What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[ethelzguy]

Do YOU find a Mass with abuses acceptable?

Liturgical abuses shouldn’t be considered acceptable by anyone, so why are you getting angry because he said that he doesn’t find them acceptable?

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.

 

[ethelzguy]

Can anybody show me the errors in my posts above that show that I am judgmental, against the OF, disobedient to The Church, or expressing falsehoods?

If you are so certain that certain commentaries don’t pertain to you, then why do you appear to be so consumed with refuting them?

Methinks thou protesteth too much?

 

[CradleCath]

Wow. I don’t understand why you take such offense to name calling when you do so much of it yourself?

Why can’t traditionalists be happy with their tradition? Why do they constantly have to belittle everyone that doesn’t ascribe to their brand of Catholicism?

Why did St. Anthanasius have to publish those 4 treatises against Arius, who was a PRIEST for crying out loud & why did St. Peter Damien have to expose the sodomy of those monks & why all the FUSS about civil authorities appointing our Pope. If St. Dominic & his followers just kept their mouth shut the Albigenses would have spread their doctrine that suicide by starvation was a GOOD thing, because it hastened our trip to “heaven” which was good & lessened our time on earth which was EVIL.

Please try to understand, Michele. It wasn’t I who came to a “What’s so good about the Novus Ordo” forum, it was YOU who came to this forum. Also, just so you know…I believe that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, I believe that you have every right to attend it & hold it dear. IOW., I really don’t care which Mass you attend.

Oh yes, PLEASE supply the post (or a link to it) which “belittled everyone”. These accusations must be either stopped or proven. People are catching on. I think that the moderators are even catching on.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If you are so certain that certain commentaries don’t pertain to you, then why do you appear to be so consumed with refuting them?

Methinks thou protesteth too much?

Why are you not only making the implication that, after all, I am guilty of all you have accused me of in ‘protesting too much’ (and yes, I get the Shakespearean reference, thank you). . .but using loaded language like ‘consumed with refuting them’. . .

And why do you persist in ignoring the questions I have put to you?

You did specifically address several commentaries to me personally. . .so there goes your whole attempt at trying to make me look either obsessed or in denial right out the window.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

---

How about when the head of the Magisterium --the Pope–does something like teach by example that kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue is also proper form of receiving communion—and those of us who expressed support for the Pope’s actions —are (as per ethelzguy) likened to a “pack of panting dogs”. Does this reflect the position that Rome holds.

The Holy Father gives Holy Communion standing, kneeling, on the tongue, or in the hand. That should tell you his position. And I believe ours.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ibkc]

I think that if enough of us utilized the handy little ‘ignore’ feature, then charitable and fruitful discussion might be possible in this forum. Ethel is here for no other reason to disrupt things and to stir the pot. Try not to let her distract us and bait us into her level of personal sniping. It really is not worth it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“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”.

 

[CradleCath]

I do not find traditionalism threatening. What I find offensive is the condemnation of SOME of the Novus Ordo mass.Notice, I said some, not all. Most traditionalist, (at least by the definition I learned after coming on the forum and finding out that I am not considered a traditional Catholic, even though I assiduously try to follow Rome in all things,) prefer the Latin Mass and all things pre Vatican. That is their right to do so, as Holy Mother Church gives us that option. Because my option is that I prefer the Novus Ordo,**** that does not make me any less Catholic, nor any more Catholic,**** just Roman Catholic.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Of course it doesn’t make you “less Catholic”. However, not informing yourself about:

Why the council was called…
What the practical results of the council show, both pro & con…
How the Novus Ordo was constructed…
The difference between “the Church” & the priests, bishops, etc.
The history of the Church…
The different reforms within the Church & their results…
The rights of Catholics, guaranteed by canon law…
John Henry Newman’s famous words," I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please, – still to conscience** first and to the Pope afterwards’**.

Not informing oneself about these things does show a lesser degree of “Catholicism”, for we are all bound to KNOW our faith. Not all Catholics are equal. I know that I consider myself a somewhat inferior Catholic most of the time. I’m kinda’ like Paul, "For the good that I would… I do not: but the evil which I would not… that I do. How about yourself?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I agree & like you, had the need to know…precipitated by the crisis of faith within the Church not occured…I doubt I’d have delved into the documents of the Church like I have. This was my point in the post that was used to “prove that I am holier than thou, an intellectual snob, a better than the Pope, Catholic”.

I said very clearly that the Traditionalists on this board HAD to be informed in order to understand & stay with the Church. The average Catholic in the pew, who was satisfied with the Novus Ordo…often because that’s all they knew, did not have this need.

However, I would expect that ANY Catholic who came to these forums does so too learn. Further, I would expect that any Catholic who posts on this subforum would be here to learn more about Traditional Catholicism. Yet, I hear screams of SSPX, “YOU” MAKE ME FEEL LIKE AN INFERIOR CATHOLIC & YOU SHOULD NEVER SPEAK AGAINST “THE CHURCH”.

There is no substance, no attempt at calm, rational discussion…emotional raving. I have yet to see a Novus Ordo Catholic explain what it is in the rubrics, the prayers, the ambiance found in the Novus Ordo that attracts them. All they complain about are the “Latin”, the old rosary during Mass falsehood, the priest has his back to us (no thought given to the fact that the priest has his “front” toward God. Oh well…I should be used to it by now.

I don’t know about y’all, but I for one am tired of seeing stereotypical descriptions being thrown by both sides. How about just saying we are Roman Catholic, because that is what we are. All these other descriptions do is divide. There has been enough division.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

“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”.

A wonderful post, and an example for all. :tiphat:

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

How many times must we repeat that nobody here blames THE CHURCH for the events of the last 40 years, but only notes–as a matter of FACT–that there were some in the U.S. who misunderstood the Council and thought that either the EF was ‘suppressed’ or that it would just ‘fade away’ and for many reasons (as individuals) ‘kept away’ from offering it even though it had never been abrogated and throughout the 40 years it was requested, in legitimate requests, yet denied. . .and that Pope Benedict himself says that this should not have been the case?

I do not blame THE CHURCH because some priests teach from the pulpit that women should be ordained, that contraception is all right, etc. Because that is not THE CHURCH speaking. . .it is individuals who themselves have either misunderstood the Church teaching or (for whatever reason) understand but have chosen to defy that teaching in favor of their own ‘better understanding.’

And I would LOVE to see the posts of mine that belittled others for their practice. Please show them to me, Michelle. I have written a LOT on this thread as a traditionalist, and you said, “traditionalists”. Please show me my words that belittle others for their practice.

Good luck getting Mr. E to response with substance to anything of substance. This was an excellent post.

Mr. E has ducked every direct question put to him and sidestepped every opportunity to discuss the actual facts and events relevant to this and similar discussions.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I think you know that that’s not what we’re talking about.

Sheesh, a traditionalist can’t say a perfectly Christian thing without getting trounced upon.

When someone says something like “Christ was persecuted, and so too are we,” that doesn’t mean that they’re saying that they’re on par with Christ. It means that Christ could be persecuted for our sake, then we can certainly take far smaller persecutions for His.

I can’t believe I have to explain that. If it was coming from the mouth of any other Christian, that’s how you would have taken it to begin with! But michelle, I think the problem is that you and ethel and others begin with the assumption that we’re all self-righteous and intolerably arrogant, and as such anything we say can be interpreted as such!

We’re not saying we’re persecuted because of the scarcity of EF Masses, we’re saying that often we have to put up with a lot of hostility both on these forums and in life for our preference for it.

Amen, brother.

(And forgive me the long quote - I hardly ever engage in that annoying habit, but this needs to be highlighted.)

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

To claim persecution or suffering does seem a little extreme to me. I mean c’mon, watch Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” and come back and say that not having a TLM handy for the last 40 years equates?

Perhaps traditional minded Catholics have missed some things since vatican 2, but saying that it is persecution is a bit much.

The apostles were persecuted. The Jews were persecuted by Hitler. Persecutions litter the history of man. I don’t think changing the Mass is the same thing.

Michelle,

As somebody new to the food-fight here I want to welcome you and hopefully whisper a few things in your ear before you start lobbing your own hot dogs.

You are simply interpreting the word persecution in a somewhat more narrow context than the poster intended - and I think in a somewhat more narrow context than the actual definition. Nobody has said that people were persecuted to the point of physical torture or death, just that spiritual persecution took place.

It is hard for me to see how anyone could take issue with that statement - anyone honest who really understands what happened and who knows the definition of the word. (Not picking on you - honest mistake.)

Millions of people loved the Tridentine Mass for everything it is, and it was suddenly and illegally taken from them. Furthermore, in many cases, they had to endure further invalid, unecessary, destructive acts such as the tearing down of beautiful altars and tabernacles.

I could go on and on - do you not understand how this could pain the heart of a faithful Christian?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you, ethelzguy.

That’s all, really, that I’ve been trying to say about what the majority of us traditionalists really believe. I’m really glad if it helped.

God bless.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

No, I do not find abuses in the Mass acceptable.

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_Folbrecht]

Thank you again for so beautifully answering the OP.

Another example of how so many in the traditionalist camp make broad brushed accusations against those that don’t fully share their views…implying that they are some form of anti-Catholic.

Where have I ever said that I hate all things traditional? Where have I ever said that I hate all things to do with the TLM?

You bash & denigrate not only full-on traditionalists, but anyone who espouses anything in favor of TLM.

You also constantly & repeatedly repeat the vague, invalid, illogical ‘argument’ that opposing anything any cleric in the Church ever does is ‘disobedience’. This is patently false, which can be easily demonstrated via many quotes from the Fathers, saints, and Popes thoughout the history of the Church.

Many, many examples of what is considered entirely valid and necessary opposition to invalid clerical acts and heresy are presented to you, but you have never once to my knowledge responded substantively to any of them. Instead, you repeated the vague, simplistic, nonsensical line.

Here are a few more specific questions for you to place on the pile that I am sure will receive no answers:

• Do you think it was good that bishops around the world destroyed altars and tabernacles “in obedience to the council” when the council not only didn’t require but didn’t suggest any such thing?
• Do you think it was good that the Tridentine rite was made inaccessible to those who wanted it, again illegally?
• Since you denigrate any opposition to a priest or bishop for any reason, what do you think we should think & say about the ranks of sexual predators and those that protected them that existed in the Church?
• Do you think the Arian heresy should have been opposed once approximately 80% of the bishops had accepted it or do you think the dogma should have been changed to keep the peace and avoid clerical criticism?

I have about 20 more once you answer these few.

I simply have no tolerance for the superioristic attitudes of some in the traditionalist crowd. I have no tolerance for those who bash and denigrate the Church or it’s clergy in the name of “traditionalism”.

The needle is stuck… stuck… stuck.

 

[ethelzguy]

Thank you, ethelzguy.

That’s all, really, that I’ve been trying to say about what the majority of us traditionalists really believe. I’m really glad if it helped.

God bless.

If every traditionalist’s attitude reflected that post, there wouldn’t be any reason to argue or feel threatened.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Of course it doesn’t make you “less Catholic”. However, not informing yourself about:

Why the council was called…
What the practical results of the council show, both pro & con…
How the Novus Ordo was constructed…
The difference between “the Church” & the priests, bishops, etc.
The history of the Church…
The different reforms within the Church & their results…
The rights of Catholics, guaranteed by canon law…
John Henry Newman’s famous words," I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please, – still to conscience** first and to the Pope afterwards’**.

Not informing oneself about these things does show a lesser degree of “Catholicism”, for we are all bound to KNOW our faith. Not all Catholics are equal. I know that I consider myself a somewhat inferior Catholic most of the time. I’m kinda’ like Paul, "For the good that I would… I do not: but the evil which I would not… that I do. How about yourself?

If you want to think that I am uninformed, thats OK with me, it is your right and opinion. Please respect mine also.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Thank you, ethelzguy.

That’s all, really, that I’ve been trying to say about what the majority of us traditionalists really believe. I’m really glad if it helped.

God bless.

My last round of posts crossed Ethel’s & yours.

Perhaps we have reached a turning point!

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
How about when the head of the Magisterium --the Pope–does something like teach by example that kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue is also proper form of receiving communion—and those of us who expressed support for the Pope’s actions —are (as per ethelzguy) likened to a “pack of panting dogs”. Does this reflect the position that Rome holds.

The Holy Father gives Holy Communion standing, kneeling, on the tongue, or in the hand. That should tell you his position. And I believe ours.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

---

Seems to be more accurate Deacon Ed B–to say our Holy Father used to (in the past) give Holy Communion in the hand and standing —from what has transpired — his position now is to give Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Though I do not deny that in the hand and standing are valid forms.