Tradition in Action

[bpbasilphx]

Even in the earliest Christian times Basil the Great, one of the Eastern Church Fathers, taught that the liturgy was revelation, like Holy Scripture itself, and should never be interfered with.

**Would there be any purpose in pointing out that St. John Chrysostom ALTERED and EDITED the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great?

Of course, he’s a saint of the Church.

The Liturgy has ALWAYS been tinkered with over the years, and has NEVER been “pure” in the sense of being celebrated in one century EXACTLY as it was celebrated the century before.

I visited the Tradition in Action site, btw. While there is a warm spot in my heart for Tradtionalists, it’s pointless when they try to be plus papiste que le Pape!**

 

[patrick457]

Even in the earliest Christian times Basil the Great, one of the Eastern Church Fathers, taught that the liturgy was revelation, like Holy Scripture itself, and should never be interfered with.

**Would there be any purpose in pointing out that St. John Chrysostom ALTERED and EDITED the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great?

Of course, he’s a saint of the Church.

The Liturgy has ALWAYS been tinkered with over the years, and has NEVER been “pure” in the sense of being celebrated in one century EXACTLY as it was celebrated the century before.**

Not to mention that St. Basil himself was said to have ‘tinkered with’ and ‘abbreviated’ the (quite lengthy) Divine Liturgy of St. James, thus resulting in the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (which you mention).

If the Liturgy had stayed ‘pure’ as it was, then how can one explain the existence of various Rites and Uses (Variants within a particular Rite)?

I visited the Tradition in Action site, btw. While there is a warm spot in my heart for Tradtionalists, it’s pointless when they try to be plus papiste que le Pape!

My sentiments exactly. While I identify myself as a Traditionalist (as I’ve said quite a few times; but then again I should try to just identify myself as a ‘Catholic’ with no titles attached) I don’t really sympathize with people who do the same thing above.

But I wouldn’t try to judge their appearance on any of their pictures; they’re humans, and while I mostly disagree with these people, I think they should also be given a measure of respect (IMHO, one should give some measure of respect to what one may consider as an ‘opponent’, even if said opponent does not show respect. That’s what separates us from brute animals).

 

[Sarpedon]

Their attire looks normal to me, and normal for anyone who wants to be taken seriously. Your idea of normal attire is ok for a trip to the park or a baseball game, but not for professional life.

Ah, I thought you meant that that attire should be the standard for doing things like going to a park or game.

 

[consumedconvert]

Just FYI, I’m a guy. My real name is “Michael,” but I tend to get weird looks when I use that name

The reason that I think it is important to highlight the “crazy traditional ideas” of these groups is that all too often, they do not appear at first glance to be on the fringe. The SSPX looks very Catholic, and to orthodox Catholics who spend enough time listening to them, their arguments start to seem perfectly reasonable. In other words, I disagree with you when you say it is “obvious” that these groups have crazy ideas, because to all too many Catholics, they don’t look crazy. This is why I honestly have a bigger problem with traditionalist groups than I do with groups like Call to Action and FutureChurch, or Protestant fundamentalists for that matter. The latter usually do not appeal to orthodox Catholics who know their Faith well enough; the former, however, take advantage of that knowledge to completely pervert people’s understanding of the Church. While the Call to Action crowd usually attracts people who are already doubting their faith, the SSPX and TIA crowds attract those who are very strong in their faith, leading them away from the Church without them even knowing it.

To a certain extent, I know what I am talking about when it comes to these groups. I myself came very close to accepting their lies as truth, and thereby being separated from the mystical Body of Christ.

Finally, I would once again like to emphasize that when I posted the photo, I was not trying to be uncharitable. I did not do a very good job of explaining my point, assuming that it was obvious. Looking back at the post, I realize that this was a fairly stupid assumption. So once again, for coming off in a very uncharitable and un-Christian way, I sincerely apologize. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my point in some of my later posts, but quite honestly, I regret starting this thread in the first place. Through my own fault, I left too much room for misunderstanding.

Look Mickey,

I was a Protestant Fundamentalist’s Fundamentalist for a few years; before and after that point, I was something of a slave to Protestant Fundamentalism. And I saw many people who perpetually wore “pius” expressions on their faces, and people who smiled only when their cue came up in Church, and people who were considered great and wonderful Christians who were nightmarish to interact with or work for, because they tolerated nobody well. So in a word, I “get” why you started this post. Their facial expressions scare me too.

 

[PrayforMallory]

This thread has gotten out of hand.

An entire unnecessary thread stemming from how these people look. They didn’t smile in their pictures.

How photogenic these people are means absolutely nothing.

 

[lucybeebee]

Maybe a new thread needs to be started that specifically addresses the beliefs of Tradition in Action.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Maybe a new thread needs to be started that specifically addresses the beliefs of Tradition in Action.

These threads end up being largely pointless. People don’t want to discuss history and facts, just judge each other over unimportant details and meaningless comments.

You can’t discuss the history and ideas of Vatican II without being called “more Catholic than the Pope,” and you can’t object without being called a “Novus Ordite.”

If the theologians of the Church had this attitude, all theology would immediately cease.

We can’t have an honest discussion about the abstract concepts involved. It ends up being tit for tat.

 

[KennethD]

*Not to mention that St. Basil himself was said to have ‘tinkered with’ and ‘abbreviated’ the (quite lengthy) Divine Liturgy of St. James, thus resulting in the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (which you mention).

If the Liturgy had stayed ‘pure’ as it was, then how can one explain the existence of various Rites and Uses (Variants within a particular Rite)?*

Perhaps if you all would actually read the whole of the excerpt I posted, you would see that the author I quoted says that yes there are modifications in the liturgy. It is more about an attitude. Those various rites and uses came about organically through the history of the Church. They were not created by committees, they grew out of the practice of liturgy itself. The Novus Ordo however was created by a committee according to a theological plan of dubious orthodoxy, and scrapped many beautiful things from the previous use. There are many times when I feel personally robbed of my Catholic tradition because the men who are supposed to safeguard tradition took numerous liberties in changing it and effectively restricted the use of the previous form. (Even if it wasn’t legally abrogated, in reality it may as well have been.)
latin-mass-society.org/2004/fabrication.htm

 

[Lhhs]

Is it that they are so handsome looking?

Or their choice of fashion?

I’m missing your point. Was it made?

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/Images/D_001_Signers.jpg

Doesn’t their picture just make you want to run to their version of Catholicism?!? That’s before we even get to the trash found on their website.

Looking at this photo, I am reminded of St. Theresa’s invocation: “From silly devotions and sour-faced saints, deliver us, oh Lord!”

 

[JReducation]

1. The Of is the ordinary form of the Roman mass
This is merely a matter of rule.
2. The OF is to be respected as it is equal to the EF
I cannot personally accept this having seen the criticisms I have. I defer to the Holy Father in all things, but I cannot simply act as if I see no deficiencies in a liturgy that I think cannot compare to the ancient use. Our Holy Father himself speaks of the hermeneutics of rupture and continuity, and to me it seems as if a liturgy created by a committee replacing a liturgy that came about organically through Catholic history is the very essence of rupture. To me, the Novus Ordo itself is a product of an hermeneutic of rupture. The Orthodox would never do what we Romans have done to our liturgy.
3. These are not two rites, but the same Roman mass with the same dignity and sanctity
I do not deny this.
*4. The Of will remain in effect the official form for the Western Church
*I think this is unfortunate, but I have no power to effect otherwise.
5. The creation of the OF was needed
I accept all of the dogmas of the Catholic faith, but I cannot believe this and there is no anathema that forces me to.
6. All abuses are to be avoided in both the EF and the OF
I heartily agree.

**Also, while I desire to trust you in a charitable manner, I find it difficult to believe the same Ratzinger who said this
“After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
Would also claim what you have claimed./**QUOTE]

I’m hering the last point in this post. The highlight is mine. Obviously, I’ve never been a pope, but I have been and am in positions of leadership. Sometimes you have to do the best with a situation that you inherit.

To do so, you must look at it from all sides. As a theologian who was in the the Congregation for the Faith it was easy for Joseph Ratzinger to zone in on the problems with the liturgical reform and identify them. He did a very good job at it too. This was his job. That’s what he got paid for, to help the Holy Father and bishops see areas of strength and weaknesses within the Church.

It was not his job to fix any of it. He was not the boss. Nor did he fave to live the the moral judgement over him if he made a mistake. He was a theological consultant. That is what the Secretary for the Congregation of the Faith is. The Protector of the Faith is really the Pope.

Now he’s in a different pair of shoes. He has to look at the liturgical reform from a different window. He has to look at his own prior assessment of the situation and of the assessment by his predecessors. He didn’t have to dothat before. Being a scholar and a holy man he realizes one thing. “I have the authority to make this right by legitimizing it.”

As the keeper of the keys and the person who has the power to bind and unbind, he can legitimize the liturgical reforms by declaring them valid and the same as the Tridentine form and requiring that people tweek out the abuses that were present over the years, but preserve the form as it was intended by his predecessors.

What he is doing is something that he could not do in the past, because he had no authority. He is no binding. He is binding Catholics to accept the reform of the liturgy as equal to in dignity and sanctity to the traditional liturgy, regardless of its origin. In a certain sense, this is his first real exercise of power as Peter.

It’s almost as saying, “Forget how it came to be. This is what it is and I am authorizing it. Now, take the junk out of it and celebrate it as it was meant to be celebrated.”

If one notices, when he celebrates the OF, he does so in the manner that the reform meant for it to be celebrated. It is actually quite beautiful.

Get what I mean?

JR

 

[KennethD]

I really do understand, but sometimes I still feel as if the reform of the reform is a waste of time considering if it was reformed properly in my mind it would simply be the extraordinary form.

All the same, I just wish we had things like the preconciliar calendar back. I feel so separated from the ancient and medieval Church by the fact that I don’t get to live by the same liturgical year. Not to mention the cycles of readings while they cover more of the Bible have lost something. In the past many Sundays were known by their readings (and still are in Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Churches) but we’ve lost that due to a manufactured calendar.

I realize that at this point its unreasonable to suddenly get rid of the Novus Ordo. To be honest, I don’t even go to an EF parish (mostly because the only one is far away), but an Anglican Use parish with a beautiful solemn high Mass. I still get deeply disturbed however when I realize that the Anglican use is once again liturgy by committee.

 

[consumedconvert]

I really do understand, but sometimes I still feel as if the reform of the reform is a waste of time considering if it was reformed properly in my mind it would simply be the extraordinary form.

All the same, I just wish we had things like the preconciliar calendar back. I feel so separated from the ancient and medieval Church by the fact that I don’t get to live by the same liturgical year. Not to mention the cycles of readings while they cover more of the Bible have lost something. In the past many Sundays were known by their readings (and still are in Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Churches) but we’ve lost that due to a manufactured calendar.

I realize that at this point its unreasonable to suddenly get rid of the Novus Ordo. To be honest, I don’t even go to an EF parish (mostly because the only one is far away), but an Anglican Use parish with a beautiful solemn high Mass. I still get deeply disturbed however when I realize that the Anglican use is once again liturgy by committee.

God uses men, no? Perhaps we would be happier if things dropped out of the sky or “evolved” without man’s help, like biological evolution. But it simply doesn’t happen. God chooses to work through his Hierarchy for spreading the Word of God, for bringing Himself to his people in the Holy Eucharist, for the forgiveness of sins, for the sanctification of his people–why not also for the developement of His liturgies? Indeed, it is so.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Liturgy by committee? The word Liturgy, means “the work of the people” or “the peoples work”

 

[JReducation]

The highlights are mine.

I really do understand, but sometimes I still feel as if the reform of the reform is a waste of time considering if it was reformed properly **in my mind **it would simply be the extraordinary form.

The operative word here is not what is in my mind or your mind, but what is in the mind of Christ. Christ does not always speak in straight lines. Ask any of the great saints of the Church. There are often many curves.

I’m no saint, but I assure you, I’ve been down my share of curves and on the edge of many cliffs as I travel the journey of faith. We all do. We have to keep in mind that whatever is in the mind of Christ is hidden in revelation. We just have to be patient and let it be uncovered by the Church. All of revelation has been given to the Church, but it is her job to peel the onion. This takes time, sacrifice and even some pain at times.

All the same, I just wish we had things like the preconciliar calendar back. I feel so separated from the ancient and medieval Church by the fact that I don’t get to live by the same liturgical year.

But we are not separated from the Church of the past. We are one body that exists within time and outside of time simultaneously. The calendar is not what unites us. It is the faith that unites us.

In fact the calendar of the Church has never been universal. There have been several calendars and there still are. Just one example, if you belonged to one of the exempt religious orders, you would not be following the Roman calendar. You would follow the calendar of the religious order, such as the Franciscans do. The have never followed the universal calendar of the Church since 1226. They have had their own calendar, lectionary, missal and breviary. The still do. Then there are calendars by Bishops Conferences. Then there are the calendars by rites. The Byzantine churches don’t all follow the same calendar. Each has its own.

Of course we must remember that the reason for this is to show the vastness of the Church. The more calendars the more we actually see how the Church is universal. A single calendar would only accommodate a very small part of Church history and a small segment of saints and holy days.

Not to mention the cycles of readings while they cover more of the Bible have lost something.

What do you think they have lost? The Word of God loses nothing. It is the same word that became incarnate.

In the past many Sundays were known by their readings (and still are in Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Churches) but we’ve lost that due to a manufactured calendar.

All liturgical calendars are manufactured according to the pastoral needs of the time and place. Calendars are not of divine inspiration. As I pointed out above, the exempt religioius orders manufactured their own calendars which have been approved by the Church. Do you believe that they should have been denied this privilege to celebrate their saints and their traditions?

I realize that at this point its unreasonable to suddenly get rid of the Novus Ordo. To be honest, I don’t even go to an EF parish (mostly because the only one is far away), but **an Anglican Use parish **with a beautiful solemn high Mass. I still get deeply disturbed however when I realize that the Anglican use is once again liturgy by committee.

I’m not sure what an Anglican use parish is. Is this a Roman Catholic parish or a Church of England parish?

If it’s a Church of England parish you may have the beauty and solemnity, but you do not have a valid Eucharist. I’ll reserve that opinion until I understand the term “anglican use.”

Fraternally,

JR

 

[KennethD]

Anglican use is a term similar to Dominican use or Sarum use. It’s a Roman Catholic Church that uses a modified Anglican liturgy. It’s part of a Pastoral Provision by John Paul II. It’s another form of the Roman Rite. I would never leave the Church because of liturgical abuses. I know quite well that Anglican orders have been invalid for hundreds of years.
anglicanuse.org/
walsingham-church.org/ (my parish)

 

[patrick457]

Anglican use is a term similar to Dominican use or Sarum use. It’s a Roman Catholic Church that uses a modified Anglican liturgy. It’s part of a Pastoral Provision by John Paul II. It’s another form of the Roman Rite. I would never leave the Church because of liturgical abuses. I know quite well that Anglican orders have been invalid for hundreds of years.
anglicanuse.org/
walsingham-church.org/ (my parish)

Not to nitpick , but to refer to the Dominican Rite as a ‘Use’ is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[JReducation]

Not to nitpick , but to refer to the Dominican Rite as a ‘Use’ is a bit of a misnomer.

You’re right. The Dominican Rite is an actual rite of the Western Church. This would be more like the Franciscan form. That’s not a right. It’s an allowance for certain customs of the Order to be included in the liturgy.

JR