What makes a person and parishes traditional?

[maryjk]

I am not of the “people who go to the OF are terrible Satanists” crowd, and I don’t think most self-described traditionalists are either. My personal view is that most Catholics are, sadly, complacent in their faith because they were not taught the faith, and do not have more traditional preferences in the liturgy simply because they do not know these things exist and are victims of circumstance

So you really believe that the reason most Catholics, that prefer the Ordinary Form, do so because they are complacent in their faith??? Really?? It couldn’t be because they actually like the OF?

And if someone, anyone would expose them to the EF, they would love it. That they are just poor victims of circumstance??

Sorry, but that is wrong. And insulting.

 

[TimothyH]

In response to the OP (what makes a person and parishes traditional?)

I would say it means believing, thinking, and praying like Catholics did 100 years ago, or even 1,000 years ago in many ways. Assisting at the traditional Mass is a mere symptom of that mindset: not everyone who is traditional can assist at it, and some who do are not very traditional at all.

It doesn’t make Catholics with a modern worldview “liberals” or bad Catholics, but in some sense they’ve lost a lot of their heritage, and I strongly believe that far from being optional external matters, that heritage gives life to the Faith and protects Catholics from competing (and heretical) worldviews. We’re stronger and happier with it and I feel the difference when I’m with Catholics who don’t have it.

It’s hard to explain, but I did my best.

No it doesn’t.

I do all those things - think, believe and pray - just like Catholics did 1000 years ago, with zero desire to hear a Mass in Latin.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

No it doesn’t.

I do all those things - think, believe and pray - just like Catholics did 1000 years ago, with zero desire to hear a Mass in Latin.

-Tim-

Your reply is confusing. Care to elaborate?

 

[Rich_C]

So you really believe that the reason most Catholics, that prefer the Ordinary Form, do so because they are complacent in their faith??? Really?? It couldn’t be because they actually like the OF?

And if someone, anyone would expose them to the EF, they would love it. That they are just poor victims of circumstance??

Sorry, but that is wrong. And insulting.

We read that very differently. I saw two points:

a) most Catholics are complacent in their faith.

I agree with that. Complacence is a constant temptation for all of us and many of our brothers and sisters don’t seem to battle it at all.

b) most Catholics do not go to the EF Mass because they haven’t heard of it, because of larger circumstances.

I agree with that, too. I thought the EF Mass was entirely extinct until 18 months ago, and so did my entire family and all my friends, as far as I know.

I know we may have different sympathies, but I think you’ll see no offense if you read it again.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Generally, most self-described traditional Catholics have some affinity for several or all of the following: the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Latin language to some degree, traditional iterations of Catholic architecture and vestments, traditional devotions, etc.

I have an “affinity” for all those things, and attend the EF exclusively save for the odd time, yet I refuse to identify myself as a “traditional Catholic.” Why?

Because of this:

since I go to the Novus Ordo, would I be considered a " liberal Spirit of V II" Catholic? I’ve been told this by Traditionalists

I am absolutely so sick and tired of this attitude, and the living in an isolated bubble as if those who don’t attend the EF have some sort of cooties, or they would melt like the Wicked Witch of the West if they got too close to the OF Mass. It’s getting so bad at my parish that some are even saying our traditional priest wasn’t validly ordained because the bishop who ordained him in the EF was consecrated after VII. I’m sure our priest needs that being spread throughout our Latin Mass Community. But hey, let’s trash the bishop, and then demand that the bishop not only give us our own parish, but give us the oldest, nicest and most ornate parish in the city.

I would just like to point out we have good traditional priests, but our congregation needs an attitude adjustment.

 

[BVMFatima]

I have an “affinity” for all those things, and attend the EF exclusively save for the odd time, yet I refuse to identify myself as a “traditional Catholic.” Why?

Because of this:

**
I am absolutely so sick and tired of this attitude, and the living in an isolated bubble as if those who don’t attend the EF have some sort of cooties, or they would melt like the Wicked Witch of the West if they got too close to the OF Mass.** It’s getting so bad at my parish that some are even saying our traditional priest wasn’t validly ordained because the bishop who ordained him in the EF was consecrated after VII. I’m sure our priest needs that being spread throughout our Latin Mass Community. But hey, let’s trash the bishop, and then demand that the bishop not only give us our own parish, but give us the oldest, nicest and most ornate parish in the city.

I would just like to point out we have good traditional priests, but our congregation needs an attitude adjustment.

 

[keepitreal]

No, a Latin Rite Catholic is a Catholic who worships according to one of the Rites of the Latin Church (Roman, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Carthusian, etc.). The most widely used of the Latin Rites, indeed of all the Rites of the whole Catholic Church, is the Roman Rite, and this is what your average Joe thinks of when he hears the word “Catholic.”

The Catholic Church is composed of 23 semi-autonomous “Churches,” of which the Latin Church, the largest by far, is one. The other 22 are Eastern Catholic Churches. All 23 are in union with the Pope and are all equally Catholic, but there are liturgical and cultural differences, along with different ways of looking at theology.

The Roman Rite, which a majority of Catholics are accustomed to, has two Forms: the Ordinary and Extraordinary. The Ordinary Form is the Eucharist and other sacraments according to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican II. The Extraordinary Form is the Eucharist and other sacraments according to the liturgical books promulgated roughly from 1570 and up to sometime close to Vatican II. Both forms are equally valid and are licit for use.

“The Extraordinary Form is the Eucharist and other sacraments according to the liturgical books promulgated roughly from 1570 and up to sometime close to Vatican II”

This gives the unfortunate, but much repeated , impression that the Extraordinary Form was somehow created and promulgated in 1570. This cannot be more removed from the truth. The “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass was the result of centuries of organic development–going back in some elements to the Apostles, and virtually intact by the time of Gregory the Great-- that was given legal status, or codified as the principle Mass (Missa normativa) of the Latin Rite at the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation (hence, the “Tridentine Mass”). It was not the creation of a committee of experts, as the “Ordinary Mass” was during and after Vatican II, but the legacy and inheritance, the Spirit guided learning and wisdom of Catholic history; the pinnacle of our Faith, where the maxim “the manner and form of the Mass directly mirrors what we believe, in connection with the Communion of Saints” (Lex orandi, lex credendi) derived. Just FYI in peace.

 

[Alfonsus]

Yes, but by that take, the OF is too a development of the same root.
Look, all Liturgies of the Church, are a mixture of organic development and rupture. But never a complete rupture.

If it was ruptured by the authority, you see by that itself is a performance of organic development of the authority.

During the organic process of development, the Church ruptured the development of Liturgies in edicts adding this and removing that, banning this and legalizing that.
It can be a small portion, it can be an overhaul.

The organic golden thread: that it is the Eucharist as established by the Lord and passed on by the Apostles, stays. It is the backbone that will never be broken.

A committee or not, it does not matter. The revised Psalter of Pius X was by issued and worked by a committee. The way Ecumenical council proceeds, as showed in the book of Acts differ than when Vatican I was convoked. Vatican I had committee preparing the drafts, while the Apostles don’t bother with it.

I guess, the same bitter attitude was exist when Pius V abrogated all liturgies less than 200 years old. What if my diocese was using a liturgies, a use, 199 years old and dear to the faithful in that diocese?

Up until now, the term organic development is used by everyone, but no definition is established. What is “organic development,” how much ruptures it can accumulate to stay organic, who defines with authority organicity/non-organicity of a development, by whose standard?

Give me 1000 people, and we will have 1000 standards. But if that is the case, why should I follow other people standard at all?

 

[TimothyH]

Your reply is confusing. Care to elaborate?

I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier Rich. I wanted to ask you the same thing, to elaborate on what you mean by “thinking” like the Church did 1000 years ago.

I’m sorry I snapped a response.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier Rich. I wanted to ask you the same thing, to elaborate on what you mean by “thinking” like the Church did 1000 years ago.

I’m sorry I snapped a response.

-Tim-

It’s okay. Many of us have baggage regarding this term because of uncharitable things that have happened to us in the past. I am no exception.

I think this brief essay gives the best description fisheaters.com/ontraditionalcatholics.html(the term “traditional Catholic” almost defies definition, so I think description is more apt).

When I meet Catholics who more interested in the latest thing than in passing on anything from their forefathers in the Faith, I don’t think they could be called ‘traditional.’ When I meet Catholics who do not fear Hell, even think about purgatory, and feel no attachment to the saints, I don’t think they could be called ‘traditional.’ When I meet Catholics who celebrate Guy Fawkes Day but don’t celebrate their parish’s patron saint’s day, I don’t think they could be called ‘traditional.’ When I meet Catholics who praise yoga above the rosary, I don’t think they could be called ‘traditional.’ When I meet Catholics who place more trust in a recent Protestant pastor’s self-help book than in the writings of the great Catholic apologists, I don’t think they can be called ‘traditional.’

I could go on and on. It’s about all the things that are not obligatory for Catholics but that used to be part and parcel of the Faith, especially for us lay people. The people I described above may well be better Catholics than I am, but their Catholicism exists in a little sphere: 21st century America. They miss out on being part of a great history and the Communion of Saints, and of having a distinct common identity that connect them more to other Catholics than to any American they meet. They miss out on a worldview centered simultaneously on Christ and on a sense of being part a living tapestry, and because they don’t have that worldview, they tend to have a very common-postmodern-American-pluralist worldview instead, because something will fill that vacuum; we’re only human.

I don’t say any of that to put down anyone, but to me its a very real difference, and since the OP asked I am trying to articulate it.

Does that make any sense?

 

[keepitreal]

Yes, but by that take, the OF is too a development of the same root.
Look, all Liturgies of the Church, are a mixture of organic development and rupture. But never a complete rupture.

If it was ruptured by the authority, you see by that itself is a performance of organic development of the authority.

During the organic process of development, the Church ruptured the development of Liturgies in edicts adding this and removing that, banning this and legalizing that.
It can be a small portion, it can be an overhaul.

The organic golden thread: that it is the Eucharist as established by the Lord and passed on by the Apostles, stays. It is the backbone that will never be broken.

A committee or not, it does not matter. The revised Psalter of Pius X was by issued and worked by a committee. The way Ecumenical council proceeds, as showed in the book of Acts differ than when Vatican I was convoked. Vatican I had committee preparing the drafts, while the Apostles don’t bother with it.

I guess, the same bitter attitude was exist when Pius V abrogated all liturgies less than 200 years old. What if my diocese was using a liturgies, a use, 199 years old and dear to the faithful in that diocese?

Up until now, the term organic development is used by everyone, but no definition is established. What is “organic development,” how much ruptures it can accumulate to stay organic, who defines with authority organicity/non-organicity of a development, by whose standard?

Give me 1000 people, and we will have 1000 standards. But if that is the case, why should I follow other people standard at all?

In Michael Davies’ book “A Short History of the Roman Mass”, which was a summary of “The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [London: Longmans, 1912]”, by Adrian Fortesque, Davies makes the comment:

" 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.” "

If you believe that the New Rite is an organic development of the Old Rite, you will believe anything, my friend (in a good way). As Cardinal Ottaviani, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith commented in “A Critical Study of the New Order of Mass”, in September 1969,

“The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery”.

Will finish comments later, got to go to work

 

[Alfonsus]

In Michael Davies’ book “A Short History of the Roman Mass”, which was a summary of “The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [London: Longmans, 1912]”, by Adrian Fortesque, Davies makes the comment:

" 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.” "

If you believe that the New Rite is an organic development of the Old Rite, you will believe anything, my friend (in a good way). As Cardinal Ottaviani, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith commented in “A Critical Study of the New Order of Mass”, in September 1969,

“The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery”.

Will finish comments later, got to go to work

I believe only what the Church declared, backed by the authority of the Church.
Look, like I said, you can have 1000 people with different standard of organicity. From Benedict XVI, the person you quote, the Bishop down the road, the people in this forum, to even my imaginary slimy rainbow colored pudding friend from Mars.
That is why it is messy.

But none of them have the authority to declare to the Church like the Church did, we like it or not. In the end of the day, I need to take my stand. The Church does give us venues to hear our voices, but she has no obligation to act the way we want.
She can put her own standard.

For me those works are academic curiosity, has its own merits and contribution to discussion. But I’ll put qualification, that the writer’s standard is his standard. He does not speak for the whole Church, yes?

 

[keepitreal]

I believe only what the Church declared, backed by the authority of the Church.

And just what exactly has the Church *declared *in this matter?

Look, like I said, you can have 1000 people with different standard of organicity. From Benedict XVI, the person you quote, the Bishop down the road, the people in this forum, to even my imaginary slimy rainbow colored pudding friend from Mars.
That is why it is messy.

Well, a point well taken. When one looks at history different people can come up with differen conclusions looking at the same data. I looked at history and , basically studied my way into the Church, based on what I concluded from it. Other people can look at the same data I looked at and not be convinced to become a Catholic.

I look at liturgical history the same way I look at doctrinal. If it’s factual, don’t dispute it. Don’t deny it. History and facts have always been the allies of Catholicism. No need to fear the truth. It will set you free.

But none of them have the authority to declare to the Church like the Church did, we like it or not. In the end of the day, I need to take my stand. The Church does give us venues to hear our voices, but she has no obligation to act the way we want.
She can put her own standard.

What exaclty did the Church* declare*, again? What is the standard we must keep in this matter?

For me those works are academic curiosity, has its own merits and contribution to discussion. But I’ll put qualification, that the writer’s standard is his standard. He does not speak for the whole Church, yes?

Again, what is being said that is contra to the Church?