Top 10 Whoppers (and other myths) concerning Traditionalism

[PatienceAndLove]

Take a 23 year old and put them in the TLM and they would be more comfortable with the Novus Ordo.

As a 23 year old, I take offense to that

 

[adrift]

Start another topic on Feeney and the Jews if you want. It’s not for this discussion.

“Feeneyism” is not a heresy. You don’t determine what heresy is. When the Church condemns it as a heresy it will be a heresy. The best you can hope for is that it’s an error.

But it’s not.

Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are theological speculations. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. Like Limbo, they can be discarded or reformulated to incorporate the necessity of water Baptism.

If you wanted to start another thread, do so. Don’t tell me that it is not for discussion and then discuss it. You don’t determine what heresy is either. I posted was Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience.
That is a fact.
From the Catechism

1258
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I believe this is more true than some would like to admit.

I commed those many who see the problems that were in the 1950’s and even prior, but there are just as many who would lead us to believe it always was like Bing Crosby and the The Bells of St Mary’s prior to Vatican II.

Not that I don’t understand. I do, I completely understand. If you were only 8 years old in 1956 or 1958 you probably never thought about Fr. Jones the drunk or Fr. O’Malley and his speedy mass. Things were how they were and then all that you knew changed. So I understand why it could be an emotional/sentimental thing just as much as a spiritual thing.

Personally I am more comfortable with the TLM, but that is only because I was raised that way. Take a 23 year old and put them in the TLM and they would be more comfortable with the Novus Ordo. And I really think I would have a hard time forcing my kids to start attending the TLM. Mainly because I was forced and became resentful, and also because they have learned as it is. It would have to be a gradual change to not shock them. Going from one mass to the other truly feels like a different religion. You end up feeling lost and wondering if you are at the right place

Terry

If we keep telling 23 year olds that they shouldn’t be comfortable with the TLM they might begin to take it to heart.

And no one is forcing the TLM on anyone. Are they?

Perhaps it could be introduced with joy and enthusiasm. It’s not exactly the same thing but do we disparage Eastern rites of the Mass? If I was told that the Byzantine rite Mass I went to as a sixth grader was something I should have held in contempt because it was unfamiliar, or from the dark ages or whatever I wonder what I would have thought of it.

 

[GerardP]

If you wanted to start another thread, do so. Don’t tell me that it is not for discussion and then discuss it.

Feeney was never censured for anything he wrote on Judaism or Jews, that is a straw man topic to bring up.

You don’t determine what heresy is either.

I haven’t called anything a heresy that hasn’t been called a heresy by the Church.

I posted was Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience.
That is a fact.

The disobedience was not because of what he was teaching. He refused to go to Rome until the authorities under Card. Pizzardo would follow the proper protocols.

From the Catechism:

1258
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

You’ll notice, there is no footnote in the CCC indicating where this bit of trivia comes from.

Compare that with this:

This is dogmatic, ex-Cathedra, irreformable and must be believed by Catholics:

Pope Eugene IV–“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may,no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” – Cantate Domino, Denzinger 1441.)

 

[GerardP]

Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience.

One follow up point. Fr. Feeney had rights under Canon Law. They were not followed. Under the old code of Canon Law he was entitled to know the charges leveled against him. The request was ignored. The 1949 letter from Holy Office was never entered into the Acts of the Aposotolic See and so was never more than a personal letter sent by one bishop. It had no actual binding authority.

Later Feeney was reconciled canonically and never had to recant his views.

The further reconciliations with followers of Fr. Feeney have also not had to recant the traditional understanding of the dogma EENS.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

[SIGN]OFF TOPIC[/SIGN]

 

[whiteyacht]

Personally I am more comfortable with the TLM, but that is only because I was raised that way. Take a 23 year old and put them in the TLM and they would be more comfortable with the Novus Ordo.

stands up I’m another (almost) 23-year-old who prefers the extraordinary form. And no, I wasn’t raised in it; I wasn’t even raised Catholic. I just had the grace to fall in with good friends in high school who introduced me to the extraordinary form & were able to help me understand it.

 

[bjford]

In response to those discussing what language the early Mass was said in. I think one of the dangers that both supporters of TLM and NO do is that they justify what the liturgy does because it was done in the early church. From what I understand, this has some irrelevence. Since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit-- any organic changes that occur in the mass, occur because He wills it. Thus, it may be true that in the 2nd century Christians recieved communion on the tongue, or that mass was said in vernacular, but the point is that the Mass has been guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus any organic changes made were made under His inspiration.

I apologize if this is off topic, but what comes to mind for me is when traditionalists claim that the apostles knelt as Christ gave them communion. Many consider Leonardo Di Vicci a heretic who began the trend of depicting the Apostles as sitting at a table during the last supper. This in simply untrue. As somebody who has studied iconography quite extensively, I can safely state that many paintings prior to the Renniasance depict the Apostles sitting at a table during the Last Supper. Furthermore, the evidence that the Apostles knelt during the last supper is few, and as stated above, somewhat irrelevent.

 

[Ad_Deum]

I agree!!!

Pax

Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In response to those discussing what language the early Mass was said in. I think one of the dangers that both supporters of TLM and NO do is that they justify what the liturgy does because it was done in the early church. From what I understand, this has some irrelevence. Since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit-- any organic changes that occur in the mass, occur because He wills it. Thus, it may be true that in the 2nd century Christians recieved communion on the tongue, or that mass was said in vernacular, but the point is that the Mass has been guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus any organic changes made were made under His inspiration.

It isn’t clear that every devleopment in the liturgy is the positive will of God (if we KNEW that, we could never alter the liturgy and it has been altered by the Church’s authority over the centuries). Some of it may simply be that He permits it (His “permissive” will). What we can know is that what is proposed to the faithful by the Church cannot lead the faithful to impiety. That’s “negative infallibility.” That’s what protects the liturgy.

As to the vernacular, the original change to Latin was BECAUSE it was the vernacular, not because it was a sacral language. The following is an instructive reading:

newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

As a traditionalist I can say this- there are some traditionalists who seem to think that the TLM was free of Liturgical abuse. That is laughable! Pope St. Pius X didnt write Inter Sollicitudines for his health after all- you can usually identify some of the practices of an era by what the powers-that-be are prohibiting. Nor did modernism and unorthodox practice suddenly appear out of nowhere in 1963.

I think what the traditionalists point is, is not so much that there wasn’t abuses in the TLM, or even that there are a lot of abuses in the novus ordo. I think their main point of contention is that the Mass can be interpreted by the priest and that it can vary widely from bishops conference to bishops conference, diocese to diocese, parish to parish and that much of the decision is left up to the priest and the liturgical council for the local Mass (this wasn’t possible with the rubrics of the TLM) and that such a wide interpretation is just opening a can of worms for what should be a celebration of God giving Himself wholly to us.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So what is an independent priest? It is one who is outside of the Church and its structure.

So while Mel’s Chapel might not be SSPX it is still not part of the Catholic Church of his local Bishop.

AMEN Br. David!

I point you to this SAD case of one “Fr. M.E. Morrison” so known throughout Catholic Circles:

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id72.html

Years and years ago - when I was still a teen - I was duped by this guy into believing he was a Catholic priest who had just been “left out in the cold” by “modernist bishops.” Alas and alack! No such luck!

I hope Mel comes around to embracing priests who celebrate the EM rather than supporting these folks who seem to be rather independant of Catholicism!

 

[Sean_O_L]

Caveman

1. **The Latin Mass didn’t even exist until the Council of Trent (the mid-1500’s). **Wrong. The Latin Mass dates back to the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in the 6th century. Even before that, the Canon of the Mass dates to the 4th century, and the Latin Mass itself was in it’s infancy in the 1st century. The Consecration has remained unchanged since Saints Peter and Paul first preached in Rome.

Quite a few things here:

1. Mass in Aramaic vernacular;
   Later in Greek vernacular;
   Later again in Latin vernacular;
2. Consecration was recorded by Matthew & Luke in their Gospels, and by St Paul in his Epistles - which do NOT correspond precisely with the “Tridentine” consecration!
3. In fact, the Catechism of the Council of Trent states:

"We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body."

Note nothing following “This is my body”?

Similarly for the consecration of the wine: words and phrases were added under the authority of the Church. The full reasons may be viewed in the Catechism in the Chapter on the Eucharist.

 

[GerardP]

In response to those discussing what language the early Mass was said in. I think one of the dangers that both supporters of TLM and NO do is that they justify what the liturgy does because it was done in the early church. From what I understand, this has some irrelevence. Since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit-- any organic changes that occur in the mass, occur because He wills it. Thus, it may be true that in the 2nd century Christians recieved communion on the tongue, or that mass was said in vernacular, but the point is that the Mass has been guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus any organic changes made were made under His inspiration.

I apologize if this is off topic, but what comes to mind for me is when traditionalists claim that the apostles knelt as Christ gave them communion. Many consider Leonardo Di Vicci a heretic who began the trend of depicting the Apostles as sitting at a table during the last supper. This in simply untrue. As somebody who has studied iconography quite extensively, I can safely state that many paintings prior to the Renniasance depict the Apostles sitting at a table during the Last Supper. Furthermore, the evidence that the Apostles knelt during the last supper is few, and as stated above, somewhat irrelevent.

I think you are straying a bit here from Catholic Teaching on the will of God. Organic changes in the Liturgy are present because he permits it, not because he positively wills it.

As far as the language of the Mass goes, it’s very simple Latin, Greek and Hebrew are the sacred languages written on the Cross. They are all present in the TLM with the dominance being the precise official language of the Church.

Added to that is the basic human need to worship in a special language. This is true of virtually all religions. As Charles Coulombe said, “Languages that are used in worship tend to die.”

 

[GerardP]

Caveman

Quite a few things here:

1. Mass in Aramaic vernacular;
   Later in Greek vernacular;
   Later again in Latin vernacular;
2. Consecration was recorded by Matthew & Luke in their Gospels, and by St Paul in his Epistles - which do NOT correspond precisely with the “Tridentine” consecration!
3. In fact, the Catechism of the Council of Trent states:

"We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body."

Note nothing following “This is my body”?

Similarly for the consecration of the wine: words and phrases were added under the authority of the Church. The full reasons may be viewed in the Catechism in the Chapter on the Eucharist.

Doesn’t Denzinger have a statement in it regarding the phrase “Mysterium Fidei” in which the Pope determined that the phrase was of Apostolic Origin and goes to the Lord himself?

 

[Scottgun]

Here’s a traditionalist myth I’ve recently recognized and accepted:

**Traditionalists believe the NO mass cannot be reverently celebrated. **

While there may a few that believe this, the main objection is that while NO and the people attending can be reverent, the reverence is optional.

This is why protests of the possibility of a reverent NO don’t really cut much ice in debates.

Scott

 

[GerardP]

Here’s a traditionalist myth I’ve recently recognized and accepted:

**Traditionalists believe the NO mass cannot be reverently celebrated. **

While there may a few that believe this, the main objection is that while NO and the people attending can be reverent, the reverence is optional.

This is why protests of the possibility of a reverent NO don’t really cut much ice in debates.

Scott

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.

 

[Scottgun]

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.

Perhaps you can help me with another possible myth. Do traditionalists in general believe NO vs. TLM is a matter of Bad vs, Good or Good vs. Better?

For the record, I would attend a TLM if available, so it is fair to say I have traditionalist leanings.

Scott

 

[adrift]

Feeney was never censured for anything he wrote on Judaism or Jews, that is a straw man topic to bring up.

I haven’t called anything a heresy that hasn’t been called a heresy by the Church.

The disobedience was not because of what he was teaching. He refused to go to Rome until the authorities under Card. Pizzardo would follow the proper protocols.

From the Catechism:

You’ll notice, there is no footnote in the CCC indicating where this bit of trivia comes from.

Compare that with this:

This is dogmatic, ex-Cathedra, irreformable and must be believed by Catholics:

Pope Eugene IV–“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may,no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” – Cantate Domino, Denzinger 1441.)

Can this be changed

As you have said this is off topic, so discuss it here.

 

[nilofc]

If you wanted to start another thread, do so. Don’t tell me that it is not for discussion and then discuss it. You don’t determine what heresy is either. I posted was Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience.
That is a fact.
From the Catechism

I agree with you. It seems odd that someone started to add that “Feeneyism” is not a heresy and says that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated but when proven wrong they suddenly wanna suppress the topic.

Let all truth come out, you will be doing everybody a great favor.