Top 10 Whoppers (and other myths) concerning Traditionalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And from:
THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
by Dr Pius Parsch
Translated by Rev. Frederic C. Eckhoff
B. Herder Book Co.
St Louis, Mo. and London. 1946
Nihil obstat and Imprimatur 1936.
(My copy the Twelfth Impression), pp. 235/6:
The words of Consecration are not taken verbatim from Holy Scripture, and in the course of time they have received numerous additions: e.g., “holy and venerable hands” was added out of reverence for our Lord; the words “with His eyes lifted up to heaven” are not found in the record of institution in the Scriptures, but at the first multiplication of loaves (matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16). The “excellent chalice” (praeclarum calicem) is taken from psalm 23(calix meus …praeclarus est),. The insertion of “the mystery of faith” is most unusual, since it even disturbs the construction of the sentence…" etc.
I hope these comments help to clarify my objections to Caveman’s comments re Whoppers #6.
 
AVJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O L forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Furthermore, the following from:
CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WORSHIP
Rev. Gerald Ellard, S.J., Ph.D.,
The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee
Imprimi potest, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur Nov. 20, 1939.
(My copy Seventh Printing 1947), pp. 186/7:


That is Hippolytus, no?
Yes, indeedy!

Fr. Ellard, who was Professor of Liturgy, St. Louis University School of Divinity, actually composed his Author’s Foreword in 1933 at St Mary’s College, St Marys, Kansas.

He prefaced the section quoted with:
For the sake of comparison we here give the oldest Mmass Canon extant, that of Rome about 225, when the Mass there was still in Greek. A discerning reader will find all the ideas, except the ‘Mementoes,’ expressed in our Canon.
 
Yes, indeedy!

Fr. Ellard, who was Professor of Liturgy, St. Louis University School of Divinity, actually composed his Author’s Foreword in 1933 at St Mary’s College, St Marys, Kansas.

He prefaced the section quoted with:
But then that would be his opinion, no? I mean, since there is no consensus on the origin of the prayer. Jungmann, Dix and Deiss would agree with him but, for example, Bouyer wouldn’t since he says (Eucharist, 1968) that it is an idealised form. Some say that it is Eastern and only mistakenly attributed to a Roman (The Mass of the early Christians, 2001).
 
AVJ
But then that would be his opinion, no?
“That” what? “His/he” who? In any event - so what?

The ultimate point is that Caveman’s contention in #6 is spurious - isn’t it?
 
“That” what? “His/he” who? In any event - so what?
Fr. Ellard vis the Anaphora of Hippolytus being used in Rome and being an early form of the Canon.
The ultimate point is that Caveman’s contention in #6 is spurious - isn’t it?
I get sidetracked *too *easily. :o
 
Another Myth: Traditionalists believe that the documents issued by Vatican II are heretical and should be abrogated

As Bl. John XXIII repeatedly emphasized, the purpose of the Council was NOT to change the Magesterium, but rather to figure out the best ways in which to proclaim the Faith in the rapidly-evolving modern era. The abuses and heresies that have been committed by modernist priests and bishops “in the spirit of Vatican II” would have been looked upon with horror by the Council Fathers.

For a full explanation of how true Traditionalists view the Council, read “Confessions of a Young Fogey” by Fr. Jay Toborowsky (youngfogeys.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html, very bottom of page).
 
Excellent ten point list Caveman. Being a Baptist and learning about Catholicism, I found your list very enlightening. For one, we’re told many things that are false about your faith and I hope one day it will be mine also. The terms that you use are a bit strange as I don’t know what ecumenism, rosary beads, and other words you folks use mean. But I am reading about that stuff too. I really like your new Pope. He seems honest and straight forward and I like that and I’ve been reading his stories in the news whenever I get the chance. I am getting answers about my faith answered more by him than, sadly, my own church. But that does not mean I don’t care about them. My search in Catholicism is personal and I beleive it is the right way to go.
 
AJV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O L forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
“That” what? “His/he” who? In any event - so what?

Fr. Ellard vis the Anaphora of Hippolytus being used in Rome and being an early form of the Canon.
Quote:
The ultimate point is that Caveman’s contention in #6 is spurious - isn’t it?
I get sidetracked *too *easily.
Thanks for that.

Theologians, of course, by the very nature of their profession are “paid” to express “opinions.” Sometimes their “opinions” are “kosher” and accepted by the Church - on other occasions they may be condemned or may be regarded as only being their “opinions.”

St Thomas Aquinas also expressed some “opinions” which included the latter variety. I do not believe that Fr. Ellard HAS has any condemned “opinions” - but I DO know that his book possesses official approbation to publish whatever may be his opinions contained in that work; which includes his assertion about the extract from Hippolytus.

Maybe I ought to have quoted from
LITURGIES OF THE WESTERN CHURCH
Selected and Introduced by Bard Thompson
A Fontana Book, Collins World, New York
(My copy the Seventh printing 1974)?:

His account reads in part:
  1. Taking bread (and) making eucharist * to Thee said: Take eat: this is My Body which is broken for you for the remission of sins*]. Likewise also the cup, saying: This is My Blood which is shed for you.
  2. When ye do this [ye] do My “anamnesis.”…etc.
Thompson says “Richardson supposed that the tractate was prepared immediately after the election of Zephyrinus…perhaps the year 200 would be a more accurate date…(but) In any event there appears to be little doubt that Hippolytus wrote the tractate as an avowed reactionary, still within the Roman community, and that we have in this text a record of rites and customs that were already a part of the tradition.”
 
Can you source this for me? It’s interesting. With respect to the Easterns I was making no implication that the three languages were absolutely necessary or the only languages. I was simply stating the fittingness of the three languages in the Roman Rite.
But the observance that languages in worship tend to die and be reserved for worship holds since the Old Slavonic is a dead language.
As for sacred languages tending to die once used for liturgy this analogy is wrong. They do not die, they evolve. No language is entirely static. It is only natural that if a language is attempted to be preseved for many centuries it separates from the languages organic living evolutionary vocabulary. It has not died it has simply been preserved as it was in in the past. This is not death this is history. If you are Serbian you can easily understand Old Church Slavonic. If you are Italian you can easily understand Church Latin. If you are Greek you can easily understand Biblical Koine Greek used in liturgy (modern greek is banned by all Greek Orthodox Churches in the world). If you are Amharic speaking Ethiopian you can easily understand liturgical Ge’ez.

When the first slavs were converted to Western (not eastern) christianity they all used Church Slavonic not Latin. Whether they had the Popes permission to do this I do not know or care. As far as I know Croatia is the only country in which the Western Liturgy has survived to be said in Old Church Slavonic. The independence of Dubrovnik facilitated the continuity of the tradition (It , thank God, was never conquered by germans/franks).

At this site you can see examples of Slavonic as the 4th liturgical language…as well as find a cd of chant by the Pharos Cantors for the WESTERN liturgy in Slavonic which is a few centuries old.

croatianhistory.net/etf/et12.html

The Old Church Slavonic became the fourth liturgical language of the Christian world, though by 1000 AD after most of the region became a marsh and formally part of the Frankish empire who opposed Slavonic in the liturgy, its use in Great Moravia proper gradually declined until it virtually vanished in the late Middle Ages. Its late form still remains the liturgical language of the Russian, Bulgarian, and Serbian Orthodox Church.

“Great Moravia was an empire existing in Central Europe between 833 and the early 10th century. It was inhabited and ruled by the ancestors of modern Moravians and Slovaks. The core territory laid on both sides of the Morava river, in present-day Slovakia and the Czech Republic, but the empire also extended into what are today parts of Hungary, Romania, Poland, Austria, Germany, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia and Ukraine.”

Earlier in this conversation the book “Byzantine missions among the Slavs” by Francis Dvornik was mentioned I must agree that is a spectular composition . He is the greatest historian the Church produced in the 20th century.
 
Good point but secondly, it’s not what is in the Novus Ordo that is upsetting to a lot of traditionalists. It’s what has been removed.

I was perfectly happy with the Novus Ordo until I attended the TLM and read the prayers and saw the actions. Prior to that, I’d thought it was the same prayers in Latin with the priest turned around.

The reaction I had and one of the main reasons I’m a strident Traditionalist is because I’d felt robbed of my inheritance as a Catholic.
I know we don’t always see eye to eye on just how to live out that traditionalism, but on this point we have nearly identical stories. I was born and bred in the NO and came to really love it. I had also assumed from my “elders’” descriptions that the basic difference in forms was the language and the facing of the priest. Then I came across the texts of the 62 missal and said “Wow, these are much richer” and at my first actual '62 Mass I decided this was the form for me. —And, for the record, I’m 24 👍 (having been attached to the old rite insofar as reasonably possible since I was 21).
The readings are obviously intended to be for the congregation.
That’s actually not so obvious. Well, let me rephrase that. The NO seems to be designed with that rationale, but the TLM does not make that intent obvious - if it suggests it at all - and a study of Eastern liturgical theology reveals that the readings are often considered doxological, not didactic. Hence in that view the readings are not primarily for us but to give glory to God. We can argue about which approach we think makes more sense, but I think we should at least agree that the Church’s liturgical tradition does not make it obvious that the readings are there for the congregation.
 
Good point but secondly, it’s not what is in the Novus Ordo that is upsetting to a lot of traditionalists. It’s what has been removed.
Ditto for me too. I am upset about both what was removed and what was added (from Pierre Teilhad de Chardins humanist heresies). However there are even things missing in the Tridentine that were there in the 700’s…So I feel robbed by even more than whats gone post-Vatican II. This is why I went so far as to go Melkite and am very satisfied, except insofar as there are nearly 1 billion Western Latin Catholics stuck the the germanic/frankish/modern Western customs of today.
I think we should at least agree that the Church’s liturgical tradition does not make it obvious that the readings are there for the congregation.
Agreed.
 
I believe you are incorrect on this. “Feeneyism” is not a heresy.
It’s a straightforward understanding of the dogma of the Church.

**No, even the Vatican at the time had to step in and condemn Feeney for what he was saying over the airwaves. **

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top