- Status
S
SJP
Guest
I’ll be watching:thumbsup:Just preparing to leave for World Youth Day tomorrow. If you see somebody on TV holding up a “Tridentine Please” banner at the Papal Mass…
S
SJP
Guest
Spiller, when you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence for the claim that you made in post #63:
S
SJP
Guest
bump for Spiller
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Hi SJP,
I know you’re waiting for Spiller to answer your question. I hope in the meantime, you can accept an answer from me. One of my resources says this:
" TRIDENTINE MASS, The Eucharistic Liturgy celebrated in the Latin Rite according to the Roman Missal promulgated by the apostolic constitution Quo Primum of Pope Pius V on July 14, 1570. A revised missal was decreed by the Council of Trent in order to unify what by then had become a variety of “Roman Rites” that had proliferated since the Middle Ages."
Pocket Catholic Dictionary, abridged edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary. John A. Hardon, S.J. Image Books, A Division of Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1985.
I know you’re waiting for Spiller to answer your question. I hope in the meantime, you can accept an answer from me. One of my resources says this:
" TRIDENTINE MASS, The Eucharistic Liturgy celebrated in the Latin Rite according to the Roman Missal promulgated by the apostolic constitution Quo Primum of Pope Pius V on July 14, 1570. A revised missal was decreed by the Council of Trent in order to unify what by then had become a variety of “Roman Rites” that had proliferated since the Middle Ages."
Pocket Catholic Dictionary, abridged edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary. John A. Hardon, S.J. Image Books, A Division of Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1985.
P
Penitant
Guest
First, let us define what Traditionalism is not:
It is not Archaeologism, which is the belief that antiquity implies superiority.
Nor is it Modernism, which is the belief that youth implies superiority.
It is not Orthodoxy (although they are not mutually exclusive, but often overlap), which is belief in all Doctrine of the Church, and attempted obedience (although we sometimes fail) to that Doctrine.
Nor is it Heterodoxy, which is a disbelief in at least some Doctrine of the Church. (synonymous with heresy)
It is not Orthopraxy (again, not mutually exclusive), which is an assent to (and attempt to follow, although, again, we sometimes fail) all the Disciplines of the Church.
Nor is it Heteropraxy, which is a disagreement with (and often disobedience of) the Disciplines of the Church.
This is why Traditionalism is often closely tied to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass. The Extraordinary Form did not arise suddenly after Trent, but was a revision and codification of the variants which arose from the Gregorian Liturgy, which was, in turn, a revision of an earlier liturgy. There is a long-standing continuity in the Extraordinary Form.
Lastly, since Traditionalism is necessarily a matter of Liturgy (since Doctrine is necessarily continuous), Traditionalism could be regarded as a subset of Ritualism, which is simply an emphasis on ritual.
Pax Vobiscum,
Zach
It is not Archaeologism, which is the belief that antiquity implies superiority.
Nor is it Modernism, which is the belief that youth implies superiority.
It is not Orthodoxy (although they are not mutually exclusive, but often overlap), which is belief in all Doctrine of the Church, and attempted obedience (although we sometimes fail) to that Doctrine.
Nor is it Heterodoxy, which is a disbelief in at least some Doctrine of the Church. (synonymous with heresy)
It is not Orthopraxy (again, not mutually exclusive), which is an assent to (and attempt to follow, although, again, we sometimes fail) all the Disciplines of the Church.
Nor is it Heteropraxy, which is a disagreement with (and often disobedience of) the Disciplines of the Church.
It is not Sedevecantism, which is the belief that the Pope does not have authority over the Church.
In general, I would say that Traditionalism is a desire for continuity (temporally). That is, a general dislike and discomfort with abrupt change in the Church. This type of change is exactly what happened with the promulgation of the Missal of 1970, according to Pope Benedict in Spirit_of_the_Liturgy.This is why Traditionalism is often closely tied to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass. The Extraordinary Form did not arise suddenly after Trent, but was a revision and codification of the variants which arose from the Gregorian Liturgy, which was, in turn, a revision of an earlier liturgy. There is a long-standing continuity in the Extraordinary Form.
Lastly, since Traditionalism is necessarily a matter of Liturgy (since Doctrine is necessarily continuous), Traditionalism could be regarded as a subset of Ritualism, which is simply an emphasis on ritual.
Pax Vobiscum,
Zach
C
cothrige
Guest
I have always understood tradition as a practice passed down from one generation to the next. This requires that it continue to pass down, and if abandoned entirely for a long period of time, and out of natural memory, then it cannot be considered tradtional anymore. Maybe it was traditional at one time, when people still living could still remember it, but otherwise it is not traditional anymore. If it were then we could insist that banging rocks together and painting on caves would be traditional art, and they are not.
This natural and proper understanding makes it very easy to see why a traditional person is not interested in the oldest possible form, i.e.e archeologism, and also isn’t interested in a new contemporary method. Too often people seem interested in arguing that the OF is more traditional because it has very ancient prayers that disappeared, or ancient forms that also disappaeared, but this is of course not traditionalism. The OF is traditional to the degree that it has inherited its form from that which immediately preceded it, and I believe that still accounts for a great deal of what we experience, especially if we use the Roman Canon. It isn’t traditional, or is certainly much less traditional, in the places where either it is trying to recreate the distant and forgotten past, or where may contain something more creative than either.
This argument that ancient abandoned forms and practices are traditional brings to my mind the way some people are approaching the Bible these days. For centuries the Church has had certain texts and text forms that have been the standard, coming from one generation to the next. But, when people discover a very ancient and deviant text in some cave they will insist that this must be better since it is older. This ignores however that continuous usage is important. Why was this copy in a cave and never passed into regular usage? Was it an error based on some new deviation at that time? Who knows, but the traditional scripture text should have value and weight simply because it has been traditional, rather than simply because it may be older. Tradtion, meaning that which has been handed down continuously through the generations, should be valued rather than treated as just another mythic addition unnecessary to consideration.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I followed you quite well until the above final sentence. Please clarify it.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
haha.99% of the people that see you will think you’re asking for chewing gum…
J
juliasmith
Guest
I found this thread interesting in that there are so many opinions of what ‘traditional’ means.
I suppose I am ‘moderate’. I like that the mass is offered in the vernacular and not Latin. I can understand it and actually benefit from it because of that.
I would like to see the old style confessionals come back though. I like the idea and practice of head-coverings for women. I think head coverings lend a pious, sacred even, air to women that protects them (and perhaps protects men from lewd thoughts).
But I do not like the clapping in mass. I think it disrespectful and disruptive to the spiritual process I am undergoing during mass.
And I am extremely bothered by the ‘hippie’ style folk music that passes for sacred music during mass. My thoughts run to images of smelly hippies sitting around getting high and singing along with a guitar. Hardly conducive to sacredness or holiness.
So, yeah, I guess I am moderate. I like some of the changes and would like to experience some of the more traditional things that I did not get to experience because I was born in 1969 and not before.
I suppose I am ‘moderate’. I like that the mass is offered in the vernacular and not Latin. I can understand it and actually benefit from it because of that.
I would like to see the old style confessionals come back though. I like the idea and practice of head-coverings for women. I think head coverings lend a pious, sacred even, air to women that protects them (and perhaps protects men from lewd thoughts).
But I do not like the clapping in mass. I think it disrespectful and disruptive to the spiritual process I am undergoing during mass.
And I am extremely bothered by the ‘hippie’ style folk music that passes for sacred music during mass. My thoughts run to images of smelly hippies sitting around getting high and singing along with a guitar. Hardly conducive to sacredness or holiness.
So, yeah, I guess I am moderate. I like some of the changes and would like to experience some of the more traditional things that I did not get to experience because I was born in 1969 and not before.
C
cothrige
Guest
What I am thinking of is the idea that these Bible scholars have that whatever is absolutely the oldest must be the best, with no regard to what has been traditional. The tradition, to them, is just another mythic quality, like the idea that apostles may have written certain Gospels and such. However, I believe no such thing, and instead see in this traditional aspect evidence of the magisterium of the living Church, and that means a reflection of God’s will. Why is this version of the Scripture so well attested throughout the ages, but this other seemingly more ancient version is unseen in other copies? Possibly because the Spirit acting in the Church saw fit to confirm this more common version and so it flourished, while the other was buried in a cave and ignored.
It is just my opinion that this parallels the ideas of some regarding the liturgy. Digging up prayers from a cave and putting them in the Mass may seem like a good way to get to the old very early Church, but it ignores the very important question of why such a practice was abandoned for 1500 or more years while the other prayers were maintained?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Thank you. What you say makes perfect sense. I would say that it also adds understanding to the teachings of the early Church councils which defined the canon of scripture quite well. All we have to do is see those history channel programs which dig up the “lost books” and treat them as authentic. We could really see the mess this would and in some cases do cause for those who buy into this, thinking they have open minds.
I am sure you are aware by now, that my mass preference is the Novus Ordo. My pastor is an extremely no nonsense person when it comes to anything liturgical. I love the Novus Ordo done with respect and reverence. That said, I too have nothing against anyone who prefers the Latin Mass, so long as it is approved by the Church. I think what many fail to recognize is that the Church is not a democracy. If it were, it would be like any protestant denomination. Simply stated, we do not PROTEST against the Church founded by Jesus.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
S
Sarabande
Guest
I’ve been enjoying your calm and well thought-out posts, Cothridge.
(I’ve shortened your quote.) My thoughts on “tradition” are pretty much the same. Certain practices in all aspects of life become tradition when it is continually passed down from generation to generation. I found this in the Webster’s Dictionary on “Tradition” and “Traditionalism” which make sense to me as to what tradition is. :TRADITION
- An inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behaviour, (as a religios practice or a social custom) 2. the handing down of information, beliefs and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. 3. cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions. 4. characteristic manner, method or style.
- Adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition. 2. the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism or radicalism.
The *ancient *tradition of sprinkling cake crumbs on a newly married couple is no longer a tradition because it hasn’t been practiced in literally centuries. Although the tradition of giving your betrothed a ring has been around for centuries, starting around 870 for Christian ceremonies. But it was around even before then where apparently the Jews in biblical times used this, as well as the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptian practices having been mentioned in the hieroglyphics of some tombs. Now, if this use died out and just became archeological history dating only back in ancient Egyptian times, then it would not be considered a tradition.
I think the same can be said of certain religious practices which were dead for centuries. They are no longer traditions if multiple generations of Catholics haven’t practiced them. But if someone wanted to bring back an old former tradition, to me it needs to be done right without degrading or forcibly extracting traditions currently in use for many centuries. I was born and grew up long after Vatican II was in place, but I can say for my generation, or at least for those who were wanting something more out of the mass, it was a very confusing time. This is especially when you were constantly told that the “old” (which included everything from music - chant, polyphony, motets, etc to liturgical practices) was “bad” and “archaic” and the “new” was “good” and “cool” for my contemporaries and with the times. Then in the same breath, when pressed further, they will then bring up that the “new” is really the “old” so it’s better to get rid of everything our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparetns, etc. did and go back to what they did in the year 300, but with 20th c flavor and in whatever way the priest of the mass saw fit whether or not it really did go along with what Vatican II was trying to implement.
The people in charge during the 80s and 90s really mucked things up a bit for my generation.Don’t get me wrong - I don’t mind bringing back old practices. I really like tradition. And I’m fine with what was wanted in Vatican II, but somehow the implementation went totally haywire and that’s where I’m not so happy with it. I think that has a lot to do why there is a resurgence of people ecstatic about the EF being more accessible and that so many of the seminarians in my diocese have become more and more “traditional”. It’s a huge change from 10 years ago when I first started attended my parish, which is our diocese cathedral, to now. I’ve gotten to talk with many seminarians during that time when they would come for the archdiocesan masses, and attitudes have changed for better, I beileve.
Anyway, I didn’t mean this to be so long. I guess I would consider myself a Traditionalist Catholic so far as to say that I respect and love the long traditions of our faith throughout the centuries and feel a continuity with my ancestors and with God when we practice these traditions - whether long-standing, new or resurrected traditions - as long as it is all done with reverence and with common sense or with a deep, sincere, spiritual enthusiasm.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Very nice post.
C
cothrige
Guest
Good point about the history channel. I think that is exactly the kind of thing we see there. They reject any support which comes from tradition as a myth and uphold some long lost piece of parchment as more true. Perhaps such an approach would be helpful and beneficial in studying Arthurian legends, but in a revealed religion inspired and imbued with the Holy Spirit it seems inadequate.
I really cannot speak of a Mass preference, as I have never had access to the EF Mass. However, I do like the OF and don’t think I would ever absolutely choose to stop attending such a form. If I had complete and equal access to both forms I would like to think I would at least try out the EF and see what I think, since the Holy Father has spoken of its virtues and value to the Church. And perhaps I would prefer it. Of course, I don’t have any delusions that the EF can magically make the priest more orthodox, a better homilist, or any such thing. An indifferent priest in either form I would think would lead to indifferent Masses, or at least could. And abuses, it seems to me, are possible anywhere.
But, reading these posts about tradition and the EF vs. OF, something occurs to me that I think is often not discussed, and it parallels the SSPX in some ways. When I consider the SSPX I always wonder how much more they could have done if they had stayed fully in the Church, or would find a way to be more united now. Out there they are just what they are, but within they live more fully and help others to live that way too. They could grow, and find where the Spirit wants them to settle, but as for now they are just frozen in amber.
At one time the EF was, I think, a frozen moment in time too. But if we look at history that wasn’t the case for the Mass. There were constant revisions, adapting the prayers and rituals for the people and the time. The Church clearly has always felt this was necessary, and if done in properly small enough ways the tradition stays alive for the next generation, but is also alive for this one. All benefit and can live the life of the Church most completely. Of course, the Church also abhors sudden and radical Changes, which seem to rupture the traditions entirely. This leads to ideas like a pre-this Church and a post-that Church, where there should always be a visible Church of all times, both pre and post. It seems to me that the Church should not be a frozen in amber historical anachranism, but neither should it be a fluid make it up as you go along free for all. With the EF freed from its former state I look forward to the time it begins to grow again, and become more ever completely present for all generations again. That is what tradition in the Church is meant to be, as I see it, and it will be nothing but good for all when the historic Mass is again a living Mass, and not a museum piece.
That is why we must take the time to understand that tradition and traditional are not bad words. But, neither are they meaningless words, which can be bent to one end or the other. Tradition is not old dead acts from the distant past, and if they were then those arguing against the traditionalists around here would be absolutely right. Unfortunately the anger and mistrust has led those who defend tradition to lock it up in a box for its protection, and that is also not good. It must be taken out of that box and placed in the sunshine where it can begin to grow again and eventually bloom in a way everyone can see and appreciate.
M
motherofsix
Guest
OK…i really want to respond to this thread, but I really don’t get all of the abbreviations. Could someone give me a cheat sheet please
M
motherofsix
Guest
Just to get my point out before someone closes this thread…
I don’t know what I am called, you guys tell me…
I use Precepts of the Catholic Church, but as a guide for the minimal I should do:
You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.
I go at least twice a week
You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
I go once a month or when needed in between
You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
I go at each mass that I am without mortal sin
You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
My husband never eats meat on Fridays
You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.
We try to give what we can when we can.
I also wear a veil to church, make the sign of the cross whenever I pass a catholic church, I also pray for the souls each time I pass a cemetary.
I will not talk in church to others about this and that, I am quiet until I am to speak as part of the mass.
I do not give the sign of peace.
I will not go back to a local church due to the priest allowing the alter to be moved so that a space walk could be blown up in the middle of church since the weather outside was to bad for it.
I like mass. That right I enjoy it, the prayers, the kneeling and standing, all of it. I look forward to going to the house of my Lord and being in his presence.
So you guys label me.
I don’t know what I am called, you guys tell me…
I use Precepts of the Catholic Church, but as a guide for the minimal I should do:
You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.
I go at least twice a week
You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
I go once a month or when needed in between
You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
I go at each mass that I am without mortal sin
You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
My husband never eats meat on Fridays
You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.
We try to give what we can when we can.
I also wear a veil to church, make the sign of the cross whenever I pass a catholic church, I also pray for the souls each time I pass a cemetary.
I will not talk in church to others about this and that, I am quiet until I am to speak as part of the mass.
I do not give the sign of peace.
I will not go back to a local church due to the priest allowing the alter to be moved so that a space walk could be blown up in the middle of church since the weather outside was to bad for it.
I like mass. That right I enjoy it, the prayers, the kneeling and standing, all of it. I look forward to going to the house of my Lord and being in his presence.
So you guys label me.
C
cothrige
Guest
Just curious, why not?
What is a space walk?
I don’t know about anyone else, but you sound remarkably like a Catholic to me.
M
motherofsix
Guest
We were taught that it is an “unworthy conversation” in his temples to give the sign of peace. I instead, bow my head and say a short prayer. There is one church here that doesn’t even offer that part of the mass.
A space walk is one of those blow up jumping things the kids usually rent for birthdays and such.
A space walk is one of those blow up jumping things the kids usually rent for birthdays and such.
- Status