What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[Auntie_M]

No, the Tridentine Mass does not date from the Middle Ages as if a New Order of Mass was drawn up by a committee at Trent:

"The essence of the reform of St. Pius V was, like that of St. Gregory the Great, respect for tradition; there was no question of any “rude handling” of what had been handed down. In a letter to The Tablet, published on 24 July 1971, Father David Knowles, who was Britain’s most distinguished Catholic scholar until his death in 1974, pointed out that:

• The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was, in all essentials, the usage of the mainstream of medieval European liturgy which included England and all its rites. (latin-mass-society.org/msshst10.htm)
  And this is why people say the Tridentine Mass ultimately derives from the time of St. Gregory the Great in the 7th Century.

I’m sorry to disagree, Brennan, but the practice of receiving on the tongue was NOT the original way. In the hands, was the original and only changed to the tongue when people were taking it home and some even defiling it. This was way, way before Trent.This was the practice of the Apostles, after Jesus’s death. Same as the veil. that was not a practice till much much later also. It came about because there was being too much “gossipping” in mass so the veil was instituted to “keep” eyes frontward and mouths closed. Also, the Apostles did NOT have altar girls or BOYS. So that was not an original tradition, either.

A lot of what I am hearing to be “Tradition” does NOT go back 2000 years, I 'm sorry, folks. I really think we need a HISTORY lesson or two. (maybe even four or five)

What about it…shall we do HISTORY? (church history, that is)

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

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

So, should we refer to Traditionalist as “Ritualists”?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m sorry to disagree, Brennan, but the practice of receiving on the tongue was NOT the original way. In the hands, was the original and only changed to the tongue when people were taking it home and some even defiling it. This was way, way before Trent.This was the practice of the Apostles, after Jesus’s death. Same as the veil. that was not a practice till much much later also. It came about because there was being too much “gossipping” in mass so the veil was instituted to “keep” eyes frontward and mouths closed. Also, the Apostles did NOT have altar girls or BOYS. So that was not an original tradition, either.

A lot of what I am hearing to be “Tradition” does NOT go back 2000 years, I 'm sorry, folks. I really think we need a HISTORY lesson or two. (maybe even four or five)

What about it…shall we do HISTORY? (church history, that is)

Hi Auntie M,

My quote deals only with the form of the Mass. The “rude handling” refers to what has been handed down in regards to the liturgy, not communion in the hand or veils. God bless.

 

[cothrige]

Just ask yourself honestly, who has really sought to make all Masses in only one form? Has it been the traditionalists? I can’t see how.

Yes, the traditionalists I know often do want only Latin, for themselves. But, who wants only one form, for everyone? Some years ago the Church allowed the vernacular, and the reaction was a complete effective ban on all Latin. It also happened that in almost the entire world the old form of the Mass, now called the EF, was also completely suppressed. The vernacular OF, or Novus Ordo as it was called, was not simply brought in alongside the TLM, but entirely replaced it, and the other form was effectively abolished. During the many years that followed this system was retained, and there was only one Mass generally available to anyone, and that was not the form preferred by the traditionalists.

Now, let us fast forward to the present. When the Holy Father called for the freeing of the EF he did not call for the suppression of the other form. This lies in direct contrast to the method used when the OF was initially introduced. And interestingly the traditionalists celebrated that document, which calls for both forms to be used, with what could only be called elation. They applauded and cheered Summorum Pontificum with vigor, even though it never once suggests that the OF be banned or suppressed.

I find it ironic that the people who have cheered a document calling for celebration of Mass in both forms have been criticized as seeking exclusivity. And who has done that criticizing? People who have not only sought exclusivity, but have achieved it and then vigorously defended it for several decades.

Can you see now?

 

[Auntie_M]

Yes, the traditionalists I know often do want only Latin, for themselves. But, who wants only one form, for everyone? Some years ago the Church allowed the vernacular, and the reaction was a complete effective ban on all Latin. It also happened that in almost the entire world the old form of the Mass, now called the EF, was also completely suppressed. The vernacular OF, or Novus Ordo as it was called, was not simply brought in alongside the TLM, but entirely replaced it, and the other form was effectively abolished. During the many years that followed this system was retained, and there was only one Mass generally available to anyone, and that was not the form preferred by the traditionalists.

Now, let us fast forward to the present. When the Holy Father called for the freeing of the EF he did not call for the suppression of the other form. This lies in direct contrast to the method used when the OF was initially introduced. And interestingly the traditionalists celebrated that document, which calls for both forms to be used, with what could only be called elation. They applauded and cheered Summorum Pontificum with vigor, even though it never once suggests that the OF be banned or suppressed.

I find it ironic that the people who have cheered a document calling for celebration of Mass in both forms have been criticized as seeking exclusivity. And who has done that criticizing? People who have not only sought exclusivity, but have achieved it and then vigorously defended it for several decades.

Can you see now?

Dear, I do realize that there are a very few traditionalist that ACTUALLY cheered the document. This few was, what I have assessed, are the Traditionalist who are IN communion with Rome.
The OTHER Tradtionalist, who are NOT in communion with Rome, cheered it in a VERY different light. They evidently saw it as a victory of a mini battle but the war was definitely not over. And THEY are the spokes in a VERY LOUD wheel.
I really try NOT to throw everyone in that last grouping, but I know I do sometimes, and I apologize for that.
I have seen and heard things from certain traditionalist groups that are outright UN-CHRISTIAN to say the least. The ones I have ACTUAL seen and KNOW are in the grips of a cult with ALL the definations of a cult. I have assessed this by what I have actually seen and heard coming out of the “other groups”. Where I have family members who have been caught up in their grips and I assure you, these people are totally different since joining with them. I have actually HEARD a few of their sermons, where HATE for the present Pope/past Pope/NO/etc was/is preached. I do have a very poor opinion of them. Anyone, who calls themselves Roman Catholic and can preach (AND LISTEN TO) their sermons is, becoming so mentally distorted that I am afraid they will never be the same.

So, IF you are ever in a mass where the priest starts preaching “rebellion/hate”, please get out as fast as you can. DO NOT let yourself get brainwashed by their
poisons. “Endure till the end” is what Jesus said and THAT IS REAL TRADITION.

 

[Auntie_M]

No, I am defining traditionalist from my experience with what traditionalists actually say and write.

So, you haven’t read either publication and yet somehow you know they are too inbred, bigoted and myopic?!

And I never claimed they were authoritative by the way, just that they are traditionalist publications and are thus an indicator of what traditionalists actually believe.

I have actually read this and “You reap what you sow”.
Doubt, confusion, mistrust and (yes) even hate is being sewn in the minds of people who listen to these “UN-AUTHORITATIVE”
poisons.

Here is one that You, Dear, need to read, “More Catholic Than the Pope; An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism” a book by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere.

Do me the same curtesy and read, as Paul Harvey says, “the REST of the story”

 

[Auntie_M]

Hi motherofsix,

You said you don’t give the Sign of Peace. You don’t have to do that part of the Mass. If you don’t mind, I’d like to try to show you through Church history the meaning and reason behind the Sign of Peace. I not here to change your mind, but to give another side, other than what you learned.

Jesus gave his Apostles the power and authority to loose or bind. Since today’s Pope and Bishops are the successors, they still have that ability. So, whenever something is changed through them it becomes approved and binding.

Jesus often said peace to his disciples. Not the world’s but his. St. Paul wrote, " Greet one another with a holy kiss" The early Christians the kiss was a natural way of greeting and friendship. The reign of Pope Innocent I (401-417) he decided this exchange would take place after the Eucharistic Prayer.(Note: Previous placement of the Sign of Peace was following the Liturgy of the Word,associated with the Preparation of the Gifts.) By the 10th century, the Church and public behavior became more formal, and the Kiss of Peace was no longer a natural, comfortable way of greeting. In the 13th century, a substitution for the Kiss of Peace emerged. The people instead would kiss- a crucifix,cross,or some other holy item. As the centuries passed the Sign of Peace was only reserved for the clergy mostly on Solemn Feasts. The Vatican II Council restored this practice of extending peace to others. It is meant to be a token of our love for our neighbor. To show we are at peace. A symbol of our union and love. Jesus said before you go to altar and offer your gift, and you remember someone who you are not at peace with, go be reconciliated with your brother, then you may come and offer your gift. Jesus also said how can you say you love God who you have not seen,but still not love your brother who you have seen.

The Liturgical action of the Sign of Peace is to be considered a prayer. It is meant to be a genuine,reverent form of worship, a true pledge and sign of reconciliation,peace and unity. The Roman Missal “Before they share in the same bread, the people express their love for one another and beg for peace and unity in the Church and with all mankind.”

WONDERFUL POST…Thank you for explaining this so everyone may actually realize that it is NOT a NO “experiment”.

 

[cothrige]

Dear, I do realize that there are a very few traditionalist that ACTUALLY cheered the document. This few was, what I have assessed, are the Traditionalist who are IN communion with Rome.
The OTHER Tradtionalist, who are NOT in communion with Rome, cheered it in a VERY different light. They evidently saw it as a victory of a mini battle but the war was definitely not over. And THEY are the spokes in a VERY LOUD wheel.
I really try NOT to throw everyone in that last grouping, but I know I do sometimes, and I apologize for that.

And you are continuing to ignore the facts. You build a large bulwark regarding this or that group of traditionalists, or what you don’t like about them, or how they are loud and so on. For these reasons you know that given the chance they will suppress your preferred form of the Mass. I, however, find that ironic given that the non-traditionalists who preferred the same Mass you do, when they had the chance were much more than just loud or obnoxious. They actually did what you suggest the traditionalists really want. They didn’t talk about it, hope for it, secretly desire it, or any other such thing. They did it! They banned and suppressed the ancient form of the Mass with 1500 years of history behind it. And for the past several generations they have fought tooth and nail to maintain that ban against any and all suggestions to the contrary.

So, in spite of the historical record you want me to believe that it is really the traditionalists that seek to make only one form of the Mass available. I should ignore the fact that the reason there is no EF Mass within a hundred miles of my town is because that form was suppressed by others who didn’t prefer it, and because they defend that action with everything they have available to them. In spite of all of that I should really believe that it is the traditionalist who seeks to suppress the form they don’t prefer?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have actually read this and “You reap what you sow”.
Doubt, confusion, mistrust and (yes) even hate is being sewn in the minds of people who listen to these “UN-AUTHORITATIVE”
poisons.

Here is one that You, Dear, need to read, “More Catholic Than the Pope; An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism” a book by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere.

Do me the same curtesy and read, as Paul Harvey says, “the REST of the story”

This was the original quote (from what I can tell–and I was responding to Spiller):

No, it’s not. You can’t just define “traditinalist” according to whatever you want it to be (although any traditionalist would also greatly appreciate the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as well).

If one reads traditionalist publications such as Latin Mass Magazine (latinmassmagazine.com/) or The Remnant or is acquainted with the articles and books traditionlists read you’ll discover that there isn’t a traditionalist who exists who prefers the NO over the TLM.

So you’re telling me you’ve read The Latin Mass Magazine and concluded that not only do you disagree with some of its articles, but it’s actually poison? Perhaps you can reference some articles or quotes or tell us what they’ve said that is poison. Same for the Remnant as well which not too long ago published a few articles against sedevacantism.

The other authors I usually refer to are Dietrich von Hildebrand (as in my signature article), Fr. Aidan Nichols, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. John Parsons, Cardinal Ottaviani and others. Feel free to demonstrate how their writings are “poison” as well. Good luck.

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

Are we talking about Catholism here? Who on earth would teach that the sign of peace is “unworthy conversation”?

I guess what the Ten Commandments say is too, huh? Love thy neighbor as thy self. If we are to think that the sign of peace is “unworthy conversation”, then WHAT is LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR as yourself?

 

[Auntie_M]

This was the original quote (from what I can tell–and I was responding to Spiller):

So you’re telling me you’ve read The Latin Mass Magazine and concluded that not only do you disagree with some of its articles, but it’s actually poison? Perhaps you can reference some articles or quotes or tell us what they’ve said that is poison. Same for the Remnant as well which not too long ago published a few articles against sedevacantism.

The other authors I usually refer to are Dietrich von Hildebrand (as in my signature article), Fr. Aidan Nichols, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. John Parsons, Cardinal Ottaviani and others. Feel free to demonstrate how their writings are “poison” as well. Good luck.

Dear ANYONE can go on the SSPX website and pull up archived newsletters and find quite alot of “UN-AUTHORITATIVE”
articles. Anyone who reads AND believes all this should really look to the AUTHORITATIVE Church instead. And yes, some articles are very poisonous to the uneducated Catholic. And What I mean by uneducated is one who has NOT read and learned all they could about Catholism. (I’m NOT calling anyone dumb, so don’t misquote me.) There you will find words that are used quite often…the “Conciliar Church”, “The church today is intrinsically evil”, You should NOT go to a NO church, they are
following a false religion", We are the ONLY true Catholics left"/

It is this kind of talk, coming from the SSPX website, and also the site you keep posting, that keeps an uproar within our church.
I pray that one day everyone will realize that these websites are only causing confusion, and Who is the Father of Confusion!!!

The Remnant, the Regina Coeli, the SSPX Publishing Company, etc. are all just swapping articles. Read them, most are word for word.

Oh yes, as far as sedevacantism, IF you go back far enough on the SSPX website, you’ll see they actually USED to be VERY supportive of them.

If you want truth, go and read articles from the Vatican Website.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Dear ANYONE can go on the SSPX website and pull up archived newsletters and find quite alot of “UN-AUTHORITATIVE”
articles. Anyone who reads AND believes all this should really look to the AUTHORITATIVE Church instead. And yes, some articles are very poisonous to the uneducated Catholic. And What I mean by uneducated is one who has NOT read and learned all they could about Catholism. (I’m NOT calling anyone dumb, so don’t misquote me.) There you will find words that are used quite often…the “Conciliar Church”, “The church today is intrinsically evil”, You should NOT go to a NO church, they are
following a false religion", We are the ONLY true Catholics left"/

It is this kind of talk, coming from the SSPX website, and also the site you keep posting, that keeps an uproar within our church.
I pray that one day everyone will realize that these websites are only causing confusion, and Who is the Father of Confusion!!!

The Remnant, the Regina Coeli, the SSPX Publishing Company, etc. are all just swapping articles. Read them, most are word for word.

Oh yes, as far as sedevacantism, IF you go back far enough on the SSPX website, you’ll see they actually USED to be VERY supportive of them.

If you want truth, go and read articles from the Vatican Website.

I hope you’ll notice in my posts that I did not, and have not, referred anyone to an SSPX website. I specifically referred to the Latin Mass Magazine and the Remnant. Whether the Remnant and the SSPX just “swap articles” I have no idea since I really don’t go to the SSPX website.

I consider the Latin Mass Magazine, for instance, to be perfectly orthodox and one of the best Catholic magazines out there today. In no way are they spewing “poison” and if someone says they are, I assume they haven’t actually read the magazine.

Also, I’m not sure about which site you are referring to which I “keep posting” unless it’s Dietrich von Hildebrand’s article in my signature line or the Latin Mass Magazine website. Either one though I consider excellent and claiming either of them to be causing an uproar or confusion I consider to be completely ridiculous.

But if you want to parse one of their articles and show us how they are causing confusion or spewing poison feel free.

God bless.

 

[I_Believe]

The idea of what constitutes a Traditionalist Catholic has come up in debate numerous times in this forum- so I ask, what is a Traditionalist Catholic?

I won’t try to define them, but I certainly know where to find them.

At weekday Mass

 

[CradleCath]

And you are continuing to ignore the facts. You build a large bulwark regarding this or that group of traditionalists, or what you don’t like about them, or how they are loud and so on. For these reasons you know that given the chance they will suppress your preferred form of the Mass. I, however, find that ironic given that the non-traditionalists who preferred the same Mass you do, when they had the chance were much more than just loud or obnoxious. They actually did what you suggest the traditionalists really want. They didn’t talk about it, hope for it, secretly desire it, or any other such thing. They did it! They banned and suppressed the ancient form of the Mass with 1500 years of history behind it. And for the past several generations they have fought tooth and nail to maintain that ban against any and all suggestions to the contrary.

So, in spite of the historical record you want me to believe that it is really the traditionalists that seek to make only one form of the Mass available. I should ignore the fact that the reason there is no EF Mass within a hundred miles of my town is because that form was suppressed by others who didn’t prefer it, and because they defend that action with everything they have available to them. In spite of all of that I should really believe that it is the traditionalist who seeks to suppress the form they don’t prefer?

You have written so many intelligent posts in this thread & this is but one of them.

I am a traditional Catholic. By that I mean I am a Catholic who upholds the dogmatic teachings of the Church…always & everywhere. I do NOT want the Novus Ordo to disappear the way that the TLM. did. I would be a total hypocrite if I did. The suppression of Latin & the EF should have shown us all that this isn’t the way. If the Novus Ordo is to “die out”, it must die a normal death…it must become obsolete in the eyes of both the clergy & the laity. It must become, in the eyes of the whole Church so imperfect as compared with the TLM., that it is no longer attended. I don’t see this happening in the foreseeable future.

This is how the Church should have introduced the New Order of the Mass, after Vatican II, when the Latin Mass was suppressed, IMO. The Novus Ordo should have had some “competition”. Had that been allowed, had the laity had some say in the Lex Orandi, we wouldn’t have such a terrible crisis of Lex Credendi, for I believe that a crisis of fidelity is what has caused most of the problems that we see today.

 

[ethelzguy]

The Novus Ordo should have had some “competition”. Had that been allowed, had the laity had some say in the Lex Orandi, we wouldn’t have such a terrible crisis of Lex Credendi, for I believe that a crisis of fidelity is what has caused most of the problems that we see today.

So, it is your position that the Church IS a democracy?

 

[cothrige]

This is how the Church should have introduced the New Order of the Mass, after Vatican II, when the Latin Mass was suppressed, IMO.

Yes, I agree entirely. Once reforming the TLM was decided against, though I don’t understand why it was, suppression of the ancient Mass should never have been done. But, it was, and that is a historical reality. And the possibility of the same rather violent action being carried out against the OF is now worrying the very people who have supported the continued suppression of the TLM. They post here that the traditionalists are secretly trying to ban the OF, and that disturbs them. Why? They didn’t complain when it was done to the EF. They didn’t call for restoration.

What I see on these fora is a wonderful example of Christian charity. Most people who post here can have up to a hundred Masses offered in the form they prefer in their city or town every weekend. This one is too early? Fine, go to another. This one too late? Not to worry, there are others. Too charismatic? Too traditional? Too loud? Too quiet? Too much incense? Not enough? Not a problem. There is choice after choice, and in almost every case none include the EF. Those who prefer that Mass have to drive, in some cases, a hundred miles or more for one opportunity per month to celebrate in their preferred manner. If it is too anything, then too bad. That is what they get.

So what do these less Catholic people, if we go by what is said by many here on this forum, do when they are met with this situation? They ask for a Mass to be said locally. They ask their priests, or bishop, to help them. They also come here and talk about how they can achieve this. And what do the lovely people who have a hundred or more Masses per weekend available to them, so that they can find just the perfect time and style for their aesthetic sensibilities, say in response? How dare you try to take our Mass! Why do you hate the Mass? They are all equal (of course if that were true then they would not object to half or all being the EF, but that is another story isn’t it).

So, in the end, we find that hoping for one Mass to be offered out of a hundred is simply unacceptable. It is nothing less than an attempt to suppress and ban the OF. What else could it be? That is, after all, just what these same people have been reaping the benefits of all these years.

 

[CradleCath]

So, it is your position that the Church IS a democracy?

I thought of that when I was writing the post, wondering who would be the first to jump on it, with the “democracy thing”. You are SO predictible.

BTW., did you read anything else in my post??
Such as, I don’t want the Novus Ordo Mass suppressed. I don’t want to replace it with the TLM. Did you miss that?

And, no the Church is not a democracy. I just think that leaving both Masses open for worship would have been the smart thing to do. Perhaps I’m wrong about that. I would probably have attended the Mass that my pastor at the time, would have recommended. Knowing him…he was always faithful to the Pope…he would have recommended the Mass that the Holy Father suggested, at least when it first appeared. He’s gone now, thank God, he would have abhored the fruits of the council.

 

[motherofsix]

I am so confused???

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

he would have abhored the fruits of the council.

I am continually amazed at the number of people who say this. If we believe the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how can we presume to speak up about “the fruits of the council”. If we do so, we are judging the actions of the Holy Spirit himself. I would not want go there.

The only other alternative is to say that the Holy Spirit was not involved. If we say this, we call Jesus a liar because he promised the Church would be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. . I would not want to go there either.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am continually amazed at the number of people who say this. If we believe the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how can we presume to speak up about “the fruits of the council”. If we do so, we are judging the actions of the Holy Spirit himself. I would not want go there.

The only other alternative is to say that the Holy Spirit was not involved. If we say this, we call Jesus a liar because he promised the Church would be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. . I would not want to go there either.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hi Deacon Ed,

I’ve already posted this, but am going to repost it here to show that it is not the case that we can’t judge the fruits of a council or if the fruits are not good we must conclude that the Holy Spirit was not involved at all. The Holy Spirit does protect a council from officially teaching error in faith and morals; He doesn’t necessarily positively inspire the participants of a council so they will make good and wise prudential decisions, or so that the documents will be written in the best possible way as if they are positively inspired as in the case of scripture.

Here is the quote:

III. THE VERNACULAR

The last of our three paragraphs from Sacrosanctum Concilium is No. 54:

“A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and the “common prayer”, and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people… Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed”.

Fallibility of Prudential Judgments

This is the paragraph that sank a thousand missals, and more than a thousand years of unity in the Roman Rite, which had been one of the principal factors in the emergence of a unified western civilization.

There is the famous story of how the Dominican Cardinal Browne urged the Council Fathers to beware of allowing the vernacular, lest Latin vanish from the liturgy within ten years or so. He was laughed at by the assembly, but as so often, the pessimistic reactionary proved to be more in touch with the flow of events than the optimistic progressives.

The Council Fathers’ incredulous laughter at Cardinal Browne helps to remind us that a general council, like a Pope, is only infallible in its definitions of faith and morals, and not in its prudential judgements, or in matters of pastoral discipline, or in acts of state, or in supposed liturgical improvements. It is thus false to assert that a Catholic is logically bound to agree with the prudential judgments a council may make on any subject. It is still more illegitimate to extrapolate from the negative immunity from error which a general council enjoys in definitions of faith and morals, to belief in a positive inspiration of councils, as if the bishops were organs of revelation like the Apostles, and their prudential decrees inerrant like the Scriptures. It is only a false ecclesiology and a false pneumatology that can lead to the exorbitant assertion that a council is “the voice of the Holy Spirit for our age”. Are we really obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit demanded the launching of a Crusade at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? And must we hold that in 1311 the Holy Spirit dictated the Council of Vienne’s rules regulating the use of torture by the Inquisition? And is it *de fide *that when Alexander IV ordered those suspect of heresy to be tortured to confess their guilt, this was what “the Spirit was saying to the churches” on 15 May 1252? If so, are we to condemn the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 15 August 1997, which comes to us on the same papal and episcopal authority and which condemns the use of torture to extract confessions of guilt, and openly says that “the pastors of the Church” erred on the matter?

As to the liturgy, is it mandatory to believe that in 1963 the Holy Spirit wanted the abandonment of the principle of the weekly recitation of all 150 psalms, on which the Office of the Roman Rite has been based from its very beginnings prior to Saint Benedict? And is it de fide that God wanted the Hour of Prime suppressed from January 1964? No, this doctrine of the Infallibility of the Party Line simply will not do. It is not Catholic teaching that the Church is infallible in pastoral or prudential judgements. We are therefore logically free to hold that any council can be ill-advised when making these kinds of decisions, and thus ill-advised in allowing the conversion of the liturgy into the vernacular, even if that had taken the form of a direct translation of the 1962 Missal.

christianorder.com/featur…nus_dec01.html