What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[Warrenton]

If Luther and others can do that, why can’t the true Church?

I don’t care where Luther got his service. It’s Lutheran, and it does not concern me. He did not get it from the Latin rite of the Catholic Church commonly used in the parishes of the Latin West. Maybe he got it from the monks, maybe he made it up, or maybe he got some of it from one place, and other aspects from another. But it’s not Catholic because it’s Lutheran. Except, of course, that now I have Luther’s service, too, and perceive that the traditional Latin rite is superior to it, being wholly Catholic.

The reality is, as both cases highlight, is that there’s a lot of elements of Catholicism that some people simply don’t know.

Fine, but let’s stick with what we do know. For over 1000 years, the mass that my ancestors went to looked like the tridentine mass. Now it looks like a Lutheran service. Perhaps, as you say, the Lutheran service and the N.O. are cobbled together from disparate sources that trace to some Catholic thing. What of it? It’s not the old mass. That’s the point.

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?

Maybe, but we’re only talking about one council here. And that council claimed to change things. It was convened in order to change things. Now, you’re saying it didn’t change things. I’m saying that contention is incorrect.

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

Again, I’ll take your word for it. But presumably, the state of the Church in Europe and Canada is not one of the good things to come out of it.

 

[Warrenton]

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”.

This is incorrect. The nature of all earthly things is change. However, the attitude that one makes changes is critical.

The focus on liturgy and sacraments was not innovative before the 1960s. The mass was preserved because it was believed to be a relic from the Fathers, containing the truth of Catholic belief.

That changed as a result of V2. Since then, we have had no end of changes, for their own sake. The N.O. was designed to make this possible.

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

Traditionalists are concerned with this. The difference is, traditionalists actually have a plan on how to do what you are asking: restore the sacraments to their 1962 formats. No other plan seems to be working.

 

[TrueLight]

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.

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t care where Luther got his service. It’s Lutheran, and it does not concern me. He did not get it from the Latin rite of the Catholic Church commonly used in the parishes of the Latin West. Maybe he got it from the monks, maybe he made it up, or maybe he got some of it from one place, and other aspects from another. But it’s not Catholic because it’s Lutheran. Except, of course, that now I have Luther’s service, too, and perceive that the traditional Latin rite is superior to it, being wholly Catholic.

So because he 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.

Anyway, what I was getting at earlier was;

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.

It’d be like if Lectio Divina was something done by the Dominicans but not the laity. A Protestant saw it and started doing it because it’s an intense Scriptural activity, and lots of Protestants started to do it. After awhile some Catholic laity sees this, and starts to do it themselves. Protestant invention in that case? Hardly.

Fine, but let’s stick with what we do know. For over 1000 years, the mass that my ancestors went to looked like the tridentine mass. Now it looks like a Lutheran service. Perhaps, as you say, the Lutheran service and the N.O. are cobbled together from disparate sources that trace to some Catholic thing. What of it? It’s not the old mass. That’s the point.

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?

Maybe, but we’re only talking about one council here. And that council claimed to change things. It was convened in order to change things. Now, you’re saying it didn’t change things. I’m saying that contention is incorrect.

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).

 

[PhilOSophia]

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

No. 40 years of apologia for the changes is enough. When I saw that disciplines in the Mass had changed even in the 20 years I had lapsed, I was surprised. When I learned that the N.O. mass was like Cranmer’s mass, I was angry.

I can see the wheel turning back to tradition sloooowwwwly but I don’t want to wait another 40 years until biology, demographics and finance grind down the nonsense.

Why should I sit simmering in a pew when I can go to a TLM in peace?

 

[OraLabora]

This is incorrect. The nature of all earthly things is change. However, the attitude that one makes changes is critical.

The focus on liturgy and sacraments was not innovative before the 1960s. The mass was preserved because it was believed to be a relic from the Fathers, containing the truth of Catholic belief.

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

And the focus on liturgy and sacraments was not innovative before the 1960s? Have you examined the changes to the Divine Office by Pius X in 1910, and the high-handed manner in which they were implemented? At least in the 1970 changes clergy were given the option to continue using the 1962 breviary to lessen the hardship on elderly clergy and to allow for time to transition. Have you paid attention to the patrimony of ancient antiphons that were lost then, and new ones composed out of the blue? Oh I suppose because parishioners didn’t see those changes they’re irrelevant to traditionalists. They are not irrelevant to the history of the Church and the Divine Office, and Saint Pius X actually set a couple of precedents that pre-dated by 60 years and facilitated the changes to the Divine Office in 1970, by eliminating a very ancient tradition, one going back to the Desert Fathers: the daily recitation of the three “Laudate” psalms at sunrise, from where the office of Lauds got its name.

That changed as a result of V2. Since then, we have had no end of changes, for their own sake. The N.O. was designed to make this possible.

The Mass of 1970 was certainly a major and gut-wrenching change. But then too the Church has changed. As I have posted on other threads, 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.

Traditionalists are concerned with this. The difference is, traditionalists actually have a plan on how to do what you are asking: restore the sacraments to their 1962 formats. No other plan seems to be working.

I highly doubt this will happen and I doubt it would work any better. The Church has already been torn up by one major gut-wrenching change. Doing that again would likely only please traditionalists, and foster further acrimony and division. I think (or rather hope) the Church learned its lesson. Even the recent translation changes have sparked quite a bit of pain and those are relatively minor changes. 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. And I reiterate: going back to 1962 is merely going back to a single point in time. There is nothing particularly magical about going back to 1962 instead of 600, 1600 or 1900 or 1950 before the restoration of the Easter Vigil by Pius XII. It’s simply an arbitrary rolling back of the clock to a fairly arbitrary point.

Incidentally I seen nothing “Lutheran” at the OF Mass I regularly attend, although I’ve never been to a Lutheran “mass”. It is Catholic through and through. You have to distinguish between the form of the Mass, and its execution. 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.

 

[TrueLight]

And this is why you have traditionalists trying so hard to protect the traditional mass.

Edited by moderator

 

[PhilOSophia]

The real problem is that Vatican II is a god in itself. Whatever is invoked in its name, must be followed. Anything before it is interpreted in its light and anything after it, likewise. Previous councils don’t matter.

It can be whatever you want it to be. Neo-conservatives can say it doesn’t contradict tradition outright and liberals can say ‘dancing in church now okay’.

Quite a lot to put on a council which didn’t convene to combat a major heresy or pronounce new doctrine.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

Brother JR would be the first to tell you that Mass is not what produces saints. Someone else said this exact thing and he replied to it specifically. I can’t find the post.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

Brother JR would be the first to tell you that Mass is not what produces saints. Someone else said this exact thing and he replied to it specifically. I can’t find the post.

-Tim-

I know personally, attending mass and receiving the Lord as often as I can helps me in my spiritual growth. In the end, God does the work, but he uses means as well.

 

[Melchior_1]

And this is why you have traditionalists trying so hard to protect the traditional mass.

edited by moderator

What does this have anything to do about it though? I mean, there’s 20+ Rites, and quite a few usages already. The fact that this group may have a Use of their own is interesting, and if anything you’d think people would applaud that they went to the Pope with their requests.

The group, if I’m not mistaken, was admonished for a few things and was told to fix them. Which apparently they did.

Here’s a question; is the Anglican Use a “threat”?

 

[PhilOSophia]

It’s a threat if it diminishes the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and emphasises the commemoration of the last Suppoer.

 

[Melchior_1]

I can see the wheel turning back to tradition sloooowwwwly but I don’t want to wait another 40 years until biology, demographics and finance grind down the nonsense.

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.

 

[Melchior_1]

It’s a threat if it diminishes the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and emphasises the commemoration of the last Suppoer.

You never answered my question. I want to know if the Anglican Use bad, a threat, not Catholic, misc. etc.

 

[Cristiano]

Brother JR would be the first to tell you that Mass is not what produces saints. Someone else said this exact thing and he replied to it specifically. I can’t find the post.

-Tim-

I think that you are probably pushing the statement beyond Brother JR’s point what he probably meant was in terms of sanctifying grave vs. actual graces. When we go to Mass we receive actual grace. Graces are given to us for our sainthood. Thus Mass through actual grace contributes to the formation of saints.

 

[Cristiano]

It’s a threat if it diminishes the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and emphasises the commemoration of the last Suppoer.

And why is it a threat?

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

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.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And why is it a threat?

How isn’t that a threat?

 

[OraLabora]

It’s a threat if it diminishes the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and emphasises the commemoration of the last Suppoer.

Have you ever seen an Anglican High Church Mass?

It’s a better liturgy and more faithful to Catholic tradition than many an abused OF Mass I have been to, and it has a rich musical patrimony to back it up. I don’t think you have anything to worry about.

The Holy Father has made Christian Unity a major goal of his papacy, and he personally set up the Anglican Ordinariate, allowing the Anglican use, as an instrument to facilitate the coming home of conservative Anglicans.

They will add to, and not detract from, the patrimony of our Church.

 

[TimothyH]

I think that you are probably pushing the statement beyond Brother JR’s point what he probably meant was in terms of sanctifying grave vs. actual graces. When we go to Mass we receive actual grace. Graces are given to us for our sainthood. Thus Mass through actual grace contributes to the formation of saints.

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-