What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[OraLabora]

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.

“Caliber”. Hardly, I am an amateur. I do it for fun but also because I would like to see more of it in our parishes.

My point about traditionalism is not that I should be considered “traditional” as opposed to those who think traditionalism means the 1962 Missal. My point is that “tradition” is really a moving target, and that settling on the 1962 Missal is an arbitrary point in time; just as during Trent, in order to standardize some things had to be kept, and some thrown out. For example troped Kyries, were common pre-10th century; they disappeared around that time at Cluny, then reappeared, then were tossed out definitively at Trent; one of the current penitential rites in the 1970 Missal bears more than a passing resemblance, and the tropary has made a return in the 2010 Antiphonale Romanum albeit in a different setting. If you want to hear what the troped Kyrie “Orbis Factor” sounded like, check out this recording:

Orbis Factor.

This gorgeous and haunting piece of chant was thrown out at Trent! It has Byzantine influences too. Was the decision to do so at Trent arbitrary? I have no idea. But a Church with such a long, deep and complex history as ours will see many “traditions” come and go, and sometimes come back.

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.”

Well see (or rather hear) the above to know what was lost by the process of reforming… at Trent.

However that piece of chant was not “guessed” but comes from a manuscript that dates to 1250 or so. The job of restoring and exploring Gregorian chant has been delegated to the abbey of Solesmes by the Vatican. Their Atelier Paléographique studies ancient manuscripts, written in neumes (free-flowing, no staff) and try their best to interpret them and set them to square-note notation to make them singable… one hopes as close to original form as possible.

I don’t think, BTW, that in the OF of the Roman Rite its intrinsic nature was lost. Hear a chanted OF Mass in Latin; to the untrained it’s very difficult to distinguish it from the EF. Sacrosanctum Concilium never mandated many of the losses we’ve witnessed in the past 50 years. I suspect they were an unfortunate aspect of Vatican II coinciding with a time when people were coming to grips with rapid progress, the sexual revolution and other modern trends, and many went overboard. The Anglicans have been through the same thing in Canada with their Book of Alternative Services as an “option” instead of the Book of Common Prayer.

What’s needed is a return to discipline.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t think, BTW, that in the OF of the Roman Rite its intrinsic nature was lost. Hear a chanted OF Mass in Latin; to the untrained it’s very difficult to distinguish it from the EF. Sacrosanctum Concilium never mandated many of the losses we’ve witnessed in the past 50 years. I suspect they were an unfortunate aspect of Vatican II coinciding with a time when people were coming to grips with rapid progress, the sexual revolution and other modern trends, and many went overboard. The Anglicans have been through the same thing in Canada with their Book of Alternative Services as an “option” instead of the Book of Common Prayer.

What’s needed is a return to discipline.

The losses in the OF deal more with the details: the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Offertory Prayers, the Last Gospel, etc. I don’t even want to get into the subject of Propers. True, the skeleton of the mass is the same, but is that enough?

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are gorgeous prayers, prayers that can’t have anything but an excellent result of preparing the priest for mass. They contain a very powerful message. In the EF, they are recited by the priest and server (as I’m sure you know). Perhaps instead of the wholesale ripping them out, the responses could have been extended to the entire congregation in the OF, which would allow them to share in the same preparatory prayers. Who cares if they were originally used as private preparatory prayers outside of mass? Why does that matter? Yet some people use that as an excuse for not having them in the OF. Seriously? The same goes with the Last Gospel. Excellent note to leave any mass on, yet it’s gone in the OF.

I actually happen to completely agree with you about VII. It was a very poorly-timed Council, and I truly believe that is why we are having the arguments about the liturgy we are having today. Had liturgical reform been a topic at Vatican I, I’m sure we wouldn’t even be talking about it right now. Have you noticed that most of Vatican II’s biggest cheerleaders are the old folk, at least those fifty and up? I’ve always said this was due to the fact that, due to immoral forces of the time like the sexual revolution and other things, society gave them a mission, a mission of “changing the world,” a mission that was naturally extended as an expectation to change the Church. “Church change,” IMO, is their generational identifier in the Church. They are the “children of Vatican II.” It’s the sort of thing they talk about when they recant old stories of their youth in a religious setting, akin to old veterans sharing war stories, and they’re jolly about it. I’ve heard it at parish meetings. I don’t mean to vilify old Catholics at all, but I just use this as an example to further my point.

 

[OraLabora]

The losses in the OF deal more with the details: the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Offertory Prayers, the Last Gospel, etc. I don’t even want to get into the subject of Propers. True, the skeleton of the mass is the same, but is that enough?

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are gorgeous prayers, prayers that can’t have anything but an excellent result of preparing the priest for mass. They contain a very powerful message. In the EF, they are recited by the priest and server (as I’m sure you know). Perhaps instead of the wholesale ripping them out, the responses could have been extended to the entire congregation in the OF, which would allow them to share in the same preparatory prayers. Who cares if they were originally used as private preparatory prayers outside of mass? Why does that matter? Yet some people use that as an excuse for not having them in the OF. Seriously? The same goes with the Last Gospel. Excellent note to leave any mass on, yet it’s gone in the OF.

I actually happen to completely agree with you about VII. It was a very poorly-timed Council, and I truly believe that is why we are having the arguments about the liturgy we are having today. Had liturgical reform been a topic at Vatican I, I’m sure we wouldn’t even be talking about it right now. Have you noticed that most of Vatican II’s biggest cheerleaders are the old folk, at least those fifty and up? I’ve always said this was due to the fact that, due to immoral forces of the time like the sexual revolution and other things, society gave them a mission, a mission of “changing the world,” a mission that was naturally extended as an expectation to change the Church. “Church change,” IMO, is their generational identifier in the Church. They are the “children of Vatican II.” It’s the sort of thing they talk about when they recant old stories of their youth in a religious setting, akin to old veterans sharing war stories, and they’re jolly about it. I’ve heard it at parish meetings.

Well, I’m 53 and in reality don’t much remember the pre-Vatican II Church. It’s true though that our schola’s biggest “groupies” tend to be the elderly who do remember Gregorian chant, and the younger Catholics who discover it and say “wait a minute, why can’t we hear this at Mass instead of on a CD or iTunes?”. The oddest thing is when we chant a Mass or put on a recital for the elderly in a nursing home. Many alzheimer’s patients who wouldn’t remember their first-born’s name often chant along with us.

But I still think a properly done OF Mass is often hard to tell apart from the EF. There was a thread a while back on here about someone who thought the Pope presided an EF Mass, but it turned out to be an OF Mass in Latin, presided by someone who is somewhat of an expert in the liturgy

In any case the only 2 EF Masses that are convenient for me are SSPX and sedevacantist. So I’m sticking to my OF Mass in Gregorian chant

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well, I’m 53 and in reality don’t much remember the pre-Vatican II Church. It’s true though that our schola’s biggest “groupies” tend to be the elderly who do remember Gregorian chant, and the younger Catholics who discover it and say “wait a minute, why can’t we hear this at Mass instead of on a CD or iTunes?”. The oddest thing is when we chant a Mass or put on a recital for the elderly in a nursing home. Many alzheimer’s patients who wouldn’t remember their first-born’s name often chant along with us.

But I still think a properly done OF Mass is often hard to tell apart from the EF. There was a thread a while back on here about someone who thought the Pope presided an EF Mass, but it turned out to be an OF Mass in Latin, presided by someone who is somewhat of an expert in the liturgy

In any case the only 2 EF Masses that are convenient for me are SSPX and sedevacantist. So I’m sticking to my OF Mass in Gregorian chant

It is hard to tell apart, you’re right. But I think therein lies the problem. You have to add components to an OF mass to make it in line with tradition. It’s already built in to the EF, so you just follow the Missale, Kyriale, Graduale, Pontificale, Ceremoniale, etc., and you’re good. You don’t have to bring in outside things. I don’t mean to say that you can’t royally screw up an EF mass by ignoring rubrics, but it’s harder to do when the nature of the mass itself kind of forces the participants in their various roles to have their faces shoved into a few-to-no-option text for nearly the entire mass, texts in which levels of solemnity are already built in (who would have thought?!) so no one has to look like an enemy when choosing “options” like in the OF, because there really aren’t any in the EF. The EF is comprehensive and far-reaching in that regard, by itself.

 

[OraLabora]

It is hard to tell apart, you’re right. But I think therein lies the problem. You have to add components to an OF mass to make it in line with tradition. It’s already built in to the EF, so you just follow the Missale, Kyriale, Graduale, Pontificale, Ceremoniale, etc., and you’re good. You don’t have to bring in outside things. I don’t mean to say that you can’t royally screw up an EF mass by ignoring rubrics, but it’s harder to do when the nature of the mass itself kind of forces the participants in their various roles to have their faces shoved into a few-to-no-option text for nearly the entire mass, texts in which levels of solemnity are already built in (who would have thought?!) so no one has to look like an enemy when choosing “options” like in the OF, because there really aren’t any in the EF. The EF is comprehensive and far-reaching in that regard, by itself.

Hmm well I don’t think you have to “add” anything to bring an OF Mass up to snuff. You just need to have a Graduale Romanum and a Missal and someone who knows how to use them. The Graduale Romanum (1974) is organized for the OF Mass and the current liturgical year. You can also use the Graduale Simplex, for simpler chant forms intended for smaller churches.

It’s really not that hard. It was, after all, what was intended for the OF. I suspect it’s easier to make a mistake in the EF due to the complexity of the rubrics.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Hmm well I don’t think you have to “add” anything to bring an OF Mass up to snuff. You just need to have a Graduale Romanum and a Missal and someone who knows how to use them. The Graduale Romanum (1974) is organized for the OF Mass and the current liturgical year. You can also use the Graduale Simplex, for simpler chant forms intended for smaller churches.

It’s really not that hard. It was, after all, what was intended for the OF. I suspect it’s easier to make a mistake in the EF due to the complexity of the rubrics.

But the part that drops the ball is that hymns are allowed to replace entirely the sung propers for the OF, with extremely minimal supervision as to what constitutes appropriate hymns. A la the 4 hymn sandwich that encompasses probably more than 95% of masses.

 

[TrueLight]

Orbis Factor.

Sounds beautiful. Sounds Coptic or something.

 

[PhilOSophia]

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.

So, you have 7+ Masses in a 100km radius, which includes Montreal?

I’m basing my opinion on this. This article used to be on the Latin Mass Society Of England And Wales. They had a refurbishment, so it no longer is.
salbert.tripod.com/SClel.htm

Even if S.C. is a bastion of rigour, it’s clear clergy don’t heed it and that is also a scandal.

Some people out there really, really want you to have a non-hierarchial mass, with sentiment to the fore and whatever the locals feel like adding to it, in a truly prayerful and community-oriented way, of course.

Traditionalists want a beautiful old mass, where everything is scripted, said according to the mind of the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

But the part that drops the ball is that hymns are allowed to replace entirely the sung propers for the OF, with extremely minimal supervision as to what constitutes appropriate hymns. A la the 4 hymn sandwich that encompasses probably more than 95% of masses.

Hymns are not a new innovation though. There were hymns in the EF, particularly in different cultures, and they were even in the vernacular. The difference of course is that thos hymns were from a long-standing cultural tradition. Out here in the New World we have no such long-standing tradition, and the hymns we get range from passable to truly awful (no better in the LOTH incidentally, when it comes to vernacular hymns).

I agree that bad music is a huge issue. For that reason, in parishes, I simply prefer a said Mass, which alas I can only generally find on weekdays.

Where we disagree is whether it takes a return to the EF to correct the situation. It takes a tightening of discipline, something that is lacking at all levels. I think the Church needs to pay more attention to what the situation is in the OF.

So, you have 7+ Masses in a 100km radius, which includes Montreal?

These are only the ones I am familiar with. There are numerous other communities, congregations, and orders in the area that I am less familiar with, which I am sure also have reverent Masses.

So, you have 7+ Masses in a 100km radius, which includes Montreal?

I’m basing my opinion on this. This article used to be on the Latin Mass Society Of England And Wales. They had a refurbishment, so it no longer is.
salbert.tripod.com/SClel.htm

Even if S.C. is a bastion of rigour, it’s clear clergy don’t heed it and that is also a scandal.

Indeed it is a scandal. So work on correcting the scandal instead of barricading yourselves into a “traditionalist” movement that has as I pointed out, many huge contradictions.

Some people out there really, really want you to have a non-hierarchial mass, with sentiment to the fore and whatever the locals feel like adding to it, in a truly prayerful and community-oriented way, of course.

Traditionalists want a beautiful old mass, where everything is scripted, said according to the mind of the Church.

This may come as a small shock to you but so do many non-traditionalists (in the sense that the word “traditionalist” is used here). Ann Landers used to say that “nobody can abuse you without your permission”. By rolling over and playing dead and retreating into the safety of a fairly arbitrary definition of “tradition”, you are leaving the field wide open to those with an agenda, on liturgical committees. I admit that I do exactly the same thing by retreating to an abbey that has a very beautiful and reverent OF Mass in Gregorian chant, with Propers and Ordinary in Latin(/Greek). But I am not a fighter by nature, and I am hugely attracted to the contemplative and transformational (I mean personal transformation) side of the Benedictines.

Instead folks who want the kind of Mass that you and I both like, should get on those committees and fight to make the OF Mass exactly that.

That said though, we have to recognize that the Church is spreading wide and far, and such a type of celebration may not work well in all cultures. I think that’s where SC was headed with its allowances in certain circumstances. We’ve just misinterpreted those circumstances to apply to us.

 

[Rich_C]

I think the best definition may be found here: fisheaters.com/ontraditionalcatholics.html

"A traditional Catholic is not a person who “prefers” the old Latin Mass. Neither are they people who simply passed Catechism class.

They are people who adhere to a type of spirituality that is largely lost in the 21st Century Catholic Church.

Truthfully, it’s easier to describe their outward signs than their character: the old Latin Mass is the biggest identifier… though there are certainly traditional Catholics who are marooned in Novus Ordoland; there are likewise non-traditional Catholics who go to the TLM…"

 

[Warrenton]

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.

I’ll take your word for it.

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.

According to this view, no change is possible. The fact that the vast majority of Catholics worshipped according to the old Latin Rite means nothing. The fact that the vast majority of Catholics avoided Protestant services means nothing. The fact that the vast majority of Catholics avoided Protestant forms of worship, such as “speaking in tongues,” vernacular eucharist services, handling the host, or taking wine, means nothing.

Under this view, indeed, these things are not even Protestant. Under this view, nothing is Protestant, because at some point, somewhere, some Catholic anticipated what they later taught.

Which begs the question, if nothing changed, and everything we see now is totally within Catholic tradition, what the dickens did they hold a massive council for 50 years ago, and what was all that talk about “aggiornamento?” Was everyone just mistaken?

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

Of course the traditionalist is supportive of specific aspects of Catholicism - ie.e, traditional aspects within the main stream of Catholic worship. That’s the whole point. We prefer the prior forms of the sacraments, and prefer the prior explanations for things like salvation within the Church. Strongly. With regards to newer trends, if that term is more agreeable than “changes,” there is not support. There may be tolerance, or acceptance, but those are different things.

 

[Warrenton]

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.

I doubt that very much. The desert fathers were mostly hermits, so their worship was different. They talked about sin, and hell, and the psalms, and conquoring the flesh.

According to a recent thread on hell on this forum, a lot of modern Catholics don’t believe its any worse, and perhaps may be better, than the classical notion of Hades.

Except, of course, they think it’s empty, with the possible exception of a few traditionalists!

 

[Melchior_1]

I’ll take your word for it.

On this board alone we have members of religious communities have been pretty open about the practices of their communities. That’s not counting other websites and books which have been written.

According to this view, no change is possible. The fact that the vast majority of Catholics worshipped according to the old Latin Rite means nothing. The fact that the vast majority of Catholics avoided Protestant services means nothing. The fact that the vast majority of Catholics avoided Protestant forms of worship, such as “speaking in tongues,” vernacular eucharist services, handling the host, or taking wine, means nothing.

I never said it meant “nothing”, and nothing I posted gave any indication that it meant “nothing”. The viewpoint is that there are elements of the religious which people may or may not be aware of which have been around for centuries… Further, it’s also the viewpoint that some of these items which people weren’t aware of may have been practiced by Catholics before Protestants made it mainstream/popular. Things like Communion of the hand and versus populum; both done by the Franciscans since the time of their founder. That’s hardly a “Protestant invention” because Francis was around before the reformation. The general concept of ecumenism and unity has also been around since Dominic and Francis.

Under this view, indeed, these things are not even Protestant. Under this view, nothing is Protestant, because at some point, somewhere, some Catholic anticipated what they later taught.

Protestants need to get their ideas and inspiration from some place. As we all know, the Bible alone isn’t enough. They take what they can get where they can get it. Luther was an Augustinian monk, and took with him some Augustinian thoughts and methodologies. As a result, even at the start of the reformation we saw that they had to draw from something, so they took elements that they saw from religious. If Luther and others can do that, why can’t the true Church?

I was once quoted saying; “it’s rare we find a ‘new heresy’. Most heresies have already happened at some point or another, with more recent ones simply having a fresh coat of paint”. Simple things like people saying “the brothers of the Lord” meaning actual brothers, that was a heresy YEARS before the reformation, yet after the reformation it took on a life of it’s own.

The reality is, as both cases highlight, is that there’s a lot of elements of Catholicism that some people simply don’t know. Sure, we have the Internet now, but back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s we didn’t. People who never went to a Franciscan household or Dominican Priory didn’t know what they did. In fact, until reforms in Vatican II some RELIGIOUS didn’t even know what they did People didn’t know that there were groups of Catholics who receive on their hands. They didn’t know that elements of charismaticism were in the Church pre-reformation. Religious orders, especially those who don’t get out much, had no way of effectively getting some of their message out.

Example; I live not too far from Montreal. Lets say 50 years ago I drop by OraLabroa’s Abby, and I find out their Breviary is different than mine. I say, I’d be furious that they dare changed the Breviary!

Fast forward 50 years; thanks to the Internet I know that the Benedictines have 20+ versions of the Breviary, and that the Breviary itself has had a few revisions over the years. Less furious, I would be! In fact, I’d want to find out why they did what they did.

Rewind 50 years THEN let 50 years pass, for 50 years i thought they were doing things wrong, then I find out they were doing things authentically Catholic. Would I accept it? It varies depending on the person. TimothyH has a powerful testimony on this very topic, how his life was changed when he visited some people. But not everyone is like that though.

Which begs the question, if nothing changed, and everything we see now is totally within Catholic tradition, what the dickens did they hold a massive council for 50 years ago, and what was all that talk about “aggiornamento?” Was everyone just mistaken? .

You could say this about several Councils. Why hold a Council to clarify beliefs if the beliefs are all from the original deposit of Faith?

That said, there’s a lot of reasons why the Council needed to happen, and a lot of good which came out of it.

I doubt that very much. The desert fathers were mostly hermits, so their worship was different. They talked about sin, and hell, and the psalms, and conquoring the flesh.

According to a recent thread on hell on this forum, a lot of modern Catholics don’t believe its any worse, and perhaps may be better, than the classical notion of Hades.

Except, of course, they think it’s empty, with the possible exception of a few traditionalists!

Where’s this thread? I may have missed it. I always thought that Hell was eternal torment and eternal life without God. I dunno, Hell/Heaven seems like a straight forward thing to me.

 

[OraLabora]

Which begs the question, if nothing changed, and everything we see now is totally within Catholic tradition, what the dickens did they hold a massive council for 50 years ago, and what was all that talk about “aggiornamento?” Was everyone just mistaken?

My experience on this forum seems to indicate that traditionalists are the ones that think “nothing changed” until 1962 and that if we all just went back to the 1962 missal and breviary, and pre-Vatican II practices, we would be restoring Catholic “tradition”.

Yet nothing would be further from the truth. It ignores how the pre-Vatican II Church came to cause long-standing traditional religious orders to drift from their charisms, it ignores how Pius X actually set the precedent for destroying tradition in the Divine Office, it ignores how Trent threw away some ancient traditions (as I illustrated with my specific example above) and did its best to crush Byzantine influences, it ignores the distilling of many rites into few resulting in forms of chant and liturgical practices that have been lost forever (in some cases with few or no manuscripts to allow us to at least study them and understand their relevance to the modern Church), it ignores that chant forms have changed over the ages, and their interpretations have changed, it ignores how Gregorian chant became adulterated in the years after Trent and was only properly restored by the monks of Solesmes at the end of the 19th century, in short, it ignores that the Church liturgy was always in some degree of flux and that encroaching stuffiness and adulteration of some of its practices and liturgies did require periodic renewal. The Graduale Romanum of 1908 was in fact one such major renewal, in the area of sacred music. It was not without controversy in how Gregorian chant was interpreted; Pius X put an end to the controversies by endorsing the Graduale Romanum.

Instead of being concerned about how to recapture a lost moment in time (for the immediate pre-Vatican II Church really was just that, a moment in time), we should be concerned about how to allow relevant traditions to revive and survive in a modern Church, and how to have the Church evolve in a way that doesn’t throw away the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

snipped for space

Instead of being concerned about how to recapture a lost moment in time (for the immediate pre-Vatican II Church really was just that, a moment in time), we should be concerned about how to allow relevant traditions to revive and survive in a modern Church, and how to have the Church evolve in a way that doesn’t throw away the baby with the bathwater.

The most insightful statement I have seen on CAF in a long time!!

:tiphat:

 

[TrueLight]

My experience on this forum seems to indicate that traditionalists are the ones that think “nothing changed” until 1962 and that if we all just went back to the 1962 missal and breviary, and pre-Vatican II practices, we would be restoring Catholic “tradition”.

Yet nothing would be further from the truth. It ignores how the pre-Vatican II Church came to cause long-standing traditional religious orders to drift from their charisms, it ignores how Pius X actually set the precedent for destroying tradition in the Divine Office, it ignores how Trent threw away some ancient traditions (as I illustrated with my specific example above) and did its best to crush Byzantine influences, it ignores the distilling of many rites into few resulting in forms of chant and liturgical practices that have been lost forever (in some cases with few or no manuscripts to allow us to at least study them and understand their relevance to the modern Church), it ignores that chant forms have changed over the ages, and their interpretations have changed, it ignores how Gregorian chant became adulterated in the years after Trent and was only properly restored by the monks of Solesmes at the end of the 19th century, in short, it ignores that the Church liturgy was always in some degree of flux and that encroaching stuffiness and adulteration of some of its practices and liturgies did require periodic renewal. The Graduale Romanum of 1908 was in fact one such major renewal, in the area of sacred music. It was not without controversy in how Gregorian chant was interpreted; Pius X put an end to the controversies by endorsing the Graduale Romanum.

Instead of being concerned about how to recapture a lost moment in time (for the immediate pre-Vatican II Church really was just that, a moment in time), we should be concerned about how to allow relevant traditions to revive and survive in a modern Church, and how to have the Church evolve in a way that doesn’t throw away the baby with the bathwater.

I have to admit this is a an eye-opening, really good post.

 

[TimothyH]

I doubt that very much. The desert fathers were mostly hermits, so their worship was different. They talked about sin, and hell, and the psalms, and conquoring the flesh.

According to a recent thread on hell on this forum, a lot of modern Catholics don’t believe its any worse, and perhaps may be better, than the classical notion of Hades.

Except, of course, they think it’s empty, with the possible exception of a few traditionalists!

Then would you accept “From when St. Benedict’s rule was written” instead?

Or “from the time of the reforms of Citeaux?”

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I think the best definition may be found here: fisheaters.com/ontraditionalcatholics.html

"A traditional Catholic is not a person who “prefers” the old Latin Mass. Neither are they people who simply passed Catechism class.

They are people who adhere to a type of spirituality that is largely lost in the 21st Century Catholic Church.

Truthfully, it’s easier to describe their outward signs than their character: the old Latin Mass is the biggest identifier… though there are certainly traditional Catholics who are marooned in Novus Ordoland; there are likewise non-traditional Catholics who go to the TLM…"

See, that’s a big problem, using phrases like “Marooned in Novus Ordoland” as if the Novus Ordo is some sort of deserted island, devoid of life and nourishment, a hardship to be endured until one is rescued by the EF.

I don’t mean to point you out specifically Rich as I have seen this sort of thing done on some other posts in this thread, but this is half of the problem. If people really believe that strongly in the EF, then let it stand on it’s merits - it’s beauty, the grace recieved, its reverance - instead of tearing down something else.

Again, walk into a parish and start using this phraseology and you are not going to make much headway in getting an altar rail installed.

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

See, that’s a big problem, using phrases like “Marooned in Novus Ordoland” as if the Novus Ordo is some sort of deserted island, devoid of life and nourishment, a hardship to be endured until one is rescued by the EF.

I don’t mean to point you out specifically Rich as I have seen this sort of thing done on some other posts in this thread, but this is half of the problem. If people really believe that strongly in the EF, then let it stand on it’s merits - it’s beauty, the grace recieved, its reverance - instead of tearing down something else.

Again, walk into a parish and start using this phraseology and you are not going to make much headway in getting an altar rail installed.

-Tim-

I have to admit I was offended by that statement as well. I didn’t respond immediately, I needed to cool off first

The OF Mass I regularly attend as I pointed out earlier is far, far from being a wasteland that doesn’t spiritually nourish anyone:

-It uses Gregorian chant, in Latin, for the Propers and Ordinary (plus Greek Kyrie)
-It uses French plainchant for the rest, including chanted readings
-It uses incense
-It uses bells
-It has a solemn profession into and out of the Church by the monks
-The chant is a cappella
-The other music is provided by a majestic pipe organ
-There are no liturgical abuses
-It is very beautiful

All done on a daily basis, except there’s no incense or organ during weekdays unless it’s a feast or solemnity.

I’ve also been to some parish Masses that were just fine, no abuses, fine homily, packed pews. In fact I find it’s the parishes where there are no systematic abuses that tend to have the fullest pews. I have course have also been to the opposite, and I have been to some Masses with no abuses but terrible music.

“Novus Ordoland” for me, can be a fine place to be “marooned”.

 

[TimothyH]

I have to admit I was offended by that statement as well. I didn’t respond immediately, I needed to cool off first

The OF Mass I regularly attend as I pointed out earlier is far, far from being a wasteland that doesn’t spiritually nourish anyone:

-It uses Gregorian chant, in Latin, for the Propers and Ordinary (plus Greek Kyrie)
-It uses French plainchant for the rest, including chanted readings
-It uses incense
-It uses bells
-It has a solemn profession into and out of the Church by the monks
-The chant is a cappella
-The other music is provided by a majestic pipe organ
-There are no liturgical abuses
-It is very beautiful

All done on a daily basis, except there’s no incense or organ during weekdays unless it’s a feast or solemnity.

I’ve also been to some parish Masses that were just fine, no abuses, fine homily, packed pews. In fact I find it’s the parishes where there are no systematic abuses that tend to have the fullest pews. I have course have also been to the opposite, and I have been to some Masses with no abuses but terrible music.

“Novus Ordoland” for me, can be a fine place to be “marooned”.

I served the priest at the altar last night on the desolate island of Novus Ordoland

Then we had a novena to St. Jude, including a relic of St. Jude, with benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. I led the singing of Tantum Ergo and O Salutaris, both in Latin, and this time I didn’t even have to look at the words.

And my pants still smell like incense today, but that is for another thread.

-Tim-