Wanting to be a Traditional Catholic(m)

[ProVobis]

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.

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).

Excellent points, especially about the perceived rupture caused by creating those newer rites before Trent was convened to suppress them. The recent Popes have spoken against the rupture caused by the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II council. (And this is no slam against the form itself.)

In fairness, though, Pope Paul VI did suppress many of the Eucharistic Prayers which were created after Vatican II. (There were reports that in France over 20 EPs were created and used.) He also issued Jubilate Deo which was to restore that Latin which people had been used to. However, and as we all know now, he did NOT suppress the older Rite or the use of it as many were led to believe. The Agatha Christie Indult among other things were evidence or proof of that.

 

[pianistclare]

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./**QUOTE]

BINGO.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Right, and this is much different than the arrogance and gloating expressed by the overwhelming use of the OF over the EF,. English over Latin, etc. I don’t think one can point fingers to those who were/are attached to a received liturgy over hundreds of years and accuse them of a rupture.

 

[pianistclare]

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.

No one is suppressing Chant. Parishes do not hire people who can lead this.
Parishes don’t WANT people who can lead this.

Believe it or not PRIESTS prefer. the English. Good priests. Holy priests. Honest.
The last 3 parishes where I applied as Music Director pointedly stated that they were NOTAT ALL interested in Chant. They did not want to invest in pew books fro it, nor did they want to devote a Mass to it’s music, nor did they have any inclination to using it in any form. The choir had dug in their heels and said “we’ll all quit”
I finally removed it from my resume, as it mostly got them tossed in the trash and I have been playing in parishes since I was ten. Yes, ten years old.

I have extensive experience with it.
Parishes do not want it.
Maybe you few do, but the vast majority of parishes in the South, do not.
It’s all I can do to get the choir director here at the parish where I am the DRE to sing the Pange Lingua in Latin on Holy Thursday.

When you have a couple of generations of people who never heard it, don’t associate it with their Mass experience…then it’s foreign to them. Much as it would be in Japan or anywhere else where they do not speak Latin. It’s really not that much of a puzzle.
People in the U.S. speak English. That’s what they prefer.
Someone asked our Pastor if he would offer the EF. His response was that he would not pray the Mass in a language that neither he nor anyone else understood clearly and totally. He surmised that there would be a few curiosity seekers for a couple of months, but that it would drift off quickly. He would be very reluctant to spend the funds on the necessary items to do it well for 5 people or so.

People can have their nose in documents all they want to.
The Mass remains. Beautiful and a place where we meet Christ at the table.
THIS IS WHAT MATTERS.

I continue to be alarmed by the notion that Christ will meet us on the last day and gripe about what language we used when we prayed.
It’s so contrary tot he Gospel message.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

If Latin is not understood by the people, then IMO it’s the fault of the educators who insist that it no longer has a place in our lives and thus it’s a waste of time teaching it.

Good thing these same educators don’t say the say the same about math or science. Oh wait…

 

[ProVobis]

… Parishes do not hire people who can lead this.
Parishes don’t WANT people who can lead this.

Believe it or not PRIESTS prefer. the English. Good priests. Holy priests. Honest.
The last 3 parishes where I applied as Music Director pointedly stated that they were NOTAT ALL interested in Chant.

Good and holy maybe, but, excuse me, isn’t this the part of the rupture which the recent Popes have spoken against?

That said, I certainly am not blaming you for it. I myself have given up my organ aspirations altogether having seen what the future trend may hold for church musicians.

 

[pianistclare]

Good and holy maybe, but, excuse me, isn’t this the part of the rupture which the recent Popes have spoken against?

That said, I certainly am not blaming you for it. I myself have given up my organ aspirations altogether having seen what the future trend may hold for church musicians.

There’s only a rupture if the laity keep harping on it.
I don’t feel any such “rupture” at the Masses I attend.

And how can there be a rupture when both forms are permitted?
That’s not a rupture, that co-existing.

 

[Kal2012]

I think that if you veiled, then it would help other women find the courage to do it themselves.

It would also help the priests and deacons see that the people they are serving crave a deeper experience in the Mass and with God.

(and what a contrast it would be compared to the women/teens who wear their “Daisy Dukes” to Mass.)

As much as you don’t want to “embarrass” your family, the thing is you are trying to worship and honor God in the most authentic way that you know how.

I understand not wanting to stand out more, but I also understand having to be who you are - regardless of what the community might say.

 

[pianistclare]

If Latin is not understood by the people, then IMO it’s the fault of the educators who insist that it no longer has a place in our lives and thus it’s a waste of time teaching it.

Good thing these same educators don’t say the say the same about math or science. Oh wait…

Many High Schools teach Latin.
However not many of those students even attend any sort of church, so they don’t necessarily consider its “usefulness” in worship.
They do however desire it if they plan on a career in medicine or law.
A lot of kids study Latin, but for secular reasons.

 

[Xantippe]

If Latin is not understood by the people, then IMO it’s the fault of the educators who insist that it no longer has a place in our lives and thus it’s a waste of time teaching it.

**Can you point to a time or place (later than Augustine’s Hippo) where Latin was well understood by the common people?

Bear also in mind that some languages are a less good position for learning Latin. A speaker of a Romance languages is in a great position. An English speaker (coming from a language soaked in Latin vocabulary) is in a good position. But, once you get outside that linguistic bubble (for instance in Slavic languages or even more exotic language families), there are no longer so many linguistic cognate “freebies” to help you along. So, while it is possible to make a case for Latin within a certain linguistic zone, once you get outside it, the effort involved is huge.**

Good thing these same educators don’t say the say the same about math or science. Oh wait…

My kids are studying Latin at a hotsy totsy school that teaches it VERY seriously from 4th grade on up. My oldest recently won a national gold medal in Latin in 7th grade. Nonetheless, I suspect she’s still years from being able to understand a Latin Mass as well as she does an English Mass.

The time investment we’re talking about is truly vast.

 

[bobballen_18]

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.

Hmm, I already responded to this statement. You are putting words in my mouth. I meant very literally what I said - “for those individuals who do prefer the EF” - so I am not saying anything about the Trappists like those in the Abbey not too far from you. You have to read my response in the context of what I was replying to. I was replying to Timothy’s claim that the saints did not strive for perfection, that they only were striving for sufficiency and that “detachment” is necessary.

So, again, my point in bringing up the EF in that response was not to degrade the OF - it was to in a way relate to the OP, who obviously must prefer the EF for a reason. Perhaps I was only implying that for HER individually, she felt much more spiritually uplifted, perhaps even more detached from this world, by the EF than the OF. There is nothing wrong with me saying this, other than the fact that those who aren’t too impressed with EF will use it as ammunition against those such as myself who prefer the EF, to say that they are being superior. You are simply incorrect, and I’m sorry if you interpreted what I’m saying in that way.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

Yes.

 

[pianistclare]

Hmm, I already responded to this statement. You are putting words in my mouth. I meant very literally what I said - “for those individuals who do prefer the EF” - so I am not saying anything about the Trappists like those in the Abbey not too far from you. You have to read my response in the context of what I was replying to. I was replying to Timothy’s claim that the saints did not strive for perfection, that they only were striving for sufficiency and that “detachment” is necessary.

So, again, my point in bringing up the EF in that response was not to degrade the OF - it was to in a way relate to the OP, who obviously must prefer the EF for a reason. Perhaps I was only implying that for HER individually, she felt much more spiritually uplifted, perhaps even more detached from this world, by the EF than the OF. There is nothing wrong with me saying this, other than the fact that those who aren’t too impressed with EF will use it as ammunition against those such as myself who prefer the EF, to say that they are being superior. You are simply incorrect, and I’m sorry if you interpreted what I’m saying in that way.

So…loads of people telling you otherwise does not give you pause?

You have manipulated his response, just because he cited an example.
These debate tactics seldom work.
Maybe you could share that with those who do in fact, bash those who don’t espouse the EF.
That would be a worthy endeavor.

 

[bobballen_18]

No one is suppressing Chant. Parishes do not hire people who can lead this.
Parishes don’t WANT people who can lead this.

Believe it or not PRIESTS prefer. the English. Good priests. Holy priests. Honest.
The last 3 parishes where I applied as Music Director pointedly stated that they were NOTAT ALL interested in Chant. They did not want to invest in pew books fro it, nor did they want to devote a Mass to it’s music, nor did they have any inclination to using it in any form. The choir had dug in their heels and said “we’ll all quit”
I finally removed it from my resume, as it mostly got them tossed in the trash and I have been playing in [parishes since I was ten. Yes, ten years old.

I have extensive experience with it.
Parishes do not want it.
Maybe you few do, but the vast majority of parishes in the South, do not.
It’s all I can do to get the choir director here at the parish where I am the DRE to sing the Pange Lingua in Latin on Holy Thursday.

When you have a couple of generations of people who never heard it, don’t associate it with their Mass experience…then it’s foreign to them. Much as it would be in Japan or anywhere else where they do not speak Latin. It’s really not that much of a puzzle.
People in the U.S. speak English. That’s what they prefer.
Someone asked our Pastor if he would offer the EF. His response was that he would not pray the Mass in a language that neither he nor anyone else understood clearly and totally. He surmised that there would be a few curiosity seekers for a couple of months, but that it would drift off quickly. He would be very reluctant to spend the funds on the necessary items to do it well for 5 people or so.

People can have their nose in documents all they want to.
The Mass remains. Beautiful and a place where we meet Christ at the table.
THIS IS WHAT MATTERS.

I continue to be alarmed by the notion that Christ will meet us on the last day and gripe about what language we used when we prayed.
It’s so contrary tot he Gospel message.

Regarding music, the Church is clear what constitutes sacred music, and the Church is clear in what she prefers all parishes to have. Options to not use chant are only to be replaced with other actual sacred music selections, and really should be an exception, not the norm. It does not matter whether people want chant or not - the Church wants it! Why do we not listen to the Church on this matter? Shouldn’t we consider that there’s something amiss within ourselves if we can’t bring ourselves to at least work towards thinking with the mind of the Church?

OK and I hate to say this since Gregorian Chant is more suited to the Latin language, but chant can be done in English. There are plenty of resources for using English chants within the Mass.
[/quote]

 

[bobballen_18]

So…loads of people telling you otherwise does not give you pause?

You have manipulated his response, just because he cited an example.
These debate tactics seldom work.
Maybe you could share that with those who do in fact, bash those who don’t espouse the EF.
That would be a worthy endeavor.

Yes, it gives me pause whether I should have mentioned the EF, even in that context, due to the number of people claiming that I am saying something I am not. I still claim, however, that you are misinterpreting my statements. The only reason you are interpreting my statements as such is because there is still a stigma associated with those who prefer the EF that says they are simply individuals who believe themselves to be “holier than thou” and their sole goal in life is to degrade those who prefer the OF. Like I said to otjm, you are simply incorrect that this was my goal in my response.

I most certainly did NOT “manipulate” his response. It doesn’t matter if he was “only giving an example” - I disagreed with his example, whatever you want to call it. This was his response (which was a reponse by itself, not a response to a previous post):

An “I want to be a traditionalist” thread comes up from time to time.

I really want to say, “So?” Get a veil, find a parish three hours away that has the Latin Mass and go. Whadayawant from the rest of us?

I feel for the OP but she is in a covenant relationship with her husband - the two become one flesh and hopefully one heart and mind. Marriage is a continual compromise where the two become a visible sign of Christ in each others lives by saying “Not my will but thy will be done.”
Love does not seek its own interest (1 Corinthians 13:5)
I wanted a Corvette. My wife said no. I didn’t get a Corvette. She wanted Formica furniture. I said no. We didn’t get Formica. Continual compromise. Not mine but thy will be done.

Some will say that the spiritual life is more important than a car and furniture. No doubt true but so is detachment and Americans seem obsessed with perfection. The saints all lived in reality, not concerned with perfection but with sufficiency.

If God dwells inside of you what more could you want? Any spirituality begins in the heart and no one can ever take away what’s inside your heart.

My point in responding to this particular post of Timothy’s, once again, was to disagree with/challenge the notion that striving for perfection is simply an “obsession” and was not something the saints were concerned with. Further, his response implied that “detachment”, which he says is important in the spiritual life, is somehow at odds with striving for perfection, which I also emphatically disagreed with.

Here’s a thought - do you not feel like you are lifted, in a sense, out of this world while at an OF Mass? If so, do you get more of this sense at an OF Mass than an EF Mass? If so, then I could accuse you of exactly the same thing you are accusing me. But no, only those who prefer the EF who are the bad guys. Give me a break. There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring the EF to the OF, and vice versa.

I would also add, if you do NOT feel in a sense that you are participating in something “out of this world”, or that the Liturgy is not aiding you in becoming detached from worldly things, then that is a problem in itself, regardless of what form you prefer. The Mass is “Heaven on Earth”!!!

 

[OraLabora]

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.

The 1962 Missal wasn’t “eviscerated”. It still exists, and nor was the 1970 Mass an “evisceration”, but it was a simplification. However the EF isn’t as it was at Trent either. The liturgical year was simplified, the rubrics were simplified, Holy Week was changed… and Gregorian chant restored: the official Graduale Romanum, Vatican Edition, was promulgated in 1908; until then sacred music was a mishmash of music that didn’t at all resemble “Gregorian” chant (and that was in fact just awful for the most part). Gregorian chant as it is now practiced in the Mass, only came about after the late 19th century restoration by the monks of Solesmes. The Church reached back 1000 years to restore what had been, or rather how it thinks it was, as there are no actual recordings of original Gregorian chant, just ancient Graduals with mostly free-form neumes not written on a staff.

As for continuity, there’s the small matter of the 1910 Divine Office of Pius X, a radical break from the Divine Office of Trent which still had recognizable roots in monasticism. The liturgy of the Church is not just the Mass; the Mass, while the summit of the daily liturgy, forms an organic whole with the Divine Office. The Divine Office of 1910 ruptured the music, split the psalms in new divisions, significantly reduced the psalmody, and broke up the “Laudate” psalms at Lauds (the traditional psalms 148-149-150 that closed the psalmody of Lauds for over 1000 years).

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.

And just how, pray tell, do you know what was on the mind of the commission charged with reform of the liturgy (a reform process begun in the mid-40s under Pius XII I might add) with regards to chant, Latin, etc? I prefer to look at what the Church officially promulgates. One, it promulgates the Editio Typica of the 1970 Latin Missal in Latin. Two, the OF Mass is said in Latin daily around the world. I’ve attended some, and in fact important Masses at the Vatican are said in Latin. Three, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the official guideline for the reformation of the Liturgy said this about Gregorian chant:

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

1. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

Plus SC also strongly encouraged the retention of Latin especially for the Ordinary.

Do you have some sort of official Church document that supports your assertion that the reformers at the Council wanted to abolish Latin and chant altogether, in spite of the fact that the Vatican mandated Solesmes to safeguard chant and update chant books to reflect the changes in the liturgical year after 1970? The fruits of the creation of adaptions of chant books as requested by the Vatican include the 1974 Graduale Romanum (and it’s 1979 neumed version, the Graduale Triplex), the Graduale Simplex (for smaller churches, as requested), the Gregorian Missal, and for the Divine Office the Liber Hymnarius, the Antiphonale Monasticum, and the Antiphonale Romanum which is now finally just appearing

 

[ProVobis]

There’s only a rupture if the laity keep harping on it.
I don’t feel any such “rupture” at the Masses I attend.

I believe the rupture which the Popes (and at least one bishop) have spoken against has caused many to leave the Church and/or stop attending Mass altogether. So no, you won’t “feel” it at a Mass you attend, because those folks haven’t left yet. But weren’t you the one who was complaining about the lack of enthusiasm among the congregation, in regards responding and singing? I would think if one really wanted to be there, he’d be more serious with his prayers and singing, but I’m no psychologist.

,

 

[ProVobis]

OK and I hate to say this since Gregorian Chant is more suited to the Latin language, but chant can be done in English. There are plenty of resources for using English chants within the Mass.

As Pope Paul stated, his asking every parish to use Jubilate Deo was to promote unity among ALL Catholics. English is about the worst language one can pick for doing that.

 

[bobballen_18]

As Pope Paul stated, his asking every parish to use Jubilate Deo was to promote unity among ALL Catholics. English is about the worst language one can pick for doing that.

Well, you have a point there I can’t deny. I in fact believe that the whole Mass, aside for perhaps the readings, should remain in Latin. I guess what I was really thinking of when I wrote that was things such as the Simple English Propers. I totally believe that the Ordinaries should be chanted according to the 18 Mass settings in the Kyriale, in Latin of course (except when a polyphonic Mass is sung every so often) - and that is part of what is in Jubilate Deo. The other chants in Jubilate Deo are wonderful as well, and I certainly believe every Catholic should know or at least be familiar with them all.

I think the English vs. Latin is a tough question. There’s an internal conflict within me personally - I love the Latin for its beauty and tradition, but since I don’t understand most of it, there’s that other part of me which wants more English. However, it doesn’t really matter what I want - and in fact, I still prefer the Latin despite this. So I guess English chant, in certain parts of the Mass other than the Ordinaries, could be a way to expose more people to chant without as much backlash as would exist if only Latin chant was sung. I think that at least for today’s Church (who knows, may be different in the future), there’s room for both the traditional Latin chants as well as some English chants. I believe, though, that the final goal should be to use as much Latin as possible (which means, I suppose, everything in Latin…haha).

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

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.

Yes, I see what you mean. It does become difficult to withhold anger when it seems that one is attacking you or what you believe/hold dear, especially over the Internet. I hope the Latin Rite will eventually go back to just one form of Mass.