Why all the objection to traditionalism?

[CappaMagna]

…So, my question is why all the objections to traditionalism?

I don’t think most people object to “traditionalism.”* I think far too many traditionalists like to play the martyr. “Traditionalism” is such a tiny part of the Latin Rite that I don’t think most people are even exposed to it.

The one exception is when “traditionalism” runs off the rails of fact and good manners. When people begin rejecting the OF Mass as being valid or at least inferior. When some begin trying to blame all the ills of the Church on the “NO Mass.” That’s when I think many just turn away from the extreme because it’s divisive and largely untrue.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I don’t think most people object to “traditionalism.”* I think far too many traditionalists like to play the martyr. “Traditionalism” is such a tiny part of the Latin Rite that I don’t think most people are even exposed to it.

The one exception is when “traditionalism” runs off the rails of fact and good manners. When people begin rejecting the OF Mass as being valid or at least inferior. When some begin trying to blame all the ills of the Church on the “NO Mass.” That’s when I think many just turn away from the extreme because it’s divisive and largely untrue.

A “tiny part of the Latin Rite”…Oh, how quickly we forget. I go back to a previous statement. What? Am I chopped liver? I grew up with the TLM. I’m not dead yet and at 58, I don’t feel particularly old. Folks from my parent’s generation are still alive.

You are absolutely correct that most people are not exposed to it such that the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France could give the Apostolic Blessing in Latin at my cathedral parish just 35 years after 1967 and few of the assembled clergy much less the congregation could respond. Thirty-five years earlier the response would have been vastly different.

We have been marginalized, trivialized and put aside. God bless our Holy Father for recognizing our plight and addressing it.

 

[youngsaint]

I figured you could hear from someone who is still in the process of growing up .

I can still remember the kneelers in the front of church, and everybody kneeling down to receive the most blessed sacrament. I was only five or six at the time, but it seemed so important to me, seeing every one kneeling down. Now, at Christmas Vigil, I was the only person who knelt down, and the place was packed.

I really hate to see the sacrament taken for granted. There were CEO’s (Christmas Easter Only catholics ) receiving the sacrament, after missing so many masses.

Besides the kneeling down, and the Latin, I really don’t know the difference, can someone enlighten me? thanks!

 

[brotherhrolf]

I figured you could hear from someone who is still in the process of growing up .

I can still remember the kneelers in the front of church, and everybody kneeling down to receive the most blessed sacrament. I was only five or six at the time, but it seemed so important to me, seeing every one kneeling down. Now, at Christmas Vigil, I was the only person who knelt down, and the place was packed.

I really hate to see the sacrament taken for granted. There were CEO’s (Christmas Easter Only catholics ) receiving the sacrament, after missing so many masses.

Besides the kneeling down, and the Latin, I really don’t know the difference, can someone enlighten me? thanks!

I don’t want to hijack the thread but having grown up as a traditional Catholic, my conscience would not permit me to receive the Holy Eucharist if I weren’t in a state of grace. I can’t think of anything more appalling to me than to receive the Holy Eucharist and not be in a state of grace. But I am a religious Neanderthal and need to crawl back in my cave. There is a HUGE difference between what I was taught and today.

 

[youngsaint]

I don’t want to hijack the thread but having grown up as a traditional Catholic, my conscience would not permit me to receive the Holy Eucharist if I weren’t in a state of grace. I can’t think of anything more appalling to me than to receive the Holy Eucharist and not be in a state of grace. and need to crawl back in my cave. There is a HUGE difference between what I was taught and today.

I agree, it really is disgusting, and the worst part was seeing how empty are mass was on sunday, they came, disgraced his holy sacrament, then left!

“But I am a religious Neanderthal”
ug-a lug-a! go cavemen!

 

[CradleCath]

From the comments, it would seem that few have any objection to traditionalism - just don’t bring it to my parish.** I also found it curious that there are several of us who are repeating basically the same thing, that we did not get a say so back in 67 because it was unthinkable for the laity to step up and complain to the magesterium. **

Or that, even today, even on this forum, we have to be exceedingly guarded about what we say and how we say it. Or that most of us have prayed for 40 years that we would see a return to that which we knew.

Absolutely!! And one thing more to address, the Latin Church had given us a beautiful, sacrificial & HOLY Mass. Why would we have thought, in the beginning that the Novus Ordo would be any different. It was & the whole “kit & kaboodle” was thrown at us immediately. In my Cathedral parish (which was the one I grew up in), There were no instructions from the pulpit, no classes re the Procedures that were to be put into place…nothing!! And PLEASE don’t think that all of the hierarchy were in favor of it. The eyes of wonderful old Monsignor that had run the Cathedral parish after another diocese absorbed us, were wet with tears when the Tabernacle was moved to the “cry room”. Within a year, the school…the largest Catholic school in the diocese…the school that had taken first place in every city- wide Math Bowl, essay contest, etc. had lost 50% of it’s nuns, within 5 yrs. there wasn’t a nun left teaching at the school. The relatively few who remained, got apartments & became “social workers”. committed to saving social structures, trees & the “feminist empowerment”, caring very little about saving souls.

Lest you think that this a bunch of old folk’s nostalgia, it isn’t. Yes, I missed the Tabernacle, the Communion Rail, the statues. etc. I could have borne losing the externals (I didn’t like the abrupt loss of our culture, but I could have still been content).

However, after 10 years of trying to be a Novus Ordo Catholic, 30 more years of watching the ordained priesthood blend into the priesthood of the faithful…40 years of looking at the all of those in the Communion line & wondering how they found someone to hear their confessions. (one had to call all of our 8 parishes to find one that had put aside an hour a week to see when & where they could confess). I came to the conclusion that no one sinned any more.

But, it was the totaly banal & boring Liturgy crowded with people saying hi, waving at friends & worshiping themselves for eveyone of them believed that the changes in the Liturgy had been a gift to them from the Church. They had no realization that the Mass was for God, not them & that He doesn’t need “easy” that finally did it for me. It was the busy-BUSYNESS of EEM’s & lectors & lay “ministers” that caused me to just grit my teeth & endure. I had no choice. I would never have attended an SSPX Mass or even an Eastern Mass. I am a ROMAN Catholic.

I want to thank Cradle Cath for that quote about interior participation. It matches what I said about how participation in the TLM “stills my soul”. The only time I feel that today is during the Mass of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday and on Good Friday. There is too much going on otherwise. We used to maintain silence in church. Even my own cathedral parish is not as silent as it should be but it is a quantum leap above my local geographic parish which sounds like WalMart before and after Mass.

 

[CappaMagna]

A “tiny part of the Latin Rite”…Oh, how quickly we forget. I go back to a previous statement. What? Am I chopped liver? I grew up with the TLM. I’m not dead yet and at 58, I don’t feel particularly old. Folks from my parent’s generation are still alive.

You are absolutely correct that most people are not exposed to it such that the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France could give the Apostolic Blessing in Latin at my cathedral parish just 35 years after 1967 and few of the assembled clergy much less the congregation could respond. Thirty-five years earlier the response would have been vastly different.

We have been marginalized, trivialized and put aside. God bless our Holy Father for recognizing our plight and addressing it.

I read somewhere that .4% of all Masses celebrated as advertised in www.masstimes.org are EF Masses. While not all “traditionalists” attend or even prefer the EF Mass, this statistic does give a bit of insight into just how few would identify as being “traditionalists.”

From my own viewpoint the marginalization, trivialization and placing aside of “traditionalists” is largely a product of the terribly extreme and largely heterodox comments of some individuals who proudly and loudly proclaim their association with “traditionalism.”

 

[fish90]

I was watching some youtube clip that stated there was a little known missal before the current one and was rejected because it was not Protestant enough.
youtube.com/watch?v=xGX3QADacyc (around 3:00)

 

[marchoi]

I don’t know what “traditionalism” means. It could mean “sticking to the traditions of the Catholic Church”, in which case by all means I think everyone should ascribe to it. If it means “liturgical preference for the TLM” then I don’t have any objections to it. Heck, I may even say that I have a personal preference for the TLM. But my impression is that “traditionalism” is often meant defined as “maintaining the superiority of the TLM and all its supporters and dismissing the inferiority of all things post-Vatican II, blaming all the problems in the Church on Vatican II” - which I wholeheartedly rebuke. Did things go wrong after Vatican II? Yes. Does that make Vatican II wrong? Absolutely not.

My experience has been that people do not object to traditionalism itself but rather to traditionalists. As mentioned before in the thread, it’s the people who put themselves out as: 1) martyrs or 2) exemplars. Example: I had the joy of attending my second ever TLM on July 7, 2007 - the date the SP came out. The homily can be summarized as: “Ha, we were right the whole time. Finally our persecution is over. The Pope is according us the status of ‘extraordinary’ because we’re better. Booyah, in your face.” And you wonder what objections people might have to traditionalists…

I might prefer attending the TLM (although the Dialogue Mass is my personal preference), but I would never think less of someone who decided to attend the Ordinary Form Mass. The problem is, there are many people out there - and too many of them are too vocal about it - who would think less of those who prefer the OF.

 

[JustaServant]

#2. To answer your original question. People who object to the Latin Mass & Traditional Catholicism…are **afraid **

 

[MonFrere]

I do believe that:
#1. many people today are afraid of silence. They are afraid of what they might discover about themselves without the distractions of noise & movement. God might actually speak to them & they might not like what they hear.

#2. To answer your original question. People who object to the Latin Mass & Traditional Catholicism…are **afraid **that it might be “hard”. The language, the fasting, the regular confessions, the continuing Catholic education, etc., frighten them. And HOW DARE WE suggest that though it may be hard, the rewards one recieves might just be worth it.

I do not think your two points reflect accurately what is “seen”. I have no fear of silence and I do not associate Catholicism or Christianity with the “hardness” of the ritualistic aspect of the faith or preparing for it. “Living the faith” ite missa est, is where the “hardness” takes place.

This past issue of OSV had a listing of martyrs - so, I think saying that the change that some make (I read it on one thread today, don’t know where) that Novus Ordo isn’t capable of making saints is simply wrong.

I do read about the faith, I’ve read Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul. I follow their lead. I do my best to listen closely to what they say and what they write. I watch their example. I read the new CCC. I involve myself with several of the popular devotions of the Church – some very old ones and some very new ones. I read about the future of the church and where it seems to be moving. I also read about the problems in the Church today and the prescribed solutions as given by the leadership that’s supposed to deal with these problems.

In doing all these things I see nothing on my radar screen telling me anything concerning liturgy that would indicate a return to the past. Certainly there is justified talk of correcting abuses but there is NO TALK of changing the Order itself. The trajectory is still taking its course. So, IMO I think it is a point of wisdom to look at our lives as taking place in a very very long line concerning the Holy Spirit’s making of the People of God to eternally be with Him in heaven. Our point of entry and departure is just that, a point. We entered in a mid point in which there is a trajectory concerning liturgical reform. I don’t see it being completed in our lifetime; so we, like Moses, won’t get to enter into that promised land. But seeing things with an historical sweep does make things easier. I think without this type of outlook we look in on ourselves and on our times and really, in a way, miss the great sweeping movement of the Holy Spirit acting in OUR DAY.

I’ve yet to find one fixated on TLM to have a sense of optimism of the future and of being a part of being moved by the sweeping power of the Holy Spirit and looking with expectation to a “springtime of evangelization”. To me, that’s sad.

MonFrere

 

[Bbigam]

I do believe that:
#1. many people today are afraid of silence. They are afraid of what they might discover about themselves without the distractions of noise & movement. God might actually speak to them & they might not like what they hear.

#2. To answer your original question. People who object to the Latin Mass & Traditional Catholicism…are **afraid **that it might be “hard”. The language, the fasting, the regular confessions, the continuing Catholic education, etc., frighten them. And HOW DARE WE suggest that though it may be hard, the rewards one recieves might just be worth it.

I pretty much agree with you. But I want to note that appreciating silence, being willing to work hard for the faith, fasting, confessions - basically, being a faithful, devout Catholic - does not have to mean preferring the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. A Catholic can be devout and faithful and prefer the Ordinary Form, properly celebrated, even in (gasp!) the vernacular. That said, a faithful Catholic cannot, should not, reject the Extraordinary Form or the use of Latin, or any other approved, properly celebrated Eucharistic Liturgy of the Catholic Church.

Lest anyone misread my post, a faithful Catholic can of course have a preference for the Extraordinary Form - or for the Byzantine Rite or any other approved, properly celebrated Eucharistic Liturgy of the Church.

 

[CradleCath]

CappaMagna;6103214]*
I don’t think most people object to “traditionalism.”*]

I hope you’re right about the Church itself, but most people here DO object to Traditional Catholicism.

]
I think far too many traditionalists like to play the martyr.

Oh, you think that do you?? You’ve made 4 posts in the Catholic Answers forum & you’ve decided that we’re fake “martyrs”. I have a question for you that you, of course, don’t have to answer but I’ll ask it anyway. I’m 68 yrs, old & if I don’t mind telling my age, you shouldn’t mind either. So, how old are you??

Have you ever attended a mass with Liturgical Dancers. **I have!! ** Most of the “dancers” were 50ish & a bit heavy. They did the “dance of the Great Flood”…carrying & waving scarves, that were supposed to represent the rain falling as they run around the Sanctuary. At the end of the “flood” they sank to the floor & several had a hard time getting up.

Have you ever had a priest bring props for his “homily”. **I have. **The reading for the day (read by someone whose reading abiliby was not the best.) The gospel that day was from Acts & Father brought a suitcase, wore sandals & “hit the road” as he said. Most of us need some meat in the sermon…not cookies with sprinkles.

Have you ever had it preached from the pulpit, on the feast of the Holy Family, that we must also pray for Gay couples, especially those with children, as they are families too.** I have. **
Have you ever had a Mass that was interesting & challenging dumbed down to the point that it is boring? **I have. **

QUOTE] “Traditionalism” is such a tiny part of the Latin Rite that I don’t think most people are even exposed to it.

You’re right & that is so sad. Pope Benedict does not want this Liturgy
lost. He does not want Gregorian Chant/Polyphony lost to civilization. He does not want the intellectual arm of the Church shoved out, nor does he want the scholasticism that has always been part of the Catholic heritage ignored. One does not Graduate from a Catholic high school/college & say that he/she now knows the faith. One does not “finish RICA” & say well, I’m done. We are speaking of 2,000 yrs. of Catholicism. One is never finished learning the Catholic Faith.

The one exception is when “traditionalism” runs off the rails of fact and good manners.

I would have to ask if you think your message exhibits “good manners” especially since you posted it in the Traditional Catholic forum.

When people begin rejecting the OF Mass as being valid

I’ve NEVER seen anyone on these forums say that the N.O. Mass is invalid or illicit. It was promulgated by Pope John XXIII & the council & is a valid Mass. It was however, a pastoral council & taught nothing infallibly.

or at least inferior. When some begin trying to blame all the ills of the Church on the “NO Mass.” That’s when I think many just turn away from the extreme because it’s divisive and largely untrue.

Myself, I do consider the Tridentine form of the Mass as superior to the Novus Ordo, I hope that each Catholic participating in these forums considers “their Mass” to be superior…whether it’s an Orthodox Mass, the Novus Ordo or the Tridentine Mass. If they DON’T they should change their attendence to a Mass that they CAN consider superior.

It only gets divisive when we try to convince others that they should start attending one’s own favorite. That, IMO., is the reason that CA. has separate forums for Eastern Catholics, Traditional Catholics & Novus Ordo Catholics. However, as I’m sure you’ve noticed that a whole lot of “progressives” hang out on this forum a LOT!!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was watching some youtube clip that stated there was a little known missal before the current one and was rejected because it was not Protestant enough.
youtube.com/watch?v=xGX3QADacyc (around 3:00)

Hmmm, if you believe this then I own a bridge in the San Francisco area that I would like to sell you.

Comments like this are why all of use find this sort of pseudo-traditionalism objectionable.

 

[Timothysis]

]

I hope you’re right about the Church itself, but most people here DO object to Traditional Catholicism.

Please show some examples of this. Several previous posters stated how no one here actually objected to anything that is considered “traditional,” yet you state that "most people here DO…" Please be specific.

 

[Lamentabili]

Great talk by Fr. Ripperger (FSSP) defining Catholic Tradition and discussing its role in the liturgy.

Discusses Vatican II and the New Mass as well.

Excellent resource for all on this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=410555

 

[nice2000]

You can not take the leaving of religious and priests to be caused totally by the change in the Mass or Vatican II. That is the logical fallacy known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

That is because A happened before B, then A must have caused B.

A lot of other things where going on in society during that time.

I also disagree that “Ever since Vatican II we have been going downhill.”

Its things like this, criticizing a valid Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church that make people leery of “traditionalists”.

I hope you can see an answer starting to form brotherhrolf, it is the actions of some who claim the title of traditionalists that make some object to traditionalism, especially when other traditionalists do not call them on it.

I don’t mind you being leery of me. It is the truth. The statistics don’t lie.

 

[fish90]

Hmmm, if you believe this then I own a bridge in the San Francisco area that I would like to sell you.

Comments like this are why all of use find this sort of pseudo-traditionalism objectionable.

Well, I feel like an idiot, but I did find this.
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

 

[Lamentabili]

You can not take the leaving of religious and priests to be caused totally by the change in the Mass or Vatican II. That is the logical fallacy known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

That is because A happened before B, then A must have caused B.

A lot of other things where going on in society during that time.

.

Well let us judge Vatican II by its stated goals. To produce a great renewal and rejuvenation of faith. An energized Church. People more fully understanding and participating in their faith. More conversions, vocations, etc.

Did it succeed in any of these?

I also disagree that “Ever since Vatican II we have been going downhill.”

Take a look at this…

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

…Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.
Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million…

Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.
Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus…

Its things like this, criticizing a valid Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church that make people leery of “traditionalists”.

Please show where the Church teaches that an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church is beyond criticism. The Pope doesn’t think so. He has criticized it himself. Should we be leery of him?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t mind you being leery of me. It is the truth. The statistics don’t lie.

Statistics don’t lie, just those who use them and do not really know what statistics really can tell them.

Statistics can not prove a cause especially for complex constructs.

As Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics.”