What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

“What is so threatening about traditionalism?”

There is nothing threatening about the traditionalism of the majority of those who are traditionalists. The majority of traditionalists accept the teaching of the Church in all aspects. They accept both the OF and the EF as valid Masses. They accept that the OF is the ‘ordinary’ and the EF the “extraordinary” form of the Mass. They accept both as valid Masses. They acknowledge that both the OF and the EF, when offered according to the rubrics and the correct intentions thereof, are not only valid but licit. They acknowledge that at certain times certain individuals may have, knowingly or not, offered said Masses with elements that were not licit, or valid, but that such things do not interfere with the inherent validity of either Mass.

They have the highest respect for bishops, clergy, and their fellow laity. They have no intent to ‘tear down’ any legitimate Church practice of the last 40 years nor to insist that ‘only’ such ‘tradition’ as predates, say, Vatican 2, is correct. They have no desire to eliminate one form of the Mass for another. They have no contempt for those whose preferences are different, yet valid.

The majority of traditionalists wish only that the rich tradition of the Catholic Church be as ‘maintained’ in AD 2008 as it was in 1908, 1808, 1708, etc. back to the time of the apostles. Obviously, ‘new’ traditions arise and those traditions, what we call 'little ‘t’, can in time become a part of that rich heritage. Equally obviously, that means that today’s traditionalist is not ‘stuck in 1958’ but rather enjoys the rich heritage of the past while not neglecting the new and valid actions of the present which, in the future, will become part of that rich heritage as well.

The majority of traditionalists are not focused on denying the OF, demeaning those who prefer it, castigating bishops and priests, or denying and defying the Church.

That some appear to take the mistaken notions of a tiny fringe group which labels itself as "Traditionalist’ as being the notions of ALL traditionalists is a sad mistake that I and others have tried to rectify. I trust that at least some here will listen. I trust that by and large the words and actions of the majority will one day ‘overcome’ those of the minority so that one day nobody will hear the word "traditionalist’ and automatically fill in the blank with “heretic, schismatic, snob, regressive, and anti OF”, but rather with, “Oh, someone who loves the heritage of the Church, likes to go to the EF when he can, and is helping the entire Church to keep all its beautiful and rich traditions ‘alive’ for all”.

I think you just described both sides of the aisle. Traditionalists and (?) whatever description I and many others fit into. This is all any of us want, to be One ,Holy ,Catholic and Apostolic Church all united as one, not separated by descriptions or names, but united as Catholic.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

You said: “The arrogance and condescending tone of a great many of your posts has been off-putting enough but this really takes the cake! YOU do not find a Mass acceptable? I don’t care one whit about whether or not a NO is, what you consider from your self-perceived lofty height, reverent and abuse free. This one statement is enough to let everyone here see where you are coming from. And I mean everyone! At Mass, whether it be an EF or an OF, at the Offertory, we pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God. That’s what it is all about, What is acceptable to God, not what you deem to be acceptable to yourself!”

A post that reeks of anger and arrogance, by the way. Yet, here you are deciding what sort of Mass is acceptable and what is not.

And, by the way, I said “completely acceptable”. That’s a strong modifier to the adjective there, buddy. Accidental misquote? Hmm.

I find the NO so “completely acceptable” I make time to attend it 2-3 times every week, which is not at all easy with my schedule.

The Mass - a NO Mass - by its very nature is indescribably and infinitely beautiful and valuable. It is the making present of that very timeless Sacrifice itself that freed us from eternal death. I find myself completely overcome with emotion every single time I receive the Body of the Lord, over the honor that I would be seen fit to be given such an incredible gift more than anything else.

Paul - cool it. This type of exchange is prohibited by the forum rules and serves no purpose.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Joe_5859]

For those who have ethel on their ignore list (you know who you are ), I think this post of his makes some very useful distinctions which might go a long way towards clearing up confusion.

I think that perhaps the word “abuse” is greatly over-used and exaggerated. The terms “accept” and “tolerate” seem to be used interchangably as well.

Driving 57 in a 55 is technically speeding. But is it something to get shook up about? Doing 74 in a 55 is a different story.

I have noted several threads, in which claims were made that 8, 10, 12, however-many parishes in a given city or area were “unacceptable” places to attend Mass, due to “abuses”.

What are we calling “abuse”? Is a minor deviation “abuse”?

If I tolerate something, does that mean I accept it? I tolerate a lot of things in life. That doesn’t mean I accept or embrace it.

Are we talking about a priest who gathers the congregation around the altar in a circle? Or, are we talking about a priest who says “sisters and brothers”?

We should not be forced to accept blatant abuses, but from what I can gather here, the slightest deviance is blasted as “abuse”.

Fine. Get rid of any and all priests that deviate in the least. Good luck finding a Mass next Sunday.

Case in point. Last weekend, we had a visiting priest, as our pastor is in Honduras on a mission trip with the LifeTeen group.

The visiting priest obviously had a “thing” for saints.

As he opened Mass, we wandered off on a tangent on the saints’ feasts of the past and coming week. During the EP, he added the names of the same saints, and our patron Saint Patrick, to the prayer.

Deviance? Yes. Off the wall? Maybe. Abuse? Some would call it that, I’m sure…I wouldn’t. Did I like it? Not particularly. Did I tolerate it? Yes. Is it worth making an issue over? Nah.

I’m thankful that we HAD a priest to say Mass this weekend. I’m thankful that we still have priests who actually care about saints’ feast days.

This priest was REALLY “into” the Mass emotionally. He wasn’t just going thru the motions, like some do. So, I took his lesson on saints in stride.

Just because an “abuse” is tolerated doesn’t mean it is approved of, accepted, or in any way looked upon fondly. But some things are not worth getting worked up over. Of course, some things are worth getting worked up over and I in no way mean to imply that anyone here is getting worked up over nothing (I haven’t even read the majority of posts on this thread…sorry, you guys post too quickly for me! ). I think this is a good distinction to keep in mind as we read each other’s posts.

 

[Walking_Home]

For those who have ethel on their ignore list (you know who you are ), I think this post of his makes some very useful distinctions which might go a long way towards clearing up confusion.

Just because an “abuse” is tolerated doesn’t mean it is approved of, accepted, or in any way looked upon fondly. But some things are not worth getting worked up over. Of course, some things are worth getting worked up over and I in no way mean to imply that anyone here is getting worked up over nothing (I haven’t even read the majority of posts on this thread…sorry, you guys post too quickly for me! ). I think this is a good distinction to keep in mind as we read each other’s posts.

---

Lets see what the Church says on the matter:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

1. Other Abuses

[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law **are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.
**

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Paul Folbrecht;4042465:

Originally Posted by Paul Folbrecht View Post
You said: “The arrogance and condescending tone of a great many of your posts has been off-putting enough but this really takes the cake! YOU do not find a Mass acceptable? I don’t care one whit about whether or not a NO is, what you consider from your self-perceived lofty height, reverent and abuse free. This one statement is enough to let everyone here see where you are coming from. And I mean everyone! At Mass, whether it be an EF or an OF, at the Offertory, we pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God. That’s what it is all about, What is acceptable to God, not what you deem to be acceptable to yourself!”

A post that reeks of anger and arrogance, by the way. Yet, here you are deciding what sort of Mass is acceptable and what is not.

And, by the way, I said “completely acceptable”. That’s a strong modifier to the adjective there, buddy. Accidental misquote? Hmm.

I find the NO so “completely acceptable” I make time to attend it 2-3 times every week, which is not at all easy with my schedule.

The Mass - a NO Mass - by its very nature is indescribably and infinitely beautiful and valuable. It is the making present of that very timeless Sacrifice itself that freed us from eternal death. I find myself completely overcome with emotion every single time I receive the Body of the Lord, over the honor that I would be seen fit to be given such an incredible gift more than anything else.

Paul - cool it. This type of exchange is prohibited by the forum rules and serves no purpose.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

?

What is offensive about this message, other than what I quoted from the person I was replying to?

His post was far more ‘offensive’ by any measure than mine. How was mine offensive in the least? Please enlighten me.