What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[RogerDeCourcy]

I think traditionalists define themselves as favouring the 1962 Mass and religious practice prior to the Vat || Council. They would define themselves negatively as not being in favour of modern invention in religious worship and belief e.g. CITH, ecumenism and the Novus Ordo.

People on this forum try to square the circle by saying that “I am a traditionalist, even though I XYZ …”

Sorry, but that’s not how traditionalists and those who debate them understand the term. Trying to move the goalposts won’t change the fundamental issues.

 

[Melchior_1]

They would define themselves negatively as not being in favour of modern invention in religious worship and belief e.g. CITH, ecumenism and the

See, this is where it gets interesting; some of what you mention right there have been in practice for decades and/or centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council. Religious communities and Congregations have engaged in what some would call “ecumenism” for 800 years, some have received Our Lord in their hands for 800 years, and some of these other “modern inventions” have been done in said communities for a very, very long time.

To these communities, doing these practices makes them traditional. And over the course of 800+ years, it’s possible that some of the practices and customs of Religious and Congregations have come over to the laity. Some of the laity may not be familiar with these practices, so they immediately think “this is an invention!”, despite the fact that Catholics have been doing it for centuries. Charismaticism, ecumenism, Communion on the hand, the use of the vernacular, incorporating local culture, chant that isn’t Gregorian, different versions of the Breviary, all things done for centuries. And like it or not, there’s been a few things over the years that have spilled over from those communities to the secular laity/clergy.

So at this point I must ask; is to be a traditionalist to be supportive of only specific aspects of Catholicism?

 

[OraLabora]

One more thing. I’ve learned that when a fault of someone’s really annoys me, it means I have the same fault. So if I am really annoyed or angered by someone’s pride/ego/hubris, it might mean I have the same traits.

Fight fair, TrueLight

If none of us were prideful we wouldn’t be on this forum trying to win an argument!

 

[OraLabora]

One more thing. I’ve learned that when a fault of someone’s really annoys me, it means I have the same fault. So if I am really annoyed or angered by someone’s pride/ego/hubris, it might mean I have the same traits.

Fight fair, TrueLight

If none of us were prideful we wouldn’t be on this forum trying to win an argument!

 

[PhilOSophia]

See, this is where it gets interesting; some of what you mention right there have been in practice for decades and/or centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council. Religious communities and Congregations have engaged in what some would call “ecumenism” for 800 years, some have received Our Lord in their hands for 800 years, and some of these other “modern inventions” have been done in said communities for a very, very long time.

To these communities, doing these practices makes them traditional. And over the course of 800+ years, it’s possible that some of the practices and customs of Religious and Congregations have come over to the laity. Some of the laity may not be familiar with these practices, so they immediately think “this is an invention!”, despite the fact that Catholics have been doing it for centuries. Charismaticism, ecumenism, Communion on the hand, the use of the vernacular, incorporating local culture, chant that isn’t Gregorian, different versions of the Breviary, all things done for centuries. And like it or not, there’s been a few things over the years that have spilled over from those communities to the secular laity/clergy.

So at this point I must ask; is to be a traditionalist to be supportive of only specific aspects of Catholicism?

That sounds reasonable, until you realise that all the things that annoy traditionalists have been put into Roman Catholic diocesan Masses, in the space of 40 years, in a spirit of experimentation or even rebellion, I dare say e.g. CITH.

Has the New Springtime borne good fruit? Will it take women dancing around the altar before one realises something is wrong?

Meanwhile, traditionalists are quietly rediscovering the treasures of the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Meanwhile, traditionalists are quietly rediscovering the treasures of the Church.

So are non-traditionalists. I can happily point you to many very reverent OF offices and the modern Divine Office celebrations. Some in Latin, many in Gregorian chant, some in sacred polyphony, and some in modern settings, all 100% faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium.

It’s utter nonsense to presume that these sacred treasures are only found in pre-1962 liturgies or among self-identified “traditionalists”.

The issue is failure to adhere to the true spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium and missal, and dismissal of the corpus of sacred music which still exists in formal approved sources and adapted to the modern mass and LOTH.

It doesn’t take a return to the EF mass to rediscover them. Only a brave choirmaster and an enlightened liturgical committee. Or better yet banning liturgical committees altogether and putting responsibility for liturgy back into the hands of trained specialists.

 

[TrueLight]

Fight fair, TrueLight

If none of us were prideful we wouldn’t be on this forum trying to win an argument!

True dat.

 

[PhilOSophia]

So are non-traditionalists. I can happily point you to many very reverent OF offices and the modern Divine Office celebrations. Some in Latin, many in Gregorian chant, some in sacred polyphony, and some in modern settings, all 100% faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium.

It’s utter nonsense to presume that these sacred treasures are only found in pre-1962 liturgies or among self-identified “traditionalists”.

The issue is failure to adhere to the and missal, and dismissal of the corpus of sacred music which still exists in formal approved sources and adapted to the modern mass and LOTH.

It doesn’t take a return to the EF mass to rediscover them. Only a brave choirmaster and an enlightened liturgical committee. Or better yet banning liturgical committees altogether and putting responsibility for liturgy back into the hands of trained specialists.

Never mind the ‘true spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium’. What about what it says? I hear that’s the problem: its wording is vague. So its ‘spirit’ can be whatever you like.

I don’t know where all these traditional OF offices you mention are. I live in a major city and only one oratory and 2 churches do anything like that.

What’s interesting to the student of psychology is the resistance to traditionalism. Like, people really want the old mass and will go out of their way to get to one, yet any priest who says it had better be careful of how his bishop leans.

 

[TimothyH]

The problem is that some people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and some people do the wrong things for the right reasons, and fewer yet do the right things for the right reasons. I can hardly pretend to be in the latter category, and I myself rarely if ever go to a parish Mass when I can, with a 30 min. drive, attend a beautifully sung OF Mass in Gregorian chant at a local Benedictine abbey. So guilty as charged in my case. And yes it played a role in my becoming an oblate of said abbey. Strike two! And yes, I am hiding from awful liturgies that grate. Strike three, yer out!

The Benedictine worldview kind of grew on me though. There’s no “us and them”. Mass is attended by Catholics that I know to be very liberal, and others I know to be very conservative. The monks are welcoming to all.

See, this is where it gets interesting; some of what you mention right there have been in practice for decades and/or centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council. Religious communities and Congregations have engaged in what some would call “ecumenism” for 800 years, some have received Our Lord in their hands for 800 years, and some of these other “modern inventions” have been done in said communities for a very, very long time.

These are extremely important points.

Since these things existed for many centuries, one might say that these things have been restored to parishes, perhapse by the working of the Holy Spirit, just as easily as one might say these things have been artificially introduced, the right for them to be there haveing been firmly established established in the past.

I think if most traditionalist made a study of the history of Benedicine Monasticism from the time of the desert fathers in the fourth and fifth century through today, they would be scandalized at how liberal they seem in comparison to our social, ecumenical and liturgical viewpoints today. Even those forms of Benedictine monasticism which define themselves as strict, such as the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, who formed their own communities because they felt that the communities they belonged to were too involved with worldly things, would scandalize most self labled traditionalists and political conservatives with regard to the issues at hand, including liturgy.

The fact that much of this stuff had its roots deep in the history, amost the pre-history of the Church seems to be lost or ignored. Much of it, I think, is rooted in the desire to fight heresy which still persists from the time of the so called reformation.

-Tim-

 

[Cristiano]

I would love to know everyone’s thoughts.

Which points do you agree with?

Which points do you not agree with?

I am just addressing the first part of the article where the writer says:

One of the most important things for a person to have is an identity. This is why names are so important to us. Adam was given power to name things in the Garden of Eden, showing that he had dominion over the rest of creation, including Eve, whom he named. When a child finds out that a large, strange-looking animal has a name, he finds comfort in the fact, knowing that, if it has a name, and if Daddy can identify it, the thing must not be all that terrifying. It is known.

This tells me that the guy is wrong at the starting point. There is a big difference between our name, the one that God knows us by, the one that says who we are and a label that says what we like and what we do. God does not love us for what we do but he loves us for who we are. A label is not a personal name at best is an affiliation.

Choosing labels can be helpful and sometime necessary but choosing generic labels for ourselves is more about pride than anything else. A generic label often is to differentiate ourselves from others and not to show a specific love that we have as the cases described by the article. For example the label makes sense in on CAF because it is very specific to the love of the EF, and it is so specific that CAF does not allow for derogatory comments in regard to the OF. However, when it becomes generic very soon stops showing the love for something but a separation from others.

 

[OraLabora]

Never mind the ‘true spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium’. What about what it says? I hear that’s the problem: its wording is vague. So its ‘spirit’ can be whatever you like.

I don’t know where all these traditional OF offices you mention are. I live in a major city and only one oratory and 2 churches do anything like that.

What’s interesting to the student of psychology is the resistance to traditionalism. Like, people really want the old mass and will go out of their way to get to one, yet any priest who says it had better be careful of how his bishop leans.

Have you read SC? It seems pretty clear to me. It takes a pretty loosely-goosey interpretation to give us some of the abuses we see.

As for reverent masses within say about 100 km of where I live:

1. two dynamic family parishes (that regularly host our Gregorian schola)
2. two cathedrals; one hosts our schola on occasion, the other uses sacred polyphony;
3. Notre-Dame basilica in Montreal (sacred polyphony)
4. St Joseph’s oratory in Montreal (sacred polyphony)
5. the abbey of my affiliation (daily Gregorian chant, proper, ordinary, Lauds and Vespers in Latin)
6. Benedictine nuns near Montreal, OF Latin Mass, Divine Office in Latin;
7. Cistercians of the common observance, French plainchant.

I could go on, describing for instance my experiences in Rome, Spain, and France. Of course, Quebec is a place with rich Catholic history as are Rome, Paris and France.

 

[YoungTradCath]

See, this is where it gets interesting; some of what you mention right there have been in practice for decades and/or centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council. Religious communities and Congregations have engaged in what some would call “ecumenism” for 800 years, some have received Our Lord in their hands for 800 years, and some of these other “modern inventions” have been done in said communities for a very, very long time.

To these communities, doing these practices makes them traditional. And over the course of 800+ years, it’s possible that some of the practices and customs of Religious and Congregations have come over to the laity. Some of the laity may not be familiar with these practices, so they immediately think “this is an invention!”, despite the fact that Catholics have been doing it for centuries. Charismaticism, ecumenism, Communion on the hand, the use of the vernacular, incorporating local culture, chant that isn’t Gregorian, different versions of the Breviary, all things done for centuries. And like it or not, there’s been a few things over the years that have spilled over from those communities to the secular laity/clergy.

So at this point I must ask; is to be a traditionalist to be supportive of only specific aspects of Catholicism?

Okay, great. But the extreme vast majority of Catholics aren’t monks, brothers, sisters, hermits, consecrated religious, etc. I understand that, for example, versus populum worship is an integral part of the Franciscan liturgical charism. That is what they do, emphasize brotherhood. That is how they live their lives. However, I think we can safely assume that Franciscan brothers are actually educated in their liturgical practices. They know why they do what they do, as it all carries back to their charism. Secular, diocesan lay people don’t have that charism. They don’t have that background, that formation, that fortress of knowledge that gives the reason behind versus populum worship like Franciscan brothers do. It seems like some people are trying to smash all these practices of religious communities into the realm of dioceses. There is a reason that Franciscan worship looked different from your average diocesan mass prior to Vatican II. It didn’t just magically happen. It tied back to their charism. Religious communities were the exception to the norm. But now we have people wanting to turn parishes into religious communities, liturgically speaking at least. Like I illustrated, there is a reason that the Franciscans used versus populum worship. It wasn’t some arbitrary decision in reaction to the crazy cultural expectations of the time. Extending time-tested religious practices to parishes which share hardly any charism was. So yes, you’re right, those communities ARE traditional in their liturgical practices, because, as you say, their practices have been part of their communities for a long time. But why should religious communities’ practices be extended to parishes when they function radically differently and serve completely different audiences that share close to zero common lifestyle characteristics and religious charism?

It makes no sense. We should respect the religious communities’ liturgical practices, but respecting their liturgical practices doesn’t mean emulating them in parishes, as religious communities and parishes share hardly any charism. It would be like forcing the Franciscans to sing Gregorian Chant and to wear extravagantly jeweled and gilded vestments and to install altar rails and to worship ad orientem. That would be a pointless intrusion upon and disintegration of their charism.

Religious communities and parishes are two different entities, they exist for two different reasons, they have radically different charisms, they function for radically different ends, they consist of hugely different people with a massively different level of religious formation, and so we must ask: is it prudent to artificially force their worship to look the same?

My answer is a simple “no.”

Or better yet banning liturgical committees altogether and putting responsibility for liturgy back into the hands of trained specialists.

Thank the LORD for when that happens!

 

[Cristiano]

…Or better yet banning liturgical committees altogether and putting responsibility for liturgy back into the hands of trained specialists.

…Thank the LORD for when that happens!

Be very careful with what you ask for, “trained specialist” can mean a lot of things!

 

[TrueLight]

More than one person has mentioned religious orders. And I’ve seen it said on this forum before that the Church has always looked to the Religious for guidance and that the Franciscans invented the Tridentine form, etc, etc.

Okay.

If we remove Religious orders out of the picture, in the past, let’s say 500 years, which was the dominant form of the mass? Was it something that resembled the Tridentine or the Traditional Latin Mass or the EF, or whatever you want to call it?

There we go with labels again.

So I suppose when traditionalists refer to tradition, they are referring to the dominant form of the mass in the churches throughout Europe. They long for that tradition.

Religious, of course, can always use whichever form they want, if they have approval to do so.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Be very careful with what you ask for, “trained specialist” can mean a lot of things!

Specially-trained priests! Trained by Cardinal Burke!

 

[YoungTradCath]

More than one person has mentioned religious orders. And I’ve seen it said on this forum before that the Church has always looked to the Religious for guidance and that the Franciscans invented the Tridentine form, etc, etc.

Okay.

If we remove Religious orders out of the picture, in the past, let’s say 500 years, which was the dominant form of the mass? Was it something that resembled the Tridentine or the Traditional Latin Mass or the EF, or whatever you want to call it?

There we go with labels again.

So I suppose when traditionalists refer to tradition, they are referring to the dominant form of the mass in the churches throughout Europe. They long for that tradition.

Religious, of course, can always use whichever form they want, if they have approval to do so.

Right. My point in my longish post on this page was that religious orders and secular, diocesan parishes are two different entities, serving two different sets of people, with two vastly different charisms and levels of religious education, and so the liturgy should reflect that, like it did commonly before VII. It reflected the differences not arbitrarily, but for very good reason, emphasizing the differences and needs of the religious communities versus diocesan parishes. What’s the point in having a separation between religious communities and diocesan parishes if all we do is force their liturgies, the most important aspect of Catholic worship, to look the same when they share little in common otherwise?

You say “churches throughout Europe,” but I call it plain, diocesan parishes period. Because the Tridentine mass wasn’t only used in Europe, but also in the US and Canada, South America, etc.

 

[OraLabora]

More than one person has mentioned religious orders. And I’ve seen it said on this forum before that the Church has always looked to the Religious for guidance and that the Franciscans invented the Tridentine form, etc, etc.

Okay.

If we remove Religious orders out of the picture, in the past, let’s say 500 years, which was the dominant form of the mass? Was it something that resembled the Tridentine or the Traditional Latin Mass or the EF, or whatever you want to call it?

There we go with labels again.

So I suppose when traditionalists refer to tradition, they are referring to the dominant form of the mass in the churches throughout Europe. They long for that tradition.

Religious, of course, can always use whichever form they want, if they have approval to do so.

I don’t think this exercise will work. Religious orders are such an integral part of the Church that it’s hard to imagine it without their liturgical influences. For instance the basic form of the Divine Office has such a huge Benedictine influence. Also Trent was an exercise in standardization; besides the orders we’re left with basically two rites, Roman and Ambrosian, not to mention very limited use of the Mozarabic rite. Others have been lost: Beneventan, Gallican, Sarum (which I think more or less went over to the Anglicans during the Reformation), etc.

My experience with anything liturgical is that the simplest idea usually ends up as a huge project. And this isn’t a simple idea! 2000 years of history, not all of it well documented, to consider.

I’m inclined to the opinion that “traditionalists” aren’t so much interested in going back and objectively studying tradition as they are in recreating and fossilizing a specific place and time in what is in fact very recent history. For instance traditionalists give short shrift to the notion that the breviary in use in 1960 really isn’t very traditional at all (unless you’re a Benedictine). It dates back to only 1910 and was hugely controversial at the time; nearly as much as the the current LOTH; and it too caused the tossing overboard of patrimony in the form of discarded antiphons.

IMHO (there’s that pride again ) true traditionalism would be a dynamic study and a careful consideration of why, for instance, versus populum was important to increase the fraternalism in a monastery (again my opinion but the priest acts in persona Christi and the Last Supper was an intimate and fraternal event; a recreation should preserve that notion). I study Gregorian chant; I wrote a paper on the new Antiphonale Monasticum in 2010 (it’s on the Gregorian Institute of Canada’s website); and between two chant books between 2008 and 2010, the same antiphon underwent a mode change from VIIIg to VIIIc because the monks studying ancient manuscripts rexamined their interpretation of the neumes.

Br. Jay also explained to us how VII returned the orders to their traditional charisms, again proving that the study of Tradition from ancient texts is a dynamic field as opposed to trying to fossilize a specific point in time.

The impression I really get is that the mainstream “traditionalists” are really just expressing a resistance to the changes of Vatican II.

The Church has never been static; there have been some huge upheavals; Reformation, Trent, Vatican II. Yet she survived them all, reaffirming the promise Jesus made to St. Peter.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t think this exercise will work. Religious orders are such an integral part of the Church that it’s hard to imagine it without their liturgical influences. For instance the basic form of the Divine Office has such a huge Benedictine influence. Also Trent was an exercise in standardization; besides the orders we’re left with basically two rites, Roman and Ambrosian, not to mention very limited use of the Mozarabic rite. Others have been lost: Beneventan, Gallican, Sarum (which I think more or less went over to the Anglicans during the Reformation), etc.

My experience with anything liturgical is that the simplest idea usually ends up as a huge project. And this isn’t a simple idea! 2000 years of history, not all of it well documented, to consider.

I’m inclined to the opinion that “traditionalists” aren’t so much interested in going back and objectively studying tradition as they are in recreating and fossilizing a specific place and time in what is in fact very recent history. For instance traditionalists give short shrift to the notion that the breviary in use in 1960 really isn’t very traditional at all (unless you’re a Benedictine). It dates back to only 1910 and was hugely controversial at the time; nearly as much as the the current LOTH; and it too caused the tossing overboard of patrimony in the form of discarded antiphons.

IMHO (there’s that pride again ) true traditionalism would be a dynamic study and a careful consideration of why, for instance, versus populum was important to increase the fraternalism in a monastery (again my opinion but the priest acts in persona Christi and the Last Supper was an intimate and fraternal event; a recreation should preserve that notion). I study Gregorian chant; I wrote a paper on the new Antiphonale Monasticum in 2010 (it’s on the Gregorian Institute of Canada’s website); and between two chant books between 2008 and 2010, the same antiphon underwent a mode change from VIIIg to VIIIc because the monks studying ancient manuscripts rexamined their interpretation of the neumes.

Br. Jay also explained to us how VII returned the orders to their traditional charisms, again proving that the study of Tradition from ancient texts is a dynamic field as opposed to trying to fossilize a specific point in time.

The impression I really get is that the mainstream “traditionalists” are really just expressing a resistance to the changes of Vatican II.

The Church has never been static; there have been some huge upheavals; Reformation, Trent, Vatican II. Yet she survived them all, reaffirming the promise Jesus made to St. Peter.

That’s great.

But the Holy Father himself recognizes that some faithful has a spiritual need for the 1962 Liturgy, and so we have the EF. Those faithful who tend to attend the 1962 Liturgy and tend to practice “tradtional”, as in some devotions that have been practiced for a while, call themselves traditionalist.

I wrote a paper on the new Antiphonale Monasticum in 2010 (it’s on the Gregorian Institute of Canada’s website); and between two chant books between 2008 and 2010, the same antiphon underwent a mode change from VIIIg to VIIIc because the monks studying ancient manuscripts rexamined their interpretation of the neumes.

Yes, you have said more than once that you are involved with Gregorian Chant. Absolutely wonderful. I love chant and I wish I was as knowledgable as you. More power to you and those of your kind.

Are traditonalists an affront to someone of your caliber, because if anyone should be considered traditional, it should be you? I hope you see where I’m going with this.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s great.

But the Holy Father himself recognizes that some faithful has a spiritual need for the 1962 Liturgy, and so we have the EF. Those faithful who tend to attend the 1962 Liturgy and tend to practice “tradtional”, as in some devotions that have been practiced for a while, call themselves traditionalist.

I don’t think that’s what the argument is about. We know that, and I think any rational, level-headed person on these boards will agree. Where the argument stems is the Ordinary Form’s departure from the patrimony of the Roman Rite (or lack of departure), the question of whether or not, in the process of “reforming” (I use that term with a lot of reservation) the Roman Rite, part of its intrinsic nature was lost. To that question, I would say yes. However, others disagree and side with what I call the archaeologist-paleontologist-liturgist-musician-let’s guess on what the Early Christians did and assume we should do the same for no fathomable reason-side. Lol. And also what is meant by the Holy Father’s mention (in SP, or maybe UE?) of the “Reform of the Reform.”

 

[Monica4316]

I really like this part.

The part about traditionalism being a reaction or a negation. It’s better to speak and move in the affirmative.

The devil is clever and he can easily take something that starts out as good and turn it into evil. The temptation is to get into the habit of criticizing, reading provocative books/blogs, while not spending enough time with the Lord. We don’t want to experience the humiliation and horror of Jesus telling any of us, “I never knew you.”

Speaking for myself, sometimes I have to take a step back and regroup so to speak. Spend time in prayer first and then evangelize.

This is so true. I’ve made that mistake in the past. I think another danger is pride, seeing ourselves as some special kind of Catholic, rather than seeing that the Church’s Tradition is meant for all Catholics, whether they were catechized in it or not.