Wanting to be a Traditional Catholic(m)

[Confiteor_Deo]

On these boards, more often than not it is those attached to the Extraordinary Form who have to defend themselves. And when the opposite is true, in most cases, the threads are promptly deleted.

I have noticed this too. I’m new here so I don’t have too much experience, but that does seem to be the trend. Why does the Latin Mass stir up so much arguing on this forum?

 

[R_H_Benson]

I have noticed this too. I’m new here so I don’t have too much experience, but that does seem to be the trend. Why does the Latin Mass stir up so much arguing on this forum?

My honest opinion (perhaps it is naïve) is that it is not the Extraordinary Form of the Mass itself that stirs up hostility, but the attitudes that are commonly (not always justly) associated with it. There are few who attend a Mass in the EF and say that it was not beautiful. As a young Catholic who didn’t experience the days before the Second Vatican Council, I can’t talk about what the Church was like when the Tridentine Mass was the norm. However, it seems that in the 50 years that have elapsed since then, the old Mass developed a stigma. It was considered to be “out dated”, “old fashioned”, or perhaps a relic of a time when the Church was “close-minded”. There are a variety of ideas. For many the EF represents what they perceive to be backwards time. I think that in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum and the younger generation was at last exposed to the treasure trove of liturgical tradition that the Church had been storing in the closet, the new wave of traditional minded Catholicism that followed has perhaps opened some old wounds for those who may have had negative experiences in the pre-Conciliar days. Sensitivity to this is necessary, but those with negative attitudes towards the olden days need to keep in mind that the younger generation doesn’t carry that baggage, and that the EF of the Mass should always be separated from the negative attitudes with which it is often associated.

 

[ProVobis]

I live in a rural area and an EF Mass, within reasonable driving distance, simply isn’t available here (at least non-SSPX). Meanwhile there’s YouTube…

You can’t fully experience the silence and meditative prayer from a YouTube video. The EF involves a different level and kind of participation altogether.

.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

My honest opinion (perhaps it is naïve) is that it is not the Extraordinary Form of the Mass itself that stirs up hostility, but the attitudes that are commonly (not always justly) associated with it. There are few who attend a Mass in the EF and say that it was not beautiful. As a young Catholic who didn’t experience the days before the Second Vatican Council, I can’t talk about what the Church was like when the Tridentine Mass was the norm. However, it seems that in the 50 years that have elapsed since then, the old Mass developed a stigma. It was considered to be “out dated”, “old fashioned”, or perhaps a relic of a time when the Church was “close-minded”. There are a variety of ideas. For many the EF represents what they perceive to be backwards time. I think that in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum and the younger generation was at last exposed to the treasure trove of liturgical tradition that the Church had been storing in the closet, the new wave of traditional minded Catholicism that followed has perhaps opened some old wounds for those who may have had negative experiences in the pre-Conciliar days. Sensitivity to this is necessary, but those with negative attitudes towards the olden days need to keep in mind that the younger generation doesn’t carry that baggage, and that the EF of the Mass should always be separated from the negative attitudes with which it is often associated.

Your evaluation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[felsguy]

If someone desired to celebrate the Eucharist as part of an actual meal/banquet (without the Corinthian abuses, of course) in order to more closely imitate those early Christians who knew firsthand an Apostle or two or perhaps Jesus himself, would that make them an…“anti-traditionalist?”

 

[R_H_Benson]

If someone desired to celebrate the Eucharist as part of an actual meal/banquet (without the Corinthian abuses, of course) in order to more closely imitate those early Christians who knew firsthand an Apostle or two or perhaps Jesus himself, would that make them an…“anti-traditionalist?”

I would say “yes” because such a person would be discarding 2,000 years worth of organically accumulated tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

Rome has set out what it expects for the OF, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and by its own liturgical practices at the Vatican. Why wouldn’t we want that applied to the OF across the board?

As a historical note, the changes suggested strongly by the council (Latin, Gregorian chant, etc.) were shelved almost immediately in favor of the 4-hymn vernacular. Before the new Mass was promulgated, the first order of business was to dismantle the Old Mass. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel were immediately removed and the communion formula was changed. Then all the bowing, genuflecting, signs of the cross were removed and the priest started facing the congregation.

But my question to you is that if Gregorian chant was not seriously considered right after the council by the liturgical reformers, why should it be now by the liturgical committees?

 

[felsguy]

If someone desired to celebrate the Eucharist as part of an actual meal/banquet (without the Corinthian abuses, of course) in order to more closely imitate those early Christians who knew firsthand an Apostle or two or perhaps Jesus himself, would that make them an…“anti-traditionalist?”

I would say “yes” because such a person would be discarding 2,000 years worth of organically accumulated tradition.

This prompts a second question. Could those first century Christians who then began celebrating the Eucharist WITHOUT an actual banquet or meal be called “anti-traditionalists?”

What I’m suggesting here is that, as so often happens, we go round and round and round in in this type of discussion because there is no precise or widely accepted definition of a “traditionalist.”

 

[OraLabora]

What I’m suggesting here is that, as so often happens, we go round and round and round in in this type of discussion because there is no precise or widely accepted definition of a “traditionalist.”

This is exactly right, because there is no specific point in time where you can p(name removed by moderator)oint where “tradition” leaves off, and “modern” takes over. What happened at Trent, for instance, was no doubt as earth-shattering then as Vatican II was more recently, especially if you worshipped in a rite that was banned after Trent.

For lovers of the Divine Office, same issue. The Roman Divine Office underwent major reforms in the 13th Century, at Trent, in 1910, in 1955 and again in the late 50s/early 60s, before the changes that led to the Liturgy of the Hours as we now know it, in 1970. And this is just the Office, it doesn’t touch the musical changes for the sung version. The Monastic version on the other hand remained fairly stable from about the 6th century onwards, with the original 6th century schema adapted for Vatican II’s changes and still licit and valid to this day.

Similarly, what we know as Gregorian chant today may bear little resemblance to the original which goes back to the Carolingian era. By the 19th century, Gregorian chant was completely denatured. What we sing as chant today, is what the monks of Solesmes who revived chant in the late 19th century, imagine chant was like 1000 years previous, as the neumes were written in free style with no staff. And the research keeps changing, I’ve seen three versions of the same antiphon between 1983, 2008 and 2010. What Mr. Benson is suggesting is that to go back and do what the original Church did at the beginning is somehow wrong and ignores organic development. But was it wrong in the 19th century to do just that to revive a form chant of 1000 from years earlier to erase the “organic” but erroneous development of the latter part of those years? Was it wrong to undo the wrecking of Divine Office hymns by Pope Urban VIII by restoring them to their ancient texts at Vatican II? (see preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/PopeUrbanVIII.html).

Was it wrong to oblige Benedictines to go back to the intent of their founder’s rule by eliminating the division of monks by caste into choir and lay brothers?

Prior to Trent there were troped Kyries, for example Orbis Factor (now known as Kyrie XI).

Trent did away with those. Now they’re back as one of the approved penitential rites of the OF Mass. People sometimes complain that it replaces the Confiteor and is somehow less traditional, yet take a look and listen to this version of Orbis Factor:

Orbis Factor

Original Text:

1. Orbis factor rex aeterne, eleison. Kyrie, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.
2. Pietatis fons immense, eleison. Kyrie, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.
3. Noxas omnes nostras pelle, eleison. Kyrie, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.
4. Christe qui lux es mundi dator vitae, eleison. Christe, eleison. Christe, eleison.
5. Arte laesos daemonis intuere, eleison. Christe, eleison. Christe, eleison.
6. Conservans te credentes confirmansque, eleison. Christe, eleison. Christe, eleison.
7. Patrem tuum teque flamen utrorumque, eleison. Kyrie, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.
8. Deum scimus unum atque trinum esse, eleison. Kyrie, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.
9. Clemens nobis adsis paraclite ut vivamus in te, eleison. Kyrie, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.

English translation:

1. Maker of the world, King eternal, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us.
2. O immense source of pity, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us.
3. Drive off all our evils, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us.
4. Christ who art the light of the world and giver of life, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us.
5. Consider the wounds produced by the devil’s art, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us.
6. Keeping and confirming thy believers, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us.
7. Thou and thy Father, an equal light, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us.
8. We know that God is one and three, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us.
9. Thou, merciful unto us, art present with the Holy Spirit that we might live in thee, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us.

This Kyrie came from the Graduel d’Alienor de Bretagne from the 13th century. It was made invalid at Trent. Was it wrong in 1970 to try to recapture this tradition in one of the forms of the penitential rite? Alienor de Bretagne BTW was an abbess of the order of Fontevraud, where there was a community of men and women alongside but segregated, and the abbess ruled over both the women and the men. It was founded in 1101.

The view that somehow the Missal of 1962 and the Breviary of 1960 somehow represent “tradition” is very narrow, and in fact ignores the larger part of Church history. The route that “tradition” took was more circuitous and with many detours, than the straight line “organic development” that some seem to think took place.

 

[ProVobis]

But was it wrong in the 19th century to do just that to revive a form chant of 1000 from years earlier to erase the “organic” but erroneous development of the latter part of those years?

Not wrong as long as it doesn’t cause a rupture in the present.

 

[LisaB]

In a marriage if something is important to you, it should also be important to your husband, not because this something matters to him per se, but because YOU matter to him. In this case seeing how much the TLM means to you, he should find a way to support you in this, even if he doesn’t like it himself. Your current arrangement is not a compromise - you are giving everything and he is giving nothing so far. I think you as a couple should decide how to reach a true compromise that works for both of you, not just for him. It’s not like you are asking for your whole family to attend TLM every week - we are talking once a month here. One option would be for you to attend on your own, or if you and your husband decide that Mass separately even once a month doesn’t work for your family, they could give a little too and attend with you. With time they may even come to appreciate it, but it takes more than once to get to this point. My pastor said once that it takes on average 10 times to get used to the TLM.

With veiling at the OF, you may get to the point where you feel a strong call from God to veil. Funny you posted this at this time because just a week ago I told my son I will start veiling at the OF the way I do at the TLM. I’ve been waiting to for a while but like you didn’t, because it would probably make him uncomfortable. Then I got to a point where I didn’t feel right at Mass with a bare head anymore, like something was missing. We’ll see how he gets used to it when I start doing it.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

In a marriage if something is important to you, it should also be important to your husband, not because this something matters to him per se, but because YOU matter to him. In this case seeing how much the TLM means to you, he should find a way to support you in this, even if he doesn’t like it himself. Your current arrangement is not a compromise - you are giving everything and he is giving nothing so far. I think you as a couple should decide how to reach a true compromise that works for both of you, not just for him. It’s not like you are asking for your whole family to attend TLM every week - we are talking once a month here. One option would be for you to attend on your own, or if you and your husband decide that Mass separately even once a month doesn’t work for your family, they could give a little too and attend with you. With time they may even come to appreciate it, but it takes more than once to get to this point. My pastor said once that it takes on average 10 times to get used to the TLM.

 

[R_H_Benson]

This is exactly right, because there is no specific point in time where you can p(name removed by moderator)oint where “tradition” leaves off, and “modern” takes over. What happened at Trent, for instance, was no doubt as earth-shattering then as Vatican II was more recently, especially if you worshipped in a rite that was banned after Trent.

The rites that were suppressed at Trent were only those that were modern innovations at the time. I think the cut off was that if the rite wasn’t 200 years old or more, it was suppressed. Seems like a safeguarding and codification of the more traditional, time honored rites.

The view that somehow the Missal of 1962 and the Breviary of 1960 somehow represent “tradition” is very narrow, and in fact ignores the larger part of Church history. The route that “tradition” took was more circuitous and with many detours, than the straight line “organic development” that some seem to think took place.

A missal that remained largely unchanged from 1570 until 1970 accounts for nearly 1/4 of the Church’s history. It is an integral part of the Church’s liturgical patrimony. To suddenly eviscerate such a Missal and return to a liturgy that resembled the actual Last Supper down to every last detail would be a rupture with tradition. You have to be able to recognize that which is authentic and that which is a rupture. Innovations have popped up throughout the Church’s history - take for example the rites suppressed by Trent - and they always have been quelled by tradition. It may take 10 years, it may take 100 years - but authentic tradition will always emerge victorious. (I am in no way implying that I desire or believe this to be the fate of the Mass of Blessed Paul VI).

 

[otjm]

You are very lucky to have such beautiful OF Masses nearby. As for me, I have watched several very reverent OF Masses on YouTube. Those videos really do give a sense of how, when properly celebrated, the OF is truly beautiful.

May I inquire why you favor attempting to foster a more reverent OF Mass at a parish rather than petitioning for EF Masses?

Let me offer a reason for why many might choose to attend an EF Mass, rather than attempt to “reform” their own parish’s OF Mass. I believe that many, myself included, are strongly attracted to the tradition of the Old Mass. The thought of the saints who offered and assisted at this very form of the Mass - who said the very same prayers, made the same gestures, and saw the same sights - makes me feel connected to our Church’s tradition in a way that the OF cannot. Please do not take this as an insult to the OF. I do not mean it in that way at all. I am just offering a possible reason for why many (by no means all) who crave tradition tend to lean toward the EF Mass rather than towards a more reverent OF.

I suspect that the fact that SP has not resulted in parishes near and far celebrating the EF has several reasons.

One is that a priest cannot be required to say it; and there dos not actually seem to be much interest in may of them learning to do so (keep in mind that there are about 17,000 + parishes in the U.S.).

Another is that there really has not been a widespread “coming forward” of people with enough interest in it to actually form groups and do the groundwork. It can easily take months if not a year, to get to the point where a Mass is regularly scheduled.

SP has been around since July of 2007; that makes it 8 years. The growth of SP is, to put it politely, underwhelming. I am sure there are more now than there were several years ago, but the best that I could come up with was about 3% of the parishes (this was the archdiocese of Chicago) had a Sunday Mass in the EF.

And information is now starting to surface that there are instances where a parish had the EF on Sunday, and there were 100, 150, even 200 people attending at the start. And now there are about 45 or 50 people attending.

That is not to bad mouth it; it is simply a fact. There is far less response to it than was initially projected, and sadly that leaves the few people here, and there, and somewhere else with few options except to travel.

I appreciate your suggestion that the OP look into the matter, but she said rather pointedly and bluntly that neither her husband nor her children wanted to go to an EF. So spending the time (and it will take a bunch of time and meetings) pursuing something her family does not want leaves us back to square one.

Some years back, when I was helping teach RCIA, we had a parish in Portland which said the OF in Latin, and had a schola which had toured Europe. I always made it a point to take the candidates and catechumens to it, since at the time there was no EF available.

And every year there were some who loved it - some even raved about it.

To the best of my knowledge, none of them ever went back. When even the ones who rave about it can’t be bothered, then it does not bode well for continued participation.

 

[otjm]

I have noticed this too. I’m new here so I don’t have too much experience, but that does seem to be the trend. Why does the Latin Mass stir up so much arguing on this forum?

Another reason that people get heated up is because of statements like:

“All I was saying was that generally, for those individuals who do prefer the EF, they are able to become more fully detached from this world, and in a sense lifted into Heaven while at an EF Mass, compared to an OF Mass.”

Oh. I see. So the Trappists (like those in the Abbey not too far from me) apparently are not “More fully detached from this world” because they say the Mass in the OF.

It is the attitude of superiority that almost drips off statements like that which cause friction.

 

[Xantippe]

I suspect that the fact that SP has not resulted in parishes near and far celebrating the EF has several reasons.

One is that a priest cannot be required to say it; and there dos not actually seem to be much interest in may of them learning to do so (keep in mind that there are about 17,000 + parishes in the U.S.).

Another is that there really has not been a widespread “coming forward” of people with enough interest in it to actually form groups and do the groundwork. It can easily take months if not a year, to get to the point where a Mass is regularly scheduled.

SP has been around since July of 2007; that makes it 8 years. The growth of SP is, to put it politely, underwhelming. I am sure there are more now than there were several years ago, but the best that I could come up with was about 3% of the parishes (this was the archdiocese of Chicago) had a Sunday Mass in the EF.

And information is now starting to surface that there are instances where a parish had the EF on Sunday, and there were 100, 150, even 200 people attending at the start. And now there are about 45 or 50 people attending.

That is not to bad mouth it; it is simply a fact. There is far less response to it than was initially projected, and sadly that leaves the few people here, and there, and somewhere else with few options except to travel.

I appreciate your suggestion that the OP look into the matter, but she said rather pointedly and bluntly that neither her husband nor her children wanted to go to an EF. So spending the time (and it will take a bunch of time and meetings) pursuing something her family does not want leaves us back to square one.

Some years back, when I was helping teach RCIA, we had a parish in Portland which said the OF in Latin, and had a schola which had toured Europe. I always made it a point to take the candidates and catechumens to it, since at the time there was no EF available.

And every year there were some who loved it - some even raved about it.

To the best of my knowledge, none of them ever went back. When even the ones who rave about it can’t be bothered, then it does not bode well for continued participation.

We have a priest in our biggish town that does the EF (it used to be once a week, but the location has moved and it looks like it’s now no longer weekly). The Latin Mass community in our town is passionate and close-knit, but is probably not more than several hundred people total (being very generous). Meanwhile, there are couple dozen OF Sunday Masses within easy driving range with similar or larger attendance.

So, it’s nice to have the option (my kids have pretty serious Latin in school and my oldest often wants to go to the Latin Mass), but I can’t say that people are breaking down the door. There isn’t a huge unmet need, at least in our area.

We could probably use some more Spanish Masses, though.

 

[otjm]

In a marriage if something is important to you, it should also be important to your husband, not because this something matters to him per se, but because YOU matter to him. In this case seeing how much the TLM means to you, he should find a way to support you in this, even if he doesn’t like it himself. Your current arrangement is not a compromise - you are giving everything and he is giving nothing so far. I think you as a couple should decide how to reach a true compromise that works for both of you, not just for him. It’s not like you are asking for your whole family to attend TLM every week - we are talking once a month here. One option would be for you to attend on your own, or if you and your husband decide that Mass separately even once a month doesn’t work for your family, they could give a little too and attend with you. With time they may even come to appreciate it, but it takes more than once to get to this point. My pastor said once that it takes on average 10 times to get used to the TLM.

With veiling at the OF, you may get to the point where you feel a strong call from God to veil. Funny you posted this at this time because just a week ago I told my son I will start veiling at the OF the way I do at the TLM. I’ve been waiting to for a while but like you didn’t, because it would probably make him uncomfortable. Then I got to a point where I didn’t feel right at Mass with a bare head anymore, like something was missing. We’ll see how he gets used to it when I start doing it.

You have heard one part of one side of the story, and you can now say with authority that the husband gives nothing.

Wow.

Just, wow.

 

[otjm]

We have a priest in our biggish town that does the EF (it used to be once a week, but the location has moved and it looks like it’s now no longer weekly). The Latin Mass community in our town is passionate and close-knit, but is probably not more than several hundred people total (being very generous). Meanwhile, there are couple dozen OF Sunday Masses within easy driving range with similar or larger attendance.

So, it’s nice to have the option (my kids have pretty serious Latin in school and my oldest often wants to go to the Latin Mass), but I can’t say that people are breaking down the door. There isn’t a huge unmet need, at least in our area.

We could probably use some more Spanish Masses, though.

I suspect that would be a fairly accurate analysis which could be applied almost anywhere. It is surprising to hear, however, that the initial enthusiasm in some places has been waning. Or perhaps not, considering the response to the OF in Latin, which I made sure people were introduced to.

 

[Xantippe]

I suspect that would be a fairly accurate analysis which could be applied almost anywhere. It is surprising to hear, however, that the initial enthusiasm in some places has been waning. Or perhaps not, considering the response to the OF in Latin, which I made sure people were introduced to.

Come to think of it, in our town, the Mass time slot that used to be occupied by the EF Mass at the old location is now being used for the parish’s only Spanish Mass…

 

[Denise1957]

But my question to you is that if Gregorian chant was not seriously considered right after the council by the liturgical reformers, why should it be now by the liturgical committees?

This is a very good question, which deserves a proper answer. but if it were properly addressed, it may have to be admitted that the liturgical reformers were wrong in not considering Gregorian chant; and if they were wrong about it, what else could they have perhaps been wrong about?

When the OF was designed by a committee, with the approval of Pope Paul Vl, the reformers wanted the Mass to be completely understood with nothing left to the imagination. Only the vernacular was allowed, with the priest facing the people. It was not supposed to have Latin, because Latin isn’t completely understood by the people. It’s interesting that Catholics who prefer the OF want to have Latin in parts of the Mass, even though the reformers did not want it at all.