P
ProVobis
Guest
There is an old adage: A picture is worth a thousand words.
Can we safely say visuals are worth more than a thousand vernaculars?
(BTW, chalkboards count as visuals.
)
- Status
Can we safely say visuals are worth more than a thousand vernaculars?
(BTW, chalkboards count as visuals.
)
A
adawgj
Guest
There isn’t a true definition of a Traditional Catholic.
Here’s how I describe myself as being traditional
Try to live my faith to the fullest (studying, praying, evangelizing, being charitable, etc.)
Love The Church and wish to defend her with all my heart and strength, since we are the Church militant
Abide to the teachings of Christ and his Church
Attend the Holy Mass give as much respect and reverence to the Eucharist during communion.
When I fall to sin I go to confession and work on my struggles.
I hope that when I die that I will be a part of the Church Triumphant.
Here’s how I describe myself as being traditional
Try to live my faith to the fullest (studying, praying, evangelizing, being charitable, etc.)
Love The Church and wish to defend her with all my heart and strength, since we are the Church militant
Abide to the teachings of Christ and his Church
Attend the Holy Mass give as much respect and reverence to the Eucharist during communion.
When I fall to sin I go to confession and work on my struggles.
I hope that when I die that I will be a part of the Church Triumphant.
C
ccmcmg
Guest
Perhaps instead of focusing on what is different between people who prefer pre-Vatican II and post V2, we should focus on what we have in common. Let us not divide or attempt to divide the Faithful. The rest of the world has a large head start on that. Let’s show respect for each other’s preferences, but that doesn’t make one a better or different Catholic.
.
Agreed and agreed. Thank you for describing me, a Traditional Catholic. I follow the Church’s teachings, and no where are we told that a ‘real’ or ‘traditional’ Catholic must do or adhere to any of the teachings described in much of this thread.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
That is a good definition and one with which I would go along with. It is therefore fully, and equally as possible to be a traditional Catholic who prefers to attend an of Mass as it is one who prefers to attend EF Mass. We are not defined by the form of Mass we prefer. Our Church teaches that both forms are equal and essentially the same.
J
JReducation
Guest
I have never understood how attachment to one form of the mass makes one a Traditional Catholic. Catholic is to be attached to the Church, not to one form of the mass or one rite among the many. Obviously, the Eastern Catholic are have an attachment to their rites, because they’re part of their ethnic identity. That’s not the case in the Latin Church. The Latin Church is made up of many ethnic groups.
Just on Saturday I received five emails from very distressed Traditionalists who volunteer in my program and I had to moderate an argument that broke out in one of our centers. All of these were tied into two events: the Buenos Aires fiasco as I call it and Pat Buchanan’s criticism of Pope Francis.
Both the protesters in Buenos Aires and Buchanan have a very narrow view of what Catholic tradition is all about. The folks in Buenos Aires seemed to have narrowed it down to placing a building over human beings and completely ignored the tradition of the bishop and his rights over his cathedral. Buchanan has no understanding of religious life, which is an important part of Catholic tradition. Therefore, he is filtering the pope as if he were a secular pope as were Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John XXIII, Pius XII and all the way back to Gregory XVI who was the last consecrated religious to occupy the Chair of Peter. Were Mr. Buchanan better educated in Catholic tradition, he would have known about this very important difference and how this difference in vocations shapes people and their approach to the same ministry. A religious is not a secular priest. Secular priests don’t want to be seen as religious and religious don’t want to be seen as secular priests. It’s that simple.
In other words, take a Franciscan, Jesuit, Dominican and a Diocesan priest. Place them all in the same ministry and you will find that they approach it very differently. Even the way they preach is very different. It’s not an issue of content, but of style, emphasis and charism. Being a Jesuit is a vocation, being pope is an office. Mr. Buchanan missed this. But enough Traditionalists in my program read it. Because they don’t know the difference, they took him at his word and were rattled thinking that the pope is destroying the Church as Buchanan suggests.
In other words, if one narrows down tradition to a few elements, one runs the risk of becoming confused and confusing. Whereas if one understands that tradition is not an umbrella. It’s more like a great big tent under which are many smaller traditions, one has a greater appreciation for the diversity in the Church and feels much safer.
I for one have never felt ill at ease with the Church in this day and age. It has different issues from those of the past, but the people of the past also thought that their period in history was the worse crisis in the Church. Even the theme song, “Crisis In The Church” has become a tradition of sorts. Every few generations it’s dusted off and sung.
Whatever you do, don’t make the mistake of reducing tradition to one form of the mass, certain devotions or a certain way of teaching the faith. Tradition is much bigger than that. All of those are smaller traditions under the big awning, for lack of a better term.
They are important, but they have their place in the Church’s tradition. They are NOT the Church’s tradition. The Church’s tradition is a tapestry of many traditions and customs. When we define tradition too narrowly, we do others a great disfavor.
You give me more work than I bargained for. Because I’m the person in my diocese who has to answer all of these emails and moderate these arguments before they bring down a much needed ministry. Please keep the definition broad.
Just on Saturday I received five emails from very distressed Traditionalists who volunteer in my program and I had to moderate an argument that broke out in one of our centers. All of these were tied into two events: the Buenos Aires fiasco as I call it and Pat Buchanan’s criticism of Pope Francis.
Both the protesters in Buenos Aires and Buchanan have a very narrow view of what Catholic tradition is all about. The folks in Buenos Aires seemed to have narrowed it down to placing a building over human beings and completely ignored the tradition of the bishop and his rights over his cathedral. Buchanan has no understanding of religious life, which is an important part of Catholic tradition. Therefore, he is filtering the pope as if he were a secular pope as were Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John XXIII, Pius XII and all the way back to Gregory XVI who was the last consecrated religious to occupy the Chair of Peter. Were Mr. Buchanan better educated in Catholic tradition, he would have known about this very important difference and how this difference in vocations shapes people and their approach to the same ministry. A religious is not a secular priest. Secular priests don’t want to be seen as religious and religious don’t want to be seen as secular priests. It’s that simple.
In other words, take a Franciscan, Jesuit, Dominican and a Diocesan priest. Place them all in the same ministry and you will find that they approach it very differently. Even the way they preach is very different. It’s not an issue of content, but of style, emphasis and charism. Being a Jesuit is a vocation, being pope is an office. Mr. Buchanan missed this. But enough Traditionalists in my program read it. Because they don’t know the difference, they took him at his word and were rattled thinking that the pope is destroying the Church as Buchanan suggests.
In other words, if one narrows down tradition to a few elements, one runs the risk of becoming confused and confusing. Whereas if one understands that tradition is not an umbrella. It’s more like a great big tent under which are many smaller traditions, one has a greater appreciation for the diversity in the Church and feels much safer.
I for one have never felt ill at ease with the Church in this day and age. It has different issues from those of the past, but the people of the past also thought that their period in history was the worse crisis in the Church. Even the theme song, “Crisis In The Church” has become a tradition of sorts. Every few generations it’s dusted off and sung.
Whatever you do, don’t make the mistake of reducing tradition to one form of the mass, certain devotions or a certain way of teaching the faith. Tradition is much bigger than that. All of those are smaller traditions under the big awning, for lack of a better term.
They are important, but they have their place in the Church’s tradition. They are NOT the Church’s tradition. The Church’s tradition is a tapestry of many traditions and customs. When we define tradition too narrowly, we do others a great disfavor.
You give me more work than I bargained for. Because I’m the person in my diocese who has to answer all of these emails and moderate these arguments before they bring down a much needed ministry. Please keep the definition broad.
J
Jaberwocky
Guest
I usually don’t like to get involved in these discussions anymore but I thought I would give my perspective on this matter.
When “traditionalist” get upset or criticize the religious priests, bishops or popes, I think they do so by looking at the matter in practical terms.
So they would see words of Pope Francis for an example or his Pastoral strategy and see it as practically untenable. Then they will conveniently notice the more practical strategy that most have come to know naturally as the “traditional” strategy. They will then proceed to criticize what they see as inferior to that better strategy.
The matter here is that the pastoral strategy, which is what all of this falls under, is not an infallible doctrine of the Church. The very fact that the Church has changed it many times leads one to only conclude that she is just trying different things at any given time but there is no certitude that it is beneficial or good.
Therefore, the issue of the pastoral strategy becomes open to criticism. There is no longer a possibility, and rightly so, for anyone in the Church to demand that a specific strategy be respected. So the faithful can evaluate the positives and negatives of the Latin vs modern mass and then conclude, on objective merits, which one is better to lead ones Catholic faith. The Church can of course remind the faithful that both masses satisfy the liturgical requirement. But the Church cannot claim that it satisfies all pastoral needs.
So it may well be the case that the Catholic Church will never have an optimal pastoral strategy till the end of time. It may well be the case that individuals will have to decide, using God given reason, what is the best strategy for themselves and others and follow it.
The reason why you had an argument in your parish is therefore because of this very issue. There is no longer trust in the Church, which has changed her pastoral strategy drastically in the last 50 years, as being credible in her authority on that matter. For if the Church can change so drastically 50 years ago, that means what she held before was inferior. But if that is the case, then there is nothing that protects her current strategy as being correct either. That too may be inferior.
J
Jaberwocky
Guest
On Pat Buchanan, it should be said that he didn’t criticize the Pope as not being non-traditional but on the point of consequences of the Pope’s actions.
As much as I respect Pope Francis, I cannot help but agree that Buchanan’s concerns are valid.
As much as I respect Pope Francis, I cannot help but agree that Buchanan’s concerns are valid.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Are you hinting at those youtube videos you linked before of the FSSP priest explaining the Latin Mass? If so I’d link them but I can’t find that thread and failed to save the videos as a favorite on my browser. They really need to make a sticky thread for videos like that. It would save us non-EF literate Catholics a lot of time in asking the same questions over and over again.There is an old adage: A picture is worth a thousand words.
Can we safely say visuals are worth more than a thousand vernaculars?
(BTW, chalkboards count as visuals.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Are you referring to this?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Yes. Thank you. Now added to my favorites.
J
JReducation
Guest
Buchanan is using the pope for his own agenda.
Observe that he has very little understanding of basic concepts.
He critiques the pope for saying, “Who am I to judge?” By going on to say that even the lowliest confessor in a parish passes judgement.
This is asinine thinking. In the confessional, hopefully, penitent has hopefully opened up his soul to the confessor as one opens a door to a room. In the setting where people are asking about gays in general, the pope is not acting as a confessor. He’s speaking objectively. Objectively, not even the pope has the right to judge a sinner. He can only judge what he sees, not what happens in the soul which he does not see. That is the judgment that the confessor is making. He is judging what has been confessed to him. He’s not making a general judgement over an entire population of people. That’s not how moral theology works. Buchanan and those who trust this part of his judgement need to read the writing of St. Alphonsus de Ligouri on sin, confession and how to make judgements.
Buchanan also infers that the pope has put aside the Church’s concerns about gay marriage, abortion and divorce. But Buchanan fails to tell his readers
a. The pope said
- Everyone knows what the Church believes.
- I am a son of the Church.
- You cannot throw these things out there out of context.
- You don’t have to talk about these things all the time.
b. The pope and the President of Argentina had a public shouting match on Argentine TV over same-sex adoption of childrens in which the former Cardinal Bergoglio told the president that such a law was sponsoring child abuse.
c. He fails to direct his readers to the pope’s daily homilies in which this pope speaks more about sin, the devil and hell than Pope Benedict ever did. I’m not singling out Pope Benedict. I love Benedict. I’ve known him personally since I was very young. The issue is that Trads like Buchanan badmouthed Benedict, when he did not yield to the SSPX. Now they claim that Benedict is the best thing since peanut butter and jelly. (My favorite food). He wasn’t good enough before.
d. He fails to tell his readers that he (Buchanan) was ballistic with John Paul II when the pope condemned the US invasion of Iraq. Buchanan believes in the “prosperity gospel”. We are the richest and the most powerful country in the world, because we’re always right and God is on our side. How dare the pope say that what we are about to do is a grave sin?
c. He didn’t say that he is ballistic with Pope Francis, because he called the world to prayer for a different course of action regarding Syria. NOr that this pope brought Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and even atheists together that one Saturday afternoon, not only in the Vatican, but around the world. Buchanan was livid. It’s in his blog somewhere.
d. He also failed to mention that he took offense that the pope wrote President Putin and not President Obama on the Syria issue. But he does not mention that President Obama had recalled the US ambassador to the Vatican. There was no ambassador to deliver a message to Mr. Obama. Nor was Mr. Obama hosting the gathering and chairing the meeting.
Before we go elevating Buchanan to an ecclesiology scholar, let’s examine his rocky relationship with Catholicism. Let’s not forget that this is a man who blames women for getting pregnant outside of marriage, but not the men who impregnate them. He wants rigorous laws against abortion, but has not pushed for rigorous laws against deadbeat dads. While the Pope has approved the foundation of different religious communities and organizations to face the issue from both sides, father and mother and he is now calling a synod on the family. Guess what’s on the agenda? Abortion, same-ses marriage and divorce?
Mr Buchanan’s statement that the pope only cares about unemployed youth is taking a statement that the pope made to one group and implying that this statement excludes everything else. In reality the pope was asked a question about the greatest material or temporal concern for the Church today.
Abortion gay marriages and divorce are not temporal concerns. They are not really concerns in the sense that the Church has already spoken on them and has already authorized dioceses and religious to work on this. That’s how my community came into existence. And it is approved by the Church. So are the Sisters of Life, Priests for Life, Franciscan Brothers of Peace, Franciscans of the Renewal and Little Brothers of St. Francis.
Right now, anyone who has a stable group that wants to become a public association of the faithful and later a congregation of religious that works in abortion, gay marriage and family life, divorce and family life, and the immigrant poor and family life, such groups are being approved in a flash. Religious communities asking to do the usual running of schools are not getting the quick approval as those who work in the life issues.
In Argentina, Cardinal Bergoglio approved the foundation of two religious communities of Franciscans who do this work and opened the doors to the Sisters of Life, Franciscans of Life and Franciscans of the Renewal. It looks like Buchanan did not do his homework.
Even Sarah Palin backed down and apologized to the pope. She had read and supported Buchanan. Later said that she should have done her homework better and not trust the media.
J
JReducation
Guest
Three points.
- A very well reasoned post. Congrats.
- I don’t run a parish. If I did, my life with the Trads would be easy sailing since the laity in Franciscan parishes have no voice or vote. The condition when Franciscans take over a parish is that all voice and vote rests with the major superior of the region. He delegates to the pastor as much or as little as he wants who then delegates to the laity as much or as little as he wants to delegate.
Now, people outside of my ministry think that I’m the Trad guru, because my community is a Trad community and I get these emails and telephone calls about every little snowflake that falls yonder.
- Your post is well written, but maybe my question was not. Let try to state it again.
Here is where I’m coming from. My community lives the Franciscan life (tries) to live it as it was lived in the 13th century, with the same disciplines, demand for absolute and unquestioning obedience to bishops and popes, penance, prayer, poverty, love of our brothers before all other men, life among the poor, not even having medical insurance or retirement insurance, unless you worked before you entered and have Social Security and Medicare benefits that you paid into. We even pray the LOTH in Latin, though we do not use the Breviary of 1962, because there is no Franciscan companion to it. We use the Breviary of 1970, which has a Franciscan version.
But as superior, I have said that
a) our one priest who knows how to celebrate the Ef and likes to do it, may never do it for the laity. He can only do it for his house, when his superior allows it. He cannot celebrate it privately, because the Rule of St. Francis does not allow private celebrations of the mass. So that part of SP does not apply to us. As SP says, the major superior and the law of the community make these internal decisions. My reason for not allowing an EF open to the laity is simple. Tradition is embracing the entire Church, not excluding what one does not like or what is new. At least that has never been a Franciscan tradition. Only the superior can decide what to exclude as long as he does not violate Canon Law.
b) I believe that tradition is bigger than the TLM. Our attempt to live the Franciscan life is as traditional as the TLM. I do not subscribe to the idea that tradition is limited to what existed before Vatican II. Because in the mind of St. Francis, we are never to stay stuck in one time zone, nor are we to jump forward into a black hole. We are to move along with the Holy See. That’s traditional Franciscan law.
However, many in this forum and in other places have scolded us for saying that we are a traditional religious community or that we are traditional individual Catholics.
My question is why doe we have to be a sola TLM and Pre Vatican II people to be Traditionalists?
That’s not how Francis envisioned tradition, nor any of our great Franciscan doctors or saints and by the way, we hold the record for the largest number of doctors, saints and scholars in the Church. But we’re still good friends with the Jesuits and Dominicans.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Br JR, with all due respect, this is one rule I don’t understand. Isn’t this like saying an organist can’t practice when his skillset requires it? Same for altar serving. We might not have served every day when I attended grade school but there were always several of us who would meet from time to time to practice so we wouldn’t look foolish when we were called upon to do it. As they say, practice makes perfect. A certain atrophy does occur from non use, even though someone can do it perfectly in one’s mind all the time.
J
JReducation
Guest
Francis wrote this into the rule precisely to avoid what you said and I bolded. Francis founded a family of brothers and sisters. Let’s stick with the males, since celebrating mass only applies to males.
Franciscans are religious brothers first. It does not matter to Francis that one is ordained. You are a religious brother. The liturgy (Mass and Divine Office) is the place where the brothers come together as one family to worship and offer the sacrifice.
In those days, there was no such thing as concelebration. Only one priest said the mass. To allow brother-priest to celebrate mass without the community of friars was contrary to the reason of the priesthood in Franciscan life. Priests in Franciscan life exist, first and foremost, to serve their brothers in the community. Their priestly ministry is put at the disposal of the brethren. In a mass without the brethren, the brother-priest is not leading his brothers in prayer.
Since his purpose is to serve his brothers through the ministry of the priesthood and there are no brothers present, there is no need for private mass. The brother-priest attends mass with his brothers or concelebrates in the community mass. Whichever he chooses to do, sit in the pews with the other brothers or con-celebrate, he must be one with his brothers during the mass, not a loner.
The rule says that the clerics must attend the community mass and not have a private mass. Those priests who have not been assigned by the superior to say the mass, must attend with the non-ordained brothers. In essence, the call is to worship with the community. When you celebrate mass it’s for the community.
Later, after the first five or so years of the order, many of the brother-priests were sent on mission to other parts of Europe and Africa. They always went at least in pairs so that one would celebrate the mass and the other attend the mass. This way you preserve the fraternal life.
It was never in Francis’ design that our priests were for the laity. This is still not in our constitutions. Nor did Francis mention the laity in our rule. We have absolutely no obligation toward the laity at all. This was not Francis’ vision. Our entire existence is about our brotherhood.
So how did we end up in the service of the laity? I was a natural consequence of living and working among laymen. The brothers would go out to the fields and offer their services to the farmers in exchange for food and wine for their community. However, it has always been part of our tradition to serve the people around us who are in need.
If you were working on a farm for food and wine and were a priest, you could celebrate mass as a service to those brothers in the world (the laity). But notice that the wording was that it could be done, not that it had to be done. To this day, is does not have to be done unless it’s part of your job, such as a brother-priest who is assigned to a parish.
Pope Leo XIII gave permission for ordained brothers to celebrate private masses. This tore apart the community mass. Everyone who was ordained wanted to celebrate mass. So they did. If there were non-ordained brothers in the house, they used them as altar servers. In the end, the community mass disappeared in all but a few houses.
The priests of the order became contaminated with the world. They became like diocesan priests. They no longer felt the need for a community mass, because the pope had said that they COULD, not had to, celebrate a private mass.
In places where all of the brothers were ordained, the one celebrated the morning mass in the parish and the others went off to celebrate private masses alone instead of attending the parish mass with the people or having a community mass. the more they went out of the community to celebrate either parish masses or private masses, the further away they got from community living.
You no longer had a community mass. Then you no longer had a community meal, because people invited you to eat at their home. If you were away from the friary, you no longer prayed in community. When you came home tired, you went to your bed and did not stay around the recreation room with your brothers. Eventually, you were a group of diocesan priests wearing habits.
In the renewal, Vatican II commanded religious to go back to their roots. Our roots are in a family, not an institute of priests. There were priests, laymen, nuns, sisters, and religious brothers in this family. This is what we have gone back to. There is only one community mass and any ordained brother who does not have an outside mass, attends mass with his brothers in community or concelebrates with his brothers.
We have found that once we started to go back to the 13th century, our spirit of brotherhood in recovering.
In essence, what Francis was saying is that you do not enter our order to be a priest. You enter to be a brother. In fact, most Franciscan communities are no longer ordaining large numbers. They’re not needed. We don’t need more than one priest per house to celebrate mass for us. Everything else that the priests would be doing, the non-ordained brothers do, from administration, teaching, retreat work, religious education, soup kitchens, shelters, clinics, street walking and more.
M
M-Dent
Guest
Generally speaking, I understand a traditionalist as one who tends to be more independent in lifestyle – than the social norm – and more dependent on deep rooted ecclesiastical and theological practices – mainly because they can understand this as continuity from the here and now to Jesus and the Apostles. (Faith seeking understanding.)
L
LiberalPrincess
Guest
I view traditionalist Catholics as those who tend to eschew and withdraw from social justice efforts, in favor of conservative theology.
D
dshix
Guest
And you are incorrect.
C
Corki
Guest
While that might be your experience, it’s the more traditional Catholics in my parish that not only are involved but who spearhead all of the social justice efforts. Feed the Hungry project, United Way Angels, blanket drive, mariner outreach, anti-death penalty initiative – they were all started by the more traditional parishioners. Sure they also are the instigators of all of the Religious Ed programs (theology) and the Respect Life Committee but that’s not all they do.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
How is social justice not compatible with conservative theology (or vice versa)?
Our theology and social teaching is outlined in the Catechism and other Church documents. We are bound to accept the official Church position on all issues of faith and morals, including theology and social justice. We are not free to do otherwise.
S
saintjohnxxiii
Guest
Doesn’t United Way contribute to Planned Parenthood?
- Status