English but do so out of obedience to bishops. But also he clarifies that they need to do so to preserve their tradition. Tradition is not the language but the faith. That is what many are missing here.

He’s not telling Roman Catholics anything. I’m asking Roman Catholic to learn something from him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m somewhat sympathetic to your argument. I do understand where you’re coming from and the concern about divisions in the Church. And as I said, I do identify as “Catholic.” I don’t think I have ever used the term “traditional Catholic” to describe myself when I was not on the internet. My profile simply says “Catholic” without other description.

But what is “mainstream Catholicism”? I mean, there are people with whom I attend OF Masses whom I believe to be good and faithful Catholics, probably better Catholics than myself, they are a good example to me in many ways, and yet I would not consider them to be ‘traditional Catholics’ and I doubt they would identify as such. I think and hope that we have more in common than not, but at the same time, I’m pretty sure they do not share certain views that I have on liturgical practices (and some other issues - but it’s harder to tell what others think about that without having a detailed conversation about it) that would be considered traditionalist views. Does that make sense?

Thanks. I don’t mean to create a new category. If you believe in what the Church teaches and is totally obedient to your bishop and to the Pope, then you’re Catholic. No other made-up titles needed to be added. Thats what I meant by mainstream or mainline.

 

[elts1956]

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.

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

How have Traditionalists separated themselves from the Church and are disobedient to the changes by Vatican II?

I just watched a segment on www.realcatholictv called Mass Destruction. There are two parts. The first part is a limited discussion by Michael Voris regarding Jansenism. The second is a VERY well explained discussion of the liturgy both TLM and NO by a priest from Canada. Sorry I didn’t catch his name. I will have to go back and get it.

But this is VERY MUCH worth watching as the final summarization which I understood, is there has to be a return to a sense of reverence in the way the NO is celebrated in many parishes. As this priest says, he realized “something” was missing in the way the NO was being celebrated, so he learned to say the TLM Mass, now says both NO and TLM, but through his study of the TLM, he has been able to refocus his parishioners on the celebration of the Mass as a SACRIFICE, not a meal. He said if he wanted to serve a meal, he would have become a waiter. Go check it out.

Note: the NO is a valid Mass, but has been subjected to many abuses which need to be thrown out.

 

[John_of_Woking]

If people take offence at the term traditionalist catholic…they should note that we are in a forum called ‘Traditional Catholicism’……maybe they want to get on to CAF and tell them they shouldn’t use such categorisation as they equate it (incorrectly) with disobedience…or would that be just stirring the hornet’s nest ?

 

[Layman]

Thanks. I don’t mean to create a new category. If you believe in what the Church teaches and is totally obedient to your bishop and to the Pope, then you’re Catholic. No other made-up titles needed to be added. Thats what I meant by mainstream or mainline.

How are traditionalist Catholics, who use the 1962 missal and acknowledge the authority of the current Pope, disobedient?

 

[stevusmagnus]

You completely missed the point of the video.

The point of the priest was this. He was reluctant to use English but do so out of obedience to bishops. But also he clarifies that they need to do so to preserve their tradition. Tradition is not the language but the faith. That is what many are missing here.

He’s not telling Roman Catholics anything. I’m asking Roman Catholic to learn something from him.

As a Ukranian priest “the bishop(s)” should not be forcing him to use English. He should be allowed to continue the traditions of his own liturgy and customs. The vernacular can be very common, banal, and worldly, as we can see from the horrific ICEL translations we have had to use for decades.

They make missals with translations in the Latin Rite so everyone can understand. If the Eastern Rite wants to give up their entire patrimony and traditions out of “obedience” let them. They have seen the devastation it has caused in the West. If they want to commit liturgical suicide that is their choice. Nevertheless the changing of the language to the vernacular has the very real tendency to make the Mass ordinary and secular and not set apart, different, and unifying as a common Church language does, which has been used for century upon century and is still the language of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As a Ukranian priest “the bishop(s)” should not be forcing him to use English. He should be allowed to continue the traditions of his own liturgy and customs. The vernacular can be very common, banal, and worldly, as we can see from the horrific ICEL translations we have had to use for decades.

And that is where many would disagree with you. Claims of the vernacular being banal is baseless and biased. The faith has always been taught in the vernacular since the beginning. If you attend Divine Liturgy you will see there’s nothing banal or untraditional about worshiping in the vernacular.

They make missals with translations in the Latin Rite so everyone can understand. If the Eastern Rite wants to give up their entire patrimony and traditions out of “obedience” let them. They have seen the devastation it has caused in the West. If they want to commit liturgical suicide that is their choice. Nevertheless the changing of the language to the vernacular has the very real tendency to make the Mass ordinary and secular and not set apart, different, and unifying as a common Church language does, which has been used for century upon century and is still the language of the Church.

And this is really where the argument fails. Because the fact that the missals are still a translation, and the fact that people who read the missals rely on the vernacular. So whats the use of Latin in the end? People don’t know what the Latin means unless they read the English. So why not use the English then?

 

[ConstantineTG]

How are traditionalist Catholics, who use the 1962 missal and acknowledge the authority of the current Pope, disobedient?

I already discussed this, if you are really intersted for my answer please back read. There is nothing else I can add to what I already posted. Thanks!

 

[Layman]

From memory, all I’ve read in this thread is insinuations that these creatures, ‘traditionalist Catholics’, are somehow disobedient. And arguments about what ‘tradtionalist’ and ‘modernist’ mean.

Are you saying that people who describe themselves as traditionalist Catholics should, in obedience, stop asking for the old Mass and sacraments and stop disparaging the New Mass and the alterations it has accrued?

I define a traditionalist Catholic, positively, as someone who wants the old Sacraments and sound doctrine preached from the pulpit.
I define them negatively as persons who don’t want to attend the New Mass, especially with the populist alterations. They don’t want it insinuated by liberal clergy that we are ‘as good as saved’.

I define a modernist as someone who is happy with the changes in the Church post-1940. Who believes that doctrine needs updating and that the Church must follow fashion. Who is excited by the perverse idea that if only, if only, we add more mundane elements to our sacred worship, it will, somehow, lead us to holiness.

The vernacular is one such mundane element. Does your religion have a language set aside specifically for its sacred rites? Then it must not be used. Use the common language, which can attract rude or banal meanings, in its ‘organic development’, instead! :whacky:

 

[ConstantineTG]

From memory, all I’ve read in this thread is insinuations that these creatures, ‘traditionalist Catholics’, are somehow disobedient. And arguments about what ‘tradtionalist’ and ‘modernist’ mean.

Are you saying that people who describe themselves as traditionalist Catholics should, in obedience, stop asking for the old Mass and sacraments and stop disparaging the New Mass and the alterations it has accrued?

If you backread, you will see I never made such a statement. And it would avoid ill feelings brought about by assumptions.

 

[At_Trent]

At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/

All day, every day here.

 

[MarkThompson]

The vernacular is one such mundane element. Does your religion have a language set aside specifically for its sacred rites? Then it must not be used. Use the common language, which can attract rude or banal meanings, in its ‘organic development’, instead! :whacky:

Of course, we don’t at all set aside Latin for sacred rites. We use it for boring canon law stuff, bulls appointing bishops, miscellaneous letters and proclamations about mundane ecclesial topics, and on and on. The notion of a language “set aside” only for religious rites would be completely alien to anyone in the Church for at least 1950 years or so – not a traditional view at all, I’m afraid. And for 1600 or 1700 years of the Church’s history, Latin was also used to write love poetry, mathematical texts, risque comedies, monographs about astronomy, music, or farming, and pretty much everything else of interest to the international literati. Latin as a “dead language” suitable only for worship would have been laughable to, say, Pius V.

 

[Layman]

Let’s see, when was Latin last spoken at fairs and in public houses?
When was it last used to tell smutty jokes from music hall stages?
When was it last used by the corner boy to jeer at passing women?

All those hymns,
All of those beautiful prayers,
Roman Catholic Church,
Latin Rite …

Yes! Dump it so the laity, at whom the rite is directed, may understand every word. Which will help them to greater holiness.

Funnily enough, I hear you can have a Mass without a congregation.

 

[MarkThompson]

Let’s see, when was Latin last spoken at fairs and in public houses?
When was it last used to tell smutty jokes from music hall stages?
When was it last used by the corner boy to jeer at passing women?

All those hymns,
All of those beautiful prayers,
Roman Catholic Church,
Latin Rite …

Yes! Dump it so the laity, at whom the rite is directed, may understand every word. Which will help them to greater holiness.

Funnily enough, I hear you can have a Mass without a congregation.

Not all that long ago, in relative terms. The difficulty is that your arguments are all mismatched. Using Latin is indeed a tradition of many centuries, but using a dead language that is set apart only for worship is a conceptual novelty (and it’s not even true; as I said, the Church uses Latin for all kinds of mundane things). Sorry.

 

[elts1956]

Molinists and thomism although they disagreed with each others expression of theology, neither of both parties were disobedient to the Church and both eventually came to an agreement. also neithers veiws contradicted the Church.

Trads and modernists both spread disobedience in the church. But must admit that the modernist is not just disobedient but also holds and teaches heretical views. Neither view is accepted by Rome.

Pax
Stephen

Would you please list some of the acts, or beliefs of disobedience the “Traditionalist” so called, are guilty of? I know some of the misconceptions of the “Modernists”, but havn’t learned of those of the “Trads.” I am not asking to be argumentative, just would like to know as I consider myself more traditional than progressive/modern and can’t think of where I have disobeyed the teachings of Mother Church.

Thanks.

 

[Warrenton]

No. Rome has upheld Tradition until today. Some traditionalists want they’re kind of tradition, which is wrong. The one who dictates is the Church, not the laity. This is the same problem with the modernists, they think that they have a say in what the Church should do or don’t do.

This gets to the heart of the thread, doesn’t it?

If one says that traditionalists want “their” kind of tradition, what does that mean?

The tradition they want is Catholic tradition: and “they” are Catholics. Usually, this means the tridentine mass.

The Church cannot consistently maintain (and indeed, it has never done so) that traditionalists are “wrong” to demand what “they” always had.

The new mass is a different thing than the old mass. They share similarities and scaramental identity but anyone who says that they are interchangeable is simply mistaken. The thing is evident within the first five minutes of the service.

It is impossible for traditionalists to be wrong at least on their approach to the mass and prayers. Early in the thread, the example was given of a teacher who taught “2 plus two is four,” but the student keeps answering “five.” The analogy is really of a teacher who suddenly announces “two and two is five” and the student insists “no, four.”