What is the cause of the recent rise in traditional Catholicism and spirituality?

[liturgyluver]

The translations were pretty much left to the bishops, or rather the bishops’ conferences in every country. I doubt if all the people in Rome were skilled enough to be able to translate into 500 vernaculars. They could only give full approval to those vernaculars which they were fully familiar with; obviously English had not been one of them.

Furthermore, there would be no need to retranslate the actual texts used in the Mass (and heavy possibility in the loss of credibility) unless there had been a translation in the first place. But let’s look at the possible domino effect of doing the vernacular. Almost naturally the priest had to face the people. (This had been true even in the pre-Vatican Mass when the vernacular readings and sermon were so done.) Then the mike, then the removal of low-tones in the Mass, then the extension of readings to the laity, new Mass songs, new instruments, etc. etc. In my opinion you just couldn’t have vernacular without compromising on many of the other Catholic traditions.

Having said that, maybe at one time the Anglicans were able to do the “ad orientem” in English. But that’s another story and you probably won’t find that too prevalent today.

I think you are right in terms of the domino effect.

Interestingly “ad orientem” is still surprisingly common in Anglican churches. In Central London, at least 1 in 3 celebrate the Eucharist in this way, and it’s not just confined to anglo-catholic churches.

 

[ProVobis]

I think you are right in terms of the domino effect.

Interestingly “ad orientem” is still surprisingly common in Anglican churches. In Central London, at least 1 in 3 celebrate the Eucharist in this way, and it’s not just confined to anglo-catholic churches.

As I said, I don’t know how the Anglicans do it. (Maybe they are more used to it?) My pastor (in Chicagoland) tried the AO once at a Christmas Midnight Mass (English) and got so many complaints, he wondered what was the point. So the following Christmas he opted for the EF instead.

By the way, do you live anywhere near St Mary’s Clapham? (SW4)

 

[liturgyluver]

As I said, I don’t know how the Anglicans do it. (Maybe they are more used to it?) My pastor (in Chicagoland) tried the AO once at a Christmas Midnight Mass (English) and got so many complaints, he wondered what was the point. So the following Christmas he opted for the EF instead.

By the way, do you live anywhere near St Mary’s Clapham? (SW4)

I am not sure…I suspect they might be used to seeing it more as you say, but of course many of their churches don’t have forward altars. Most of the ones that now celebrate Westward-facing still use the original sanctuary and have retained their communion rails.

No, I am not near St Mary Clapham. I live north of the river Thames. My home parish is in the Diocese of Westminster.

 

[LoyalChristian]

completely agree.

 

[LoyalChristian]

More people are beginning to see how the liberal media has conned much of the public to abandon unconditional love in favor of the selfish instant gratification that ruins families. The media’s promotion of instant gratification for the Self is dangerous. Instant gratification costs money. That’s why we see those who have been conned complaining more about lack of money than about the erosion of the unconditional love that keeps families together.

completely agree

 

[beehumble]

The impact of JPII? I highly doubt it. JPII was highly influential in the Novus Ordo side. Most of what’s going on with the Latin stuff is all B16.

-MontChevalier

The times were different. At that time of JPII it was important to affirm that the New form of the Mass was legitimate to those who were in erroneous opposition to it.
Traditionalism is more than the Latin mass; it encompasses Marian devotions, the return of Eucharist adoration and Benediction, a re-emphasis on Novenas and lots of other traditional Catholic things. Our church has rosary twenty minutes before the Mass nowadays whereas five years ago that would have been unheard of.

All this, I contend, is from the influence of JPII, B16, and that apparition.

God bless you.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The translations were pretty much left to the bishops, or rather the bishops’ conferences in every country. I doubt if all the people in Rome were skilled enough to be able to translate into 500 vernaculars. They could only give full approval to those vernaculars which they were fully familiar with; obviously English had not been one of them.

English was the No. 1 international language in the 60’s as it is today. Are you really telling me that there was no-one in the Vatican who could understand it? Not one single cleric or layman? The ICEL committee was not a regional bishop’s conference, it was an international group whose English text was problematic for the Vatican for decades. Only now, though, has Rome taken effective steps to correct it.

Furthermore, there would be no need to retranslate the actual texts used in the Mass (and heavy possibility in the loss of credibility) unless there had been a translation in the first place. But let’s look at the possible domino effect of doing the vernacular. Almost naturally the priest had to face the people. (This had been true even in the pre-Vatican Mass when the vernacular readings and sermon were so done.) Then the mike, then the removal of low-tones in the Mass, then the extension of readings to the laity, new Mass songs, new instruments, etc. etc. In my opinion you just couldn’t have vernacular without compromising on many of the other Catholic traditions.

But my point is that when the texts of the Mass were first composed they were in the vernacular, and remained the vernacular for centuries. That didn’t oblige the celebrant to face the people, remove low tones, and all the rest.

I’m not going to comment on “ex cathedra” per se but the Council of Trent was less ambiguous than many other councils on what was doctrinal and what was not. I feel much of Trent was compromised when some entity (spirit of Vatican II?) expressed that that former Council not only was no longer binding but that most, if not all, issues covered by formal doctrine were just relegated to simple disciplines anyone could change.

This raises a different issue which would probably need to be discussed elsewhere.

 

[gentle_atheist]

All this, I contend, is from the influence of JPII, B16, and that apparition.

What apparition? Just curious, that’s all.

 

[TimothyH]

Traditionalism is more than the Latin mass; it encompasses Marian devotions, the return of Eucharist adoration and Benediction, a re-emphasis on Novenas and lots of other traditional Catholic things. Our church has rosary twenty minutes before the Mass nowadays whereas five years ago that would have been unheard of.

This is something I wonder about. Would most traditinionalists feel comfortable in a parish without the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Misal even if the devotions and practices you mentioned were present?

I am not challenging. I am sincerly interested, and I would like to ask, in all charity, if this is not true.

Let’s say the pastor consecrated the entire parish to Mary every Jan 1 and the rosary was prayed before and after every Mass. Let’s say that every optional memorial to the Blessed Virgin on Saturday was observed. Lets say the parish had perpetual adoration and the divine mercy chaplet every day in front of the Blessed Sacrament at 3:00 PM. Let’s say the Church regularly venerated relics and that they prayed a novena to St. Jude with Benediction weekly, and had benediction every first Saturday. Throw in habited Dominican Sisters and incense used regularly.

If all of this were offered, in the absence of the Tridentine Mass, would this still be considered traditional? What else would have to be added to make it truly traditional? Chant? Latin? Or is the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Missal a prerequisite for being considered traditional? My hunch is, and I would welcome comments, is that many traditionalists would not feel comfortable in such a parish without the Tridentine Mass, that it is at some level, a prerequisite.

Again, I don’t mean this as a challenge. I would truly like know what those who consider themselve traditional have to say.

-Tim-

 

[Irish_Polock]

This is something I wonder about. Would most traditinionalists feel comfortable in a parish without the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Misal even if the devotions and practices you mentioned were present?

I am not challenging. I am sincerly interested, and I would like to ask, in all charity, if this is not true.

Let’s say the pastor consecrated the entire parish to Mary every Jan 1 and the rosary was prayed before and after every Mass. Let’s say that every optional memorial to the Blessed Virgin on Saturday was observed. Lets say the parish had perpetual adoration and the divine mercy chaplet every day in front of the Blessed Sacrament at 3:00 PM. Let’s say the Church regularly venerated relics and that they prayed a novena to St. Jude with Benediction weekly, and had benediction every first Saturday. Throw in habited Dominican Sisters and incense used regularly.

If all of this were offered, in the absence of the Tridentine Mass, would this still be considered traditional? What else would have to be added to make it truly traditional? Chant? Latin? Or is the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Missal a prerequisite for being considered traditional? My hunch is, and I would welcome comments, is that many traditionalists would not feel comfortable in such a parish without the Tridentine Mass, that it is at some level, a prerequisite.

Again, I don’t mean this as a challenge. I would truly like know what those who consider themselve traditional have to say.

-Tim-

I found a thread that has several well thought out definitions of traditional Catholicism posted in the first few pages of reply’s. I feel you are misunderstanding the said terminology. I hope the thread might help.

 

[Irish_Polock]

This is something I wonder about. Would most traditinionalists feel comfortable in a parish without the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Misal even if the devotions and practices you mentioned were present?

I am not challenging. I am sincerly interested, and I would like to ask, in all charity, if this is not true.

Let’s say the pastor consecrated the entire parish to Mary every Jan 1 and the rosary was prayed before and after every Mass. Let’s say that every optional memorial to the Blessed Virgin on Saturday was observed. Lets say the parish had perpetual adoration and the divine mercy chaplet every day in front of the Blessed Sacrament at 3:00 PM. Let’s say the Church regularly venerated relics and that they prayed a novena to St. Jude with Benediction weekly, and had benediction every first Saturday. Throw in habited Dominican Sisters and incense used regularly.

If all of this were offered, in the absence of the Tridentine Mass, would this still be considered traditional? What else would have to be added to make it truly traditional? Chant? Latin? Or is the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Missal a prerequisite for being considered traditional? My hunch is, and I would welcome comments, is that many traditionalists would not feel comfortable in such a parish without the Tridentine Mass, that it is at some level, a prerequisite.

Again, I don’t mean this as a challenge. I would truly like know what those who consider themselve traditional have to say.

-Tim-

I found a thread that has several well thought out definitions of traditional Catholicism posted in the first few pages of reply’s. I feel you are misunderstanding the said terminology. I hope the thread might help.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300666

 

[Warrenton]

What else would have to be added to make it truly traditional? Chant? Latin? Or is the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Missal a prerequisite for being considered traditional? My hunch is, and I would welcome comments, is that many traditionalists would not feel comfortable in such a parish without the Tridentine Mass, that it is at some level, a prerequisite.

This is an interesting question.

Basically, you are asking for ideas on a via media.

The mass is the central Catholic liturgical act. Therefore, if everything else is pre V2, but the mass is modern, the community is not traditional.

Consider the analogy of Anglo-Catholicism. All of the externals are correct, but traditionalists do not attend Anglo Catholic churches. Why? Because the mass is not said there, although the communion service is very traditional.

Could a vernacular mass be created that would satisfy traditionalists? Probably so.

It would have prayers at the foot of the altar, it would have the traditional confiteor, it would have the traditional readings, it would observe the distinction between the gospel and the epistle side of the altar, it would be recited ad orientem, it would have the last gospel.

There would be greater discipline in who reads what, or who distibutes communion. There could be responses by the congregation, however.

 

[manualman]

This is something I wonder about. Would most traditinionalists feel comfortable in a parish without the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Misal even if the devotions and practices you mentioned were present?

I am not challenging. I am sincerly interested, and I would like to ask, in all charity, if this is not true.

Let’s say the pastor consecrated the entire parish to Mary every Jan 1 and the rosary was prayed before and after every Mass. Let’s say that every optional memorial to the Blessed Virgin on Saturday was observed. Lets say the parish had perpetual adoration and the divine mercy chaplet every day in front of the Blessed Sacrament at 3:00 PM. Let’s say the Church regularly venerated relics and that they prayed a novena to St. Jude with Benediction weekly, and had benediction every first Saturday. Throw in habited Dominican Sisters and incense used regularly.

If all of this were offered, in the absence of the Tridentine Mass, would this still be considered traditional? What else would have to be added to make it truly traditional? Chant? Latin? Or is the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Missal a prerequisite for being considered traditional? My hunch is, and I would welcome comments, is that many traditionalists would not feel comfortable in such a parish without the Tridentine Mass, that it is at some level, a prerequisite.

Again, I don’t mean this as a challenge. I would truly like know what those who consider themselve traditional have to say.

-Tim-

I suppose I’m not technically a traditionalist, but if you can provide me with an address of said parish, I’M IN!