What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[Oneofthewomen]

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.

I don’t know why it should scare you.
Orders & congregations where an intergral part of the evangelization of America, and many parishes started out as missions of orders.
You can’t change that.
Search Br. Jay’s post about this, I guarantee you will learn alot!!

I am a chef, so allow me the following cooking analogy-
the Catholic Chruch is like a pot of soup.
You start with the “trinity”- carrots, celery, onions. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
You have the base, which is always liquid- this this the foundation. (The Church)
Basically, you can stop here. This is sustanance enough to survive.

But when you add other ingredients, seasonings and spices, (Orders, congrecations, sociesties & secular practices)
you come up with a world of ways to achieve the end result,
and experience joy along the way.

All the charisms that are present in the Church are relevant and needed
and we should strive to embrace all that helps us along the way, not drive the wedge of division among us.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t know why it should scare you.
Orders & congregations where an intergral part of the evangelization of America, and many parishes started out as missions of orders.
You can’t change that.
Search Br. Jay’s post about this, I guarantee you will learn alot!!

I am a chef, so allow me the following cooking analogy-
the Catholic Chruch is like a pot of soup.
You start with the “trinity”- carrots, celery, onions. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
You have the base, which is always liquid- this this the foundation. (The Church)
Basically, you can stop here. This is sustanance enough to survive.

But when you add other ingredients, seasonings and spices, (Orders, congrecations, sociesties & secular practices)
you come up with a world of ways to achieve the end result,
and experience joy along the way.

All the charisms that are present in the Church are relevant and needed
and we should strive to embrace all that helps us along the way, not drive the wedge of division among us.

I understand what you’re saying. It’s not that I’m afraid of religious congregations. That would be silly. I am eternally thankful for them, as without them, I probably wouldn’t be Catholic today. That’s not what I mean. What I mean is this pervasive idea of, “If the _____ Order does it, so should we.” I can’t accept that. Take versus populum worship. The Franciscans have been doing that for ages unto the ages, way before Vatican II was ever dreamed of. Why? Was it some arbitrary decision? No. It is done because their order emphasizes brotherhood and commonality. That is what they are built upon. To have their priests face the other brothers is simply a natural extension of that. One of the commonest objections (and I subscribe to it) to VP worship is that it puts the spotlight on the person of the priest, rather than on Christ. However, Franciscans have years and years of training in what their brotherhood actually means and the theology behind it, and so their minds are infinitely more well-formed in the realm of religion and how Franciscan liturgy reflects their brotherhood. They can “handle it,” so to speak. However, the average layman has relatively little religious education, even less now than in the past, and so his mind is not as well-formed as the average Franciscan brother’s is. Brotherhood is not part of the secular charism like it is part of the Franciscans’, so why have VP worship in parishes? It emphasizes a brotherhood which isn’t there (at least, not as much as is in the Franciscan charism), and it gives the wrong idea. The Franciscans are built on an egalitarian brotherhood, but the secular parish is built on a very hierarchical system. It doesn’t make sense to use VP worship in parishes, IMO. It just isn’t prudent. It may not be flat out theologically incorrect (which it isn’t), but it is very imprudent. That’s just one example of many.

 

[Warrenton]

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.

I see. However, I believe if you examine the old rites, as well as the Greek rites, you will see that they have considerably more in common with the tridentine rite than they do with the N.O.
If you go further a step, and examine the feeling that the old forms were meant to evoke, you will find that the tridentine and Greek rites also strive for a similar feeling. This feeling, or if you prefer, “emphasis,” is different from the ordinary form. This resolves the paradox.

 

[Cristiano]

I see. However, I believe if you examine the old rites, as well as the Greek rites, you will see that they have considerably more in common with the tridentine rite than they do with the N.O.
If you go further a step, and examine the feeling that the old forms were meant to evoke, you will find that the tridentine and Greek rites also strive for a similar feeling. This feeling, or if you prefer, “emphasis,” is different from the ordinary form. This resolves the paradox.

Feelings? Now we are starting to say that feelings determine the liturgy? I already had to hear from people that happy clappy crowd in my parish.Sorry but I am not going to buy into it. Different form, different rites paradox still on if we follow that logic.

 

[Warrenton]

The idea that the truths are best expressed in Latin does not make sense.

Of course it makes sense. Just as the truths in the Analects of Mencius are best expressed in Chinese, the truths of Shinto are best expressed in Japanese, the truths of Wagner (if any) are best (or only) expressed in German, so the truths of Latin Christianity are best expressed in … you guessed it.

This is not an inherent function, but is a function of the long co-existence of the Latin language and the ideas that must be expressed in the Latin Church.

The Muslims are on to the same idea. The Koran must be in Arabic, and about a billion people get the notion behind it, so it makes some sense to at least a large slice of the world’s people.

keep studying!

 

[Cristiano]

Of course it makes sense. Just as the truths in the Analects of Mencius are best expressed in Chinese, the truths of Shinto are best expressed in Japanese, the truths of Wagner (if any) are best (or only) expressed in German, so the truths of Latin Christianity are best expressed in … you guessed it.

This is not an inherent function, but is a function of the long co-existence of the Latin language and the ideas that must be expressed in the Latin Church.

The Muslims are on to the same idea. The Koran must be in Arabic, and about a billion people get the notion behind it, so it makes some sense to at least a large slice of the world’s people.

keep studying!

So you are saying that the readings and the homilies should be only in Latin.

 

[TimothyH]

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:

Sanctifying is permanent while actual is transient.

There was another thread, or so I though, where he talked about the same thing at greater length. I can’t find it even with some fairly complex google searches so maybe I am mistaken.

And thank you for the CCC quote.

-Tim-

 

[Warrenton]

Feelings? Now we are starting to say that feelings determine the liturgy? I already had to hear from people that happy clappy crowd in my parish.Sorry but I am not going to buy into it. Different form, different rites paradox still on.

You’re being obtuse.

Unless one is a cultural illiterate, the idea of categories of art is a familiar one. There are odes, and epics, and elegies. There are many distinct poems within each category, but the epics of Homer evoke, and are meant to evoke, a similar response to the epic of Virgil, or the scop of Beowulf, even though the works are separated by language, time and ethnicity.

The same is true with masses. The Greek priest goes through a formal vesting process with prayers and invocations. So did Pope Gregory the Great. So also in the tridentine mass. While the prayers varied somewhat the intent is the same, the message conveyed to the observer is the same, hence the feeling is the same.

To be stymied by a paradox so easy to resolve, I shudder to think of the confusion engendered by commonplace distinctions between riding a roller coaster and riding a horse, or drinking milk and drinking whiskey. The world, so diverse, if divorced from feeling, or impression if you rather, must be a veritable labyrinth!

 

[Warrenton]

So you are saying that the readings and the homilies should be only in Latin.

Is that what I said?

 

[Cristiano]

You’re being obtuse…

Name calling! You win I loose. Too bad!

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Of course it makes sense. Just as the truths in the Analects of Mencius are best expressed in Chinese, the truths of Shinto are best expressed in Japanese, the truths of Wagner (if any) are best (or only) expressed in German, so the truths of Latin Christianity are best expressed in … you guessed it.

This is linguistic relativism, and it’s bunk. Sorry, but it is.

 

[Warrenton]

This is linguistic relativism, and it’s bunk. Sorry, but it is.

Actually, it is the opposite of relativism. Sorry, but it is.

 

[Warrenton]

Name calling! You win I loose. Too bad!

Of course you win - you won before this thread was ever started, even before there was an internet to post it on!

However, I was surprised to read obtuse interpreted as “name calling.” I meant it in a more rhetorically technical sense. But then, there we come back to those blasted “feelings.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is linguistic relativism, and it’s bunk. Sorry, but it is.

Care to explain? What in God’s name would have been the point in changing the translation of the Roman Missal, if what you say is the truth?

 

[Baelor]

Of course it makes sense. Just as the truths in the Analects of Mencius are best expressed in Chinese, the truths of Shinto are best expressed in Japanese, the truths of Wagner (if any) are best (or only) expressed in German, so the truths of Latin Christianity are best expressed in … you guessed it.

Truths are universal, independent of language. The Truths of the Church are universal. The “truths” of Latin Christianity can be translated without loss of meaning into any language. Latin Christianity is not even a thing. The Latin rite is, and its truths are just as able to be expressed in any language.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Truths are universal, independent of language. The Truths of the Church are universal. The “truths” of Latin Christianity can be translated without loss of meaning into any language. Latin Christianity is not even a thing. The Latin rite is, and its truths are just as able to be expressed in any language.

Please think about this. Of course truth is universal. But does that mean if we express it in two languages that it is going to say the same thing? Of course not, that makes absolutely zero sense. In fact, experience (and common sense) has shown that it is nigh impossible to translate exactly. I mean, come on.

 

[Baelor]

Please think about this. Of course truth is universal. But does that mean if we express it in two languages that it is going to say the same thing? Of course not, that makes absolutely zero sense. In fact, experience (and common sense) has shown that it is nigh impossible to translate exactly. I mean, come on.

I recommend that you reread my post until you understand what it was that I was saying. I will repeat it in a different way that requires a caveat:

The Truth can be expressed in any language without loss of integrity.

This statement, of course, can be shown to be false if one invents five words of a language and call it a language. The fullness of the Truth is obviously not able to be expressed with only five words from which to choose. But this reveals an underlying quality of language – all languages are inherently incomplete (at least right now), including Latin. The closest we have, i would imagine, to fully expressive language is the Bible in its original languages. Latin does not have inherent descriptive power that other languages do not vis-a-vis Catholic teaching.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

I wonder if the lives of religious orders and communites are not closer to the lives of marriage and nuclear and extended familes than we think.

Families certainly are disfunctional today, with kids coming home to empty houses while both parents work just so they can drive fancy cars, divorce, porn addiction, etc. The disfunctional families of today could learn a lot from the way consecrated religious communites function - bearing with one anothers defects with patience over long periods of time, self sacrifice for the greater good, listening to each other’s opinions including the young, deference to elders, obedience to legitimate authority, etc. Families could learn a lot from the way Franciscans, Dominican and Benedictine communities function.

So the question I want to ask is, and I ask it in all sincerity, what is it about secular parish life - the lives of individuals, families, and the parish as a whole - that makes the Tridentine Mass a better fit than the current Novus Ordo Mass, or a Mass from a Benedictine monastery or Dominican motherhouse?

If you will please let me ask anothe way, by way of example.

Take, for example, the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecila (O.P.), which is a teaching order. They spend summers and holidays cloisterd at the Mother House in Nashville and the rest of their time is spent teaching in Catholic schools attached to parishes throughout North America. They attend whatever form of the Mass is offered in that parish - they walk across the street, kneel down, pray, recieve Jesus, and then walk across the parking lot to the school and teach second grade all day. Given that they spend about 40% of their time cloisterd and about 60% of their time heavily involved in secular parish life, if a parish which they are attached to decided to stop offering the Novus Ordo and start offering the Tridentine Mass in Latin, what would they loose and what would the secular laity gain?

I hope I am making myself clear. I apologize if I am not.

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

So the question I want to ask is, and I ask it in all sincerity, what is it about secular parish life - the lives of individuals, families, and the parish as a whole - that makes the Tridentine Mass a better fit than the current Novus Ordo Mass, or a Mass from a Benedictine monastery or Dominican motherhouse?

I understand what you mean. Everything in the EF is very iconic. I don’t mean that in the cliche way, I mean that very literally. The EF is highly iconic in the sense that everything is very deliberate. There is a certain amount of liturgical dance, so to speak, that isn’t present in the OF. Take, in the EF, the Gospel and epistle sides of the altar. Or the altar rail, symbolizing the chasm between earth and heaven (of course, altar rails are present in some OF-only churches, but generally not many, and are usually disused anyway). Or the mandatory levels of singing (ferial tone, solemn tone, more solemn tone). Or the kisses whenever a bishop hands over his crosier. Or when only a bishop sits at the throne but other (like auxiliary) bishops must use a faldstool even if he is celebrant. Or the incensation rubrics of swinging the censer around the offerings rather than laterally over them. Everything has its proper place, and it doesn’t come out of its proper place. It is all very clear and ordered where things belong, and everything has its own peculiarities. It is very visual. You see what is happening, therefore you know what is happening.

The OF generally doesn’t have these things. Sure, usually it’s in the vernacular and people hear what is being said, but there aren’t these visual “helpers,” so to speak, as in the EF. It’s very bland visually. Everything is incensed the same way, everything sounds the same, everything looks the same. Yes, it’s easy to determine when the Gospel is being read versus the epistle, or when the offerings are being incensed versus the crucifix, but it isn’t iconic. It’s just, “Oh, just something else the priest is doing.” There’s not as much visual magic or flavor, IMO.

There is the argument that all these “accretions,” as some put it, found their way into the liturgical books as a way to help the faithful know what is going on in a certain moment due to the fact that the mass was nearly always in Latin. I can buy that. However, I don’t think it’s worth it to have thrown these iconic things away just because the OF is usually in the vernacular. I, for example, do not learn by hearing. I am a visual learner. Some people might find it odd, but I learned more about the OF by going to EF masses than by being present at OF masses, just because the EF generally places that much more emphasis on the visual, on the iconic, than the OF does. There are all these little triggers that I see at EF masses that aren’t present at OF masses. These things are very conducive to a layman’s mind, as they are very deliberate actions. Laymen usually need more of the iconic to understand than trained religious do. In a way, the complex is actually simpler than the simple, IMO. Maybe my argument isn’t the best as it’s presented, but meh. Tiny cues make all the difference to visual learners. EF masses tend to be more of an “experience” than do OF masses, IMO.

 

[TimothyH]

Of course it makes sense. Just as the truths in the Analects of Mencius are best expressed in Chinese, the truths of Shinto are best expressed in Japanese, the truths of Wagner (if any) are best (or only) expressed in German, so the truths of Latin Christianity are best expressed in … you guessed it.

This is not an inherent function, but is a function of the long co-existence of the Latin language and the ideas that must be expressed in the Latin Church.

The Muslims are on to the same idea. The Koran must be in Arabic, and about a billion people get the notion behind it, so it makes some sense to at least a large slice of the world’s people.

keep studying!

It occurs to me that the Spirit of Truth inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and James to write the words of truth found in the Bible in Greek.

And when Truth Himself uttered words of truth, such as “Truly Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood etc.”, he chose to say it in Aramaic.

The Psalms recited in the Latin version of the 1962 Breviarium Romanum were first uttered by King David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Hebrew.

-Tim-