Voices of Moderate Catholicism and the Liturgical Reforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very well put. I think those of us who are liturgically moderate are really just looking for balance. We recognize the beauty in both forms of the liturgy and want to see the mutual enrichment that Pope Benedict referred to play out fully to the greater glory of God.

I am very blessed to attend a parish that displays that mutual enrichment beautifully. We have wonderfully reverent OF masses as well as some EF masses. Our pastor transformed the liturgy at our parish from 1970’s “spirit of VII” to what we experience now over the course of many years. By all accounts he did so gently and patiently and with constant catechesis on why the changes were happening.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
The worship of politics requires inventing sides or enemies. Not so in the Church. A person is Catholic or not. That’s all.
Click to expand...
Oh, I meant “moderate” in the small-m adjective sense. I wish that there weren’t any Catholicism-And in the world, but alas, there is. Perhaps the ideal will arrive by rejecting the identification, you could be right. Having said that, adjectives do serve a purpose.
 
Sometimes, but again, most Catholics I know have no other adjective attached to them.
 
jesusalright4me said:
“Rad trad” is just a term used to denote someone who looks at Vatican II as pure evil, most going as far as saying the Ordinary Form is invalid.

It is certainly a term that is used often.
Click to expand...
It sounds dismissive, though, and it is sometimes aimed at those who see themselves merely as deeply devoted to the TLM and disturbed by liturgical abuses introduced (for whatever reason) in the aftermath of Vatican II. Not to be “politically correct,” but I think is one of those terms that is not likely to be seen as kind by those it describes, and so it deserves to die from disuse even if it was not meant to be upsetting.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
40.png
edwest211:
Always bring up exceptions…

History, recorded history, not my childhood. Before Vatican II, a full page back cover ad for the St. Joseph Daily Missal on Catholic Digest, October, 1958. I have it.
Click to expand...
It was advertised because not everyone had them. You were the exception.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that. Unlike today, there were a TON of publishers publishing Latin Mass missals before Vatican II

Beside the St. Joseph Missal, there were the following (not an exhaustive list)
  • Marian Missal
  • New Marian Missal
  • The Bishop Sheen Missal
  • Father Lasance - The New Roman Missal
  • St. Andrew’s Missal
  • A Young Catholic’s Daily Missal
  • My Sunday Missal
  • St Pius X Daily Missal
  • Cathedral Daily Missal
  • Maryknoll Missal
  • The Missal (with the English Gospel readings using the Knox Bible)
  • Bible Missal
  • Jesus Mary & Joseph Missal (aka the JMJ Missal)
  • St. Paul Missal
Below is a picture of a collection of different hand missals that were printed between 1945 and 1963 from several different groups. Again, not exhaustive either.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
“Rad trad” is just a term used to denote someone who looks at Vatican II as pure evil, most going as far as saying the Ordinary Form is invalid.

It is certainly a term that is used often.
Click to expand...
I don’t like that term nor definition.

To me, anyone who thinks Vatican II is just pure evil & says the Ordinary Form is invalid is a schismatic - plan and simple (and maybe even a heretic).

I don’t like using “rad trad” because some OF Charismatics like to call Catholics who go to FSSP parishes “rad trads.”

I think it’s just better not to use that term because some people mean it to be FSSP lovers, some SSPX lovers, some mean it be schismatics, and some even call people who just want Latin hymns and chant in the OF rad trads.

So it’s not a very good term because it’s (1) polarizing and (2) there is no uniform definition.

God bless
 
Last edited:
I’m back in high school hearing kids labeling other kids. I didn’t like it then.
 
I said exactly what I meant. Within the rubrics there are many options. Depending on the options the priest chooses, the mass will have a completely different tenor.
Click to expand...
Or praise and worship music, or LifeTeen Mass. Mass can surely have a different tenor depending on liturgical options, yet still be the same in most ways.

Liturgical committees are not wrong, if the bishop allows them in a parish, or as an option. He is the one with the authority to implement the GIRM in his diocese.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
They have the right to implement such music, but it doesn’t mean that their decision will be a good one.

If a bishop were to allow the Gloria set to a Motley Crue tune, would this be a good decision? I imagine most Catholics with any sort of sense of what the mass is would say “no!”

It is in this sense that liturgical committees can be wrong, or rather, make wrong choices. And this is an inherent problem in the Ordinary Form; the allowance to choose secular sounding music leads to a secularization of the mass.

I would contend that even the ability to replace the proper chants of the Church is one of things that should have never been allowed when they were doing the reforms. Sacred Scripture is certainly of a higher dignity than hymns, whether in Latin, English, Hebrew, Greek, etc.
 
It’s not an argument, it’s a question. So, would it be a good decision? Why or why not?
 
It is not a stawman, but rather a reductio ad absurdum. I am demonstrating that, at the very least, in an extreme scenerio like the one I provided, it would be a wrong decision on the part of the bishop, even though it would technically be allowed.

I am only taking the logic that “liturgical committees aren’t wrong”, and taking that to its logical extreme.
 
I was listening to Catholic radio and heard a priest talk about the removal of modern musical instruments. That is a topic of concern. I don’t need to hear electric guitars in Church and there is a psychology and previous history of the use of musical instruments at Mass. Just one example.
 
I can’t tell you over the years how many people have said in forums, words to the effect, “As long as the words are OK, the music doesn’t matter.”

(which is certainly NOT what the Church teaches)
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
They have the right to implement such music, but it doesn’t mean that their decision will be a good one.
Click to expand...
The only issues I have ever seen here are over opinions that differ, as no one actually uses Motley Crue. And whether it is the best liturgy for a parish is always something best decided at that parish. I have heard from CAF on occasion from those who think my own choices are “wrong,” but with a priest and a 1000 families, I have enough opinions to concern myself. I can’t care for those who will never darken the doors at my Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top