What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[Melchior_1]

Okay, that’s great. But probably 99.9% of Catholics aren’t consecrated religious and have nothing to do with them.

Well, except for disciplines and practices that came from religious, which have impacted Catholics to this day. Like the Rosary and whatnot. Plus that Benedict has made several appointments in the Vatican with people who are religious.

Consecrated religious should celebrate mass in a way in line with their traditions, and, it’s news to some, secular parishes should do the same! I don’t see why all these religious practices were smashed into parish life when they are completely contrary to the traditions and charism of secular parish life.

There has always been an exchange with the relationship between the religious and secular, they influence one another often. Even what you call the “secular charism” was influenced by religious.

Like I said, shall we call it even by forcing Franciscans to wear bejeweled cloth-of-gold vestments and sing complex Gregorian Chant? **That would be pointless and cruel. **I feel like the opposite is equally true for parish life.

So this means you are in favor of Vatican II, as that is one of the things that it helped stop.

 

[Cristiano]

I thought it was the other way around, that actual grace was God’s intervention in our lives but sanctifying grace is what we recieve through the saraments, like the eucharist.

Either way, the thread is here… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=600635. Post 9 is Brother’s comment about the Mass and making saints and is worth reading for more than just those comments.

The whole thread is good. People are witnessing to what works for them, letting the beauty and reverence of the Latin Mass stand on its own merits, and not claiming that their particular form of the Mass has a monopoly on belief in particular doctrines or trying to tear down things which they think are new and innovative but have been around for 1400 years.

-Tim-

Thanks for the link I will go through it because I really value Brother JR words.

In the case of Mass being related to actual grace I would suggest to take a peek at this reference: MY CATHOLIC FAITH.

The CCC gives a good idea of the difference:

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Sanctifying is permanent while actual is transient.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well, except for disciplines and practices that came from religious, which have impacted Catholics to this day. Like the Rosary and whatnot. Plus that Benedict has made several appointments in the Vatican with people who are religious.

There has always been an exchange with the relationship between the religious and secular, they influence one another often. Even what you call the “secular charism” was influenced by religious.

So this means you are in favor of Vatican II, as that is one of the things that it helped stop.

The rosary isn’t the same as ripping out a sizable portion of prayers from the mass and… and 99% of the other changes that have happened in the name of bringing religious life to parishes. The rosary isn’t mandatory and it isn’t radical. I don’t see anything wrong with having religious in the Curia.

I agree, and that’s great, provided one doesn’t completely destroy the other. Religious charism was in the gutter before Vatican II in many cases, and now secular charism has replaced it there. You can’t force one’s “traditional” practices on the other. They can exist simultaneously, side-by-side. The religious have their own liturgical traditions, and the secular parishes have their own as well. Just as much as before Vatican II it was wrong to all but force Franciscans to wear sumptuous vestments and sing music out of their charism, it’s just as detestable now to all but force secular parishes to do things traditional to religious communities. What in the world is the point in having two different kinds of life if our liturgies, the supreme prayer, look exactly the same? I agree with you, there is not one definition of “Catholic tradition.” There are mainly two, at least in Western countries: religious and secular. I don’t doubt that before VII, religious were very confused. But in the name of making them go back “to their roots,” it seems secular parishes are being ripped from their own roots. As sophomoric as it sounds, that isn’t fair.

 

[MarkThompson]

Does anyone know what types of masses the following Saints attended?

St Teresa of Avila
St Catherine of Siena
St Francis
St Dominic
St Terese Lisieux
St John of the Cross

Did they attend masses that looked something like the EF?

The reason I ask is because I believe that the idea that the EF is similar to masses that produced these great Saints, is very compelling to traditionalists.

Did the Mass “produce” them, though? As then-Fr. Ratzinger wrote about the state of the liturgy at that time, the post-Tridentine retrenchment
resulted in the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy had become a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety, the more attention was paid to its prescribed forms. We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their spirituality from the liturgy. Ignatius of Loyola, Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross developed their religious life solely from personal encounter with God and from individual experience of the Church, quite apart from the liturgy and any deep involvement with it.

 

[TrueLight]

Did the Mass “produce” them, though? As then-Fr. Ratzinger wrote about the state of the liturgy at that time, the post-Tridentine retrenchment
resulted in the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy had become a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety, the more attention was paid to its prescribed forms. We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their spirituality from the liturgy. Ignatius of Loyola, Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross developed their religious life solely from personal encounter with God and from individual experience of the Church, quite apart from the liturgy and any deep involvement with it.

With all due respect, to our Holy Father, then Cardinal, how do we know that they developed their spiritual life “soley” from personal encounter outside of the mass? Surely they encountered God outside of the mass and within the mass.

Didn’t some of St Theresa’s raptures occur while she was receiving the Eucharist?

 

[MarkThompson]

With all due respect, to our Holy Father, then Cardinal, how do we know that they developed their spiritual life “soley” from personal encounter outside of the mass? Surely they encountered God outside of the mass and within the mass.

Didn’t some of St Theresa’s raptures occur while she was receiving the Eucharist?

I wouldn’t know, but at that time it was uncommon to receive Communion during Mass.

 

[Warrenton]

So because he [Luther] didn’t get it from the parishes in the Latin West, it’s inferior. That seems to be a trend overall; if it’s not from a specific time period and from a specific location then it’s inferior and less Catholic.

Of course Luther’s service is inferior, to a Catholic. If I thought it was superior, I’d be Lutheran.

Everything is from a specific time and place, on this earth at least. The question is: is the mass from 1560 better than the mass from 1970? Traditionalists answer the question in the affirmative. We need not delve into whether their answer is limited to their subjective feelings or is based on objective reasoning. So, we don’t need to compare all times with each other. We can narrow the field of inquiry considerably.

With some activities, it was something Catholic ----> Protestants take it ----> Catholics start doing it again, or do it more often than they did before. The origin point is still Catholic.

Except this is not how things work. One cannot take a mishmash of things used across history, many of which have become associated with Protestant worship through long useage, and pretend that the intervening 500 years never happened.

You mean to say there’s nothing Catholic in the Ordinary Form? That you can’t tell it’s a Catholic Mass based off of the Real Presence? Or is this another one of those “if you don’t ‘see’ it and if it doesn’t ‘appear’ to be Catholic, then it really isn’t actually Catholic” things

Nothing Catholic? That is not what I wrote. And I, at least, cannot tell if the Real Presence is present or absent. Anyway, I am not questioning the validity of any form of the sacraments, new or old. I am questioning whether some forms are more closely related to Catholic tradition than other forms. The question is relevant because some, in defending the present ordinary form of the sacraments, attempt to recast traditionalists as “crypto Protestants” at war with the “real” traditional sacraments. I do not think the criticism will hold. It is sufficient for the defenders merely to invoke power. The only problem, of course, is that that argument is unpalatable to the modern mindset.

Of course it changed some things. What I’m saying is that some of the things it “changed” was actually going back to traditional practices (that is, traditional for those in religious orders)

Finally, we are getting somewhere. At least we agree things changed. The N.O. was a new thing “compared with” the tridentine. New readings, new handshakes, new handling the eucharist, new people up around the altar getting patens and chalices to distribute, new language, new prayers, new omissions and so on.

The fact that this or that “change” may have had an antecedent does not mean that the arrangement of all these things together was not new.

Were it otherwise, every painting that appears on a used canvass is really the old painting, or again, the Mona Lisa is not original because other painters had painted women before, and used similar colours with similar backgrounds.

 

[Cristiano]

With all due respect, to our Holy Father, then Cardinal, how do we know that they developed their spiritual life “soley” from personal encounter outside of the mass? Surely they encountered God outside of the mass and within the mass.

Didn’t some of St Theresa’s raptures occur while she was receiving the Eucharist?

I am no expert in the life of saints but their writings describe how they developed their spirituality. Nobody is denying that Mass affects everybody but it is a false leap going from that to saying that their spirituality has been developed by the form of the Mass. Look at the fathers of the Church, if we follow your logic then we should completely disregard the EF form of the Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

With all due respect, to our Holy Father, then Cardinal, how do we know that they developed their spiritual life “soley” from personal encounter outside of the mass? Surely they encountered God outside of the mass and within the mass.

No doubt from their extensive writings about their experiences of mystical union.

Didn’t some of St Theresa’s raptures occur while she was receiving the Eucharist?

We have to distinguish between the grace received from receiving the Eucharist, and the liturgical context in which the Eucharist was received. A valid Eucharist is a valid Eucharist and the encounter with God in the Eucharist does not depend on liturgical form. Liturgical form may help prepare one spiritually, but one’s disposition does not necessarily depend on that. I’ve been deeply touched by the Eucharist in some of the most bare-bones Masses you can get.

And when that happens, it usually comes as a complete surprise. It’s the way God works. It’s a mystery. And it often occurs when you need it most.

 

[Warrenton]

So the Masses that were different before Vatican II and that were abolished at Trent did not contain the truth of Catholic belief?

The relatively newer forms were abolished. They were, however, mostly variations of the same Roman rite. Given that the Church was in the process of losing about half of her members, and all the territory that went with them, the Church probably needed to focus its attention on a smaller number of rituals.

And the focus on liturgy and sacraments was not innovative before the 1960s?

In the main, no.

Have you examined the changes to the Divine Office by Pius X in 1910,

What’s the point? Do you want to return to the Divine Office of 1909? Fine with me. You go back to that, and I’ll go back to the mass of 1909.

for instance the use of Latin in a place like Korea has little relevance. To impose a Latin Mass on them is simply cultural chauvinism.

The Irish learned Latin. The Germans learned Latin. The Aztecs and Incas learned Latin. Latin is the language of the Church. I’m sure the Koreans can learn it - the Japanese were in the process of learning it, until the Shogun crucified them. Heck, the Koreans have even learned to make cars, those evil Western conveyances. They don’t seem to miss trekking around behind a water buffalo too much. Latin Catholicism is chauvinistic, because it is true, and the truths are best expressed in Latin.

I don’t doubt we may see a kind of hybrid of the two Masses emerge over time, but I emphasize, over time, and in a more evolutionary manner.

Doubtful.

It’s simply an arbitrary rolling back of the clock to a fairly arbitrary point.

Fine, pick another year. 1450? 1101? 970? 700? 590? What’s your pleasure, other than 1969, the arbitrary year when the Churches of the West arbitrarilly began to empty?

You have to distinguish between the form of the Mass, and its execution.

This is impossible.

I have been to Anglican “masses” though, and they actually look more like the Tridentine form than the OF, albeit with a third reading as their lectionary now more or less follows ours.

I don’t doubt it – and you don’t need to put it quotes, it’s called mass in the 1928 BOCP ). But it begs the question - if everything is legitimate, even formerly Protestant services, then the old mass, which was the rule within living memory, must also be, and it cannot be less so than its competitors.

 

[Warrenton]

Look at the fathers of the Church, if we follow your logic then we should completely disregard the EF form of the Mass.

I don’t follow the reasoning.

 

[TrueLight]

No doubt from their extensive writings about their experiences of mystical union.

We have to distinguish between the grace received from receiving the Eucharist, and the liturgical context in which the Eucharist was received. A valid Eucharist is a valid Eucharist and the encounter with God in the Eucharist does not depend on liturgical form. Liturgical form may help prepare one spiritually, but one’s disposition does not necessarily depend on that. I’ve been deeply touched by the Eucharist in some of the most bare-bones Masses you can get.

And when that happens, it usually comes as a complete surprise. It’s the way God works. It’s a mystery. And it often occurs when you need it most.

Nevertheless, you can’t can’t say 25% of their spirituality developed because they had good confessors, and 30% came about because they really focused on the Mass, and 10% came about through spiritual reading etc. They are still a product of their times. Just like spiritually, I’m a product of the Masses I attend, the time I spent on CAF, the spiritual reading I do on my own and the prayer I do on my own. All these things contribute to who I am spiritually. God uses all these things.

Considering how the Saints of old, especially the ones that weren’t highly educated and lacked the Internet, I would think the Mass played a very important role.

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t follow the reasoning.

The point is that the form of the Mass changed with time and location. The Church sprouted from the East and if the form itself is of the essence then we have to go back to the form and the language used by the Early Fathers. I am not saying that the statement is true I am simply saying that if we follow that logic we are going to have a paradox, because different rites, different forms of the Mass and still a lot of known Saints.

 

[OraLabora]

Okay, that’s great. But probably 99.9% of Catholics aren’t consecrated religious and have nothing to do with them. Consecrated religious should celebrate mass in a way in line with their traditions, and, it’s news to some, secular parishes should do the same! I don’t see why all these religious practices were smashed into parish life when they are completely contrary to the traditions and charism of secular parish life. Like I said, shall we call it even by forcing Franciscans to wear bejeweled cloth-of-gold vestments and sing complex Gregorian Chant? That would be pointless and cruel. I feel like the opposite is equally true for parish life.

Except that the lines were never as clear cut as you pretend. In the order I am familiar with, the Benedictines their influence on the secular liturgy has been huge: they gave the basic structure of the Divine Office, they are responsible for reviving and renewing the Gregorian chant that the Church has been using for the last 120 years or so, they educated many Catholics in their colleges and territorial abbeys functioned as de facto dioceses in many areas (Monte Cassino, in Italy, the abbey founded by St. Benedict, is still a territorial abbey) so that locals would have been more than familiar with their liturgies.

What’s the point? Do you want to return to the Divine Office of 1909? Fine with me. You go back to that, and I’ll go back to the mass of 1909.

And now you’re arguing and twisting words just to score arguing points. My point which you so widely missed, is that the precedent for reform (in this case fairly radical) was set well before Vatican II. And I would never go back to the Divine Office of 1909, I’m a Benedictine oblate, I use the same Benedictine Divine Office that my community uses.

The Irish learned Latin. The Germans learned Latin.

All Western Europeans where Latin has deep roots and was always taught.

The Aztecs and Incas learned Latin.

They were colonized. Look where they are today.

Latin is the language of the Church. I’m sure the Koreans can learn it - the Japanese were in the process of learning it, until the Shogun crucified them. Heck, the Koreans have even learned to make cars, those evil Western conveyances. They don’t seem to miss trekking around behind a water buffalo too much. Latin Catholicism is chauvinistic, because it is true, and the truths are best expressed in Latin.

Unless you want to colonize them too. It comes as a huge surprise to me that the truths are “best expressed in Latin”. Where does that leave the other 22 sui juris Churches that don’t use Latin? Are they somehow less Catholic?

Fine, pick another year. 1450? 1101? 970? 700? 590? What’s your pleasure, other than 1969, the arbitrary year when the Churches of the West arbitrarilly began to empty?

You’re again merely trying to argue for the sake of argument, twisting my words and thoughts, and not contributing an iota with that statement. My pleasure is to evolve with my Church and do my best to stay in communion with her, while as I said earlier, doing my part to ensure we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. My point was, and I reiterate it, that reform of the liturgy is nothing new, and 1962 is an arbitrary point in time with no other reason to justify it as “tradition” as it was the last published liturgy prior to Vatican II.

Moreover do you really think that the form of the Mass would have prevented a mass exodus from the Church in 1969 when all other mainstream churches were experiencing the same thing?

This is impossible.

It most certainly is possible. Some priests and communities do it well, some not so well. Maybe in the EF rubrics were tightly followed, but there most certainly has been errors, badly executed music, priests mumbling rapidly through the Mass to get it over with as quickly as possible, etc.

I don’t doubt it – and you don’t need to put it quotes, it’s called mass in the 1928 BOCP ). But it begs the question - if everything is legitimate, even formerly Protestant services, then the old mass, which was the rule within living memory, must also be, and it cannot be less so than its competitors.

Nobody is claiming that the EF Mass is illegitimate. And I am not claiming that a beautiful High-Church Anglican liturgy is legitimate. I am just saying it is carefully executed and faithful to form, if not legitimacy. Which is why I put “mass” in quotes.

 

[OraLabora]

Nevertheless, you can’t can’t say 25% of their spirituality developed because they had good confessors, and 30% came about because they really focused on the Mass, and 10% came about through spiritual reading etc. They are still a product of their times. Just like spiritually, I’m a product of the Masses I attend, the time I spent on CAF, the spiritual reading I do on my own and the prayer I do on my own. All these things contribute to who I am spiritually. God uses all these things.

Considering how the Saints of old, especially the ones that weren’t highly educated and lacked the Internet, I would think the Mass played a very important role.

There is far, far more to sainthood than the form of the Mass they attended, or the Mass in general for that matter. Nobody can put percentages on it, but for the saints mentioned, a deep mystical union did develop with God. Yes the Eucharist was intrinsically involved. But you can’t say it was the liturgy that was the cause. It was a deep mystical union with God made present in the Host.

There’s another point about the saints that were part of religious orders, and religious in general, and it is the concept of obedience. No monk that I know of will be having this argument in his abbey. He us fully obedient to the abbot, and the monastery itself is fully in communion with the Holy Father.

And this is why you have beautiful OF Benedictine Liturgies. Because the OF Mass is the norm, they fully invest themselves into carrying it out to the best of their abilities. At our abbey a young monk was a postulant recently. He was there specifically because he was a “traditionalist” and the abbey was the closest thing he could find to traditional Catholicism in his home province. He was sent packing. It’s exactly the wrong reason to join a community.

 

[PhilOSophia]

I see what you’re saying here; only traditionalists have large families and embrace life, so other Catholics will die out and their ideals with them.

I’ve talked about these guys fairly often. Several large families and young adults who attend their parishes, and their parishes (plus themselves) are incredibly active in the pro-life movement.

No, you don’t see. Those whose characters were formed in the fire of revolution will die off. Scandal, implosion, contraception and banality will take care of more. People want holiness, not Fr. X lamely following popular culture.

If it’s a sacred rite, solemnity and rigour follow. If it isn’t, then you can do what you like.

Now, the following arguments have been used by previous posters:

Some masses I know are solemn,
Therefore most masses are.

There were changes in the past;
Therefore the changes that have occured now are good.

I have found instances which are exceptions to your argument, therefore it is void.

These do not follow.

Change should not be a constant in a religion. By definition, its supposed to point to the eternal.

1941: youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64
2010: youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5it20gKqw
2020?: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/10/axe-mass.html

Human beings have short attention spans. Changes over the course of even 20 years will not be noticed. Eventually, if nothing is done, women in skimpy clothes dancing around the altar will seem normal.

Do you see the trick yet?

 

[Baelor]

Latin Catholicism is chauvinistic, because it is true, and the truths are best expressed in Latin.

That is not true, and your post is fundamentally lacking in historical context. Latin is the official language of the Church, but it is not somehow superior to all other languages at a spiritual level inherently. The reason that Latin has the status it does is that it was at some point the vernacular of much of the world population, and most of the Christians.

The idea that the truths are best expressed in Latin does not make sense. This is coming from someone who is majoring in it.

 

[OraLabora]

Now, the following arguments have been used by previous posters:

Some masses I know are solemn,
Therefore most masses are.

There were changes in the past;
Therefore the changes that have occured now are good.

I have found instances which are exceptions to your argument, therefore it is void.

If you’re pointing at me you clearly misread me.

“Some OF Masses are solemn, therefore most OF Masses can be.”

“There have been changes in the past, including pre-Vatican II (ref: the Roman Breviary). Not all of them were good. There will be changes in the future. Not all of them will be bad. The only constant we can depend on is change, the only variable will be the rate of change.”

“I have found instances where the historical record contradicts your argument, therefore you may want to re-examine your hypothesis”.

 

[OraLabora]

Except that the lines were never as clear cut as you pretend. In the order I am familiar with, the Benedictines their influence on the secular liturgy has been huge: they gave the basic structure of the Divine Office, they are responsible for reviving and renewing the Gregorian chant that the Church has been using for the last 120 years or so, they educated many Catholics in their colleges and territorial abbeys functioned as de facto dioceses in many areas (Monte Cassino, in Italy, the abbey founded by St. Benedict, is still a territorial abbey) so that locals would have been more than familiar with their liturgies.

I want to add another point to this, in that the separation of order and diocesan life is one thing in an established Church in a place like Europe or N. America, and quite another in the missions where many millions of Catholics will have been educated by missionary orders and have had their Catholic life and Masses directed by these missionaries. They clearly will have shared in their charisms.

The orders and congregations are so intrinsically entwined with the Church that you can’t speak of a clear delineation between parish tradition and the traditions and charisms of the orders.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The orders and congregations are so intrinsically entwined with the Church that you can’t speak of a clear delineation between parish tradition and the traditions and charisms of the orders.

Sure we can, especially in a place like the US or Canada or Europe. Just because they can’t do it in Southeastern Asia means we have to compromise here? That scares me.