Why is it so hard to be traditional?

[ProVobis]

Maybe…I just haven’t seen many people who can say they prefer the EF without putting the OF down.

Yes, that point’s been made.

 

[maurin]

Critiquing the OF’s exposition of the lex credendi in relation to the Ancient Mass is not necessarily “putting it down” Annabelle. Of course there are detractors of each on both sides of the discussion.

Maybe we should start a thread juxtaposing the Canon of the OF, Cranmer’s Communion Service and the Ancient Mass to take a look at the lex credendi of each?

 

[ProVobis]

One measure of degree of solemnity is as used with the 1962 Mass:

Good answer. But the point is that if someone says that one form of Catholic liturgy is worth more than the other, he is wrong. But if he says one is more solemn than another, then that would not necessarily be wrong, according to the wording in the catechism. Is this not true?

 

[ElizabethPH]

Critiquing the OF’s exposition of the lex credendi in relation to the Ancient Mass is not necessarily “putting it down” Annabelle. Of course there are detractors of each on both sides of the discussion.

Maybe we should start a thread juxtaposing the Canon of the OF, Cranmer’s Communion Service and the Ancient Mass to take a look at the lex credendi of each?

Yes please go away and start another thread criticizing the Ordinary Form.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: [1124] “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition”.”

In both forms.

 

[Roy5]

In my mind, meaningful worship is a very personal thing. I have had a hobby in recent years, one that many ‘traditionalist Catholics’ would condemn. I have visited about 200 different houses of worship, all sorts of Protestant and Orthodox churches, but also churches of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, synagogues, mosques, temples of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. This stems from a great thirst for knowledge as to why and how various people worship God.

 What I have found - no surprise - is 'different strokes for different folks' I have been impressed by the liturgical music in Orthodox churches, deeply touched by rousing Pentecostal hymns, impressed by the broad perspectives on faith in mainline Protestant sermons, confused a bit but appreciative of Orthodox Jewish worship. puzzled somewhat by some Hindu customs, respectful of Buddhist meditation practices - and we could go on. Perhaps the most amazing in a sense are the Quakers, who sit quietly except for occasional brief talks by those who feel moved to share some thought. I confess that I do love the Quaker peace testimony, which seems front and center among them. 

 I'm saying this because I have become solidly convinced that there are many paths to God, who is Sovereign over all the universe. Certainly some of my ancestors would have treasured the Latin Mass (a great-great+-uncle was an archbishop in Quebec), but I also have Protestant relatives of a variety of denominations. They all seem to find strength in their form of worship, whether Episcopalian ritual or Congregationalist simplicity. 

 One other experience. A few years ago I went to Burlington, Co, for a family reunion. There was a Catholic Church, so I dropped by. Well, it claimed to be a traditional Catholic Church but turned out to consider the Papacy heretical since Vatican II. The priest showed me pictures of John Paul II kissing the Koran and other evidence of Papal heresy. Just how true any of these charges are I don't know and could not refute him. But his narrowness and intolerance and bitterness was so apparent and his rant so harsh that I wouldn't want anything to do with that 'religion' if it is 'traditional' Catholicism. It seemed to reek of the spirit of Muslim crazies who think that their faction alone is on its way to heaven and the entire rest of humankind will burn in hell. He certainly approved of the intense pain this would inflict eternally upon others (like me)! I wanted to ask him how the love of Christ was made evident in all this, but decided to listen and not run afoul of his raving lest I become an immediate target, too.

 Was it St. Paul who suggested moderation in all things, or something to that effect?After visiting so many houses of worship I pray for the day when religion will become a bridge instead of a barrier. I know that some folks like to quote those verses of scripture that seem to focus on Christ bringing division and the inevitability of war. I personally prefer the Sermon and the Mount, and especially the Beatitudes. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God!" And I have a special affection for I Cor. 13 and that little letter of I John 4:20-21, also.

 

[Vico]

Good answer. But the point is that if someone says that one form of Catholic liturgy is worth more than the other, he is wrong. But if he says one is more solemn than another, then that would not necessarily be wrong, according to the wording in the catechism. Is this not true?

True.

 

[wsxyz]

Maybe…I just haven’t seen many people who can say they prefer the EF without putting the OF down.

Perhaps it would help you to recognize that calling the Novus Ordo, and the raft of practices associated with it, a work of destruction, is not intended as an attack against you, or any other average NO-attending Catholic. It is simply a recognition that the foundational principles of the NO were destructive, having the intent to make Catholic worship acceptable to Lutherans and other similar protestant sects, and of the obvious quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake.

The average Catholic of the early 21st century can not be held responsible for the failings of the NO. They, presumably, just want to practice the faith the best they can and hopefully save their souls. They were brought up in the NO, or that’s all that is available to them, and they don’t understand why its problematic.

The Holy Spirit preserved the Church from defection and the the NO is valid. But just because it is valid, and just because the Holy Spirit preserved the Church from defection, doesn’t mean that the NO isn’t deficient. It is certainly possible for a valid Mass to be deficient with respect to some “better” Mass. With respect to the traditional Mass, the Novus Ordo is deficient, and I have no doubt that the common Mass of the 22nd century will be closer to the traditional Mass than to the Novus Ordo.

 

[Vico]

The reason for the Novus Ordo are given in Sacrosanctum Concilium
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Here are just a few:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
   …
2. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
   …
3. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world.

 

[adstrinity]

Hey.

Read about through half of the posts on the first page.

Concerning the “feeling” closer to God at the TLM; it’s not how one FEELS that is important. This is a mistake that the more liberal / less Orthodox Catholics want to make. THE MASS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS, ergo, I don’t like this argument. Rather the Mass is about His Church being able to worship God…this is sometimes…prohibited at a few OF Masses.

Second, I believe that kneeling while receiving the Eucharist in a church that doesn’t have a communion rail and is celebrating the OF Mass is some how forbidden or discouraged because it will hold up the Communion line. I think the posture one is to take is to stand, but, bow before one receives.

AND, to correct something else you stated, traditional Catholics are with the Pope in the hopes of reconciling the SSPX to the Church. We look forward to the SSPX renouncing the errors of their past and admitting that they will change to accept all of Rome’s decisions.

To answer the original question, it is hard to be traditional because there is a system in play that makes traditional the opposite of modern, and since many accept modern as good, opposite of good is bad.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You write as if you expect the worst from Catholics who are attached to tradition. When someone was backing up a claim about Church teaching with a quote from Pope Benedict XV, you made a point to say it was XV rather than XVI and therefore not tainted. Since you were responding to a post replying to my question, there seemed to be an implication that it would have mattered to me which pope had made the statement. I found that offensive.

I’m sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I’ve had something of a full agenda to attend to.

First of all, I apologize if you were offended. The poster that responded to you was posting, FOR you, a quote that I had provided in another thread, by HH Pope Benedict XV. He has been confused before, when that encyclical has been quoted in the fora, with HH Pope Benedict XVI. And yes, I clarified that in a rather flip manner (the time period, ie, pre-or-post Vatican II seems to matter to some traditionalists and kindly note I said “some,” not all). It was not aimed at you, however.

I do not “expect the worst from Catholics who are attached to tradition” and I regret if my writing comes off that way. I am, however, accustomed to all manner of misrepresentation and misinformation by, again, SOME traditionalists, which undoubtedly comes across; indeed, I can hardly see how it would fail to do so. Nonetheless, I maintain that within the world of these fora, all of them within Catholic Answers, those orthodox Catholics who post and who prefer or have an attachment to the OF, have far more to complain about in terms of the denigration of that form, the popes who celebrated it and ruled during it’s dominance, etc. BY a great many attached to the EF than those attached to the EF have to complain about the denigration of that form by those attached to the OF. I believe any objective exmination of the postings to these fora will bear out that assertion. Now, were we talking about the “real” world beyond the postings in these fora, I readily agree that the EF has a large number of foes and some them quite outspoken. Though I cannot directly attribute (and so should not) any quotes regarding the EF to these people, I tend to think of them as the “O’Brien, Chichester, Rohr, and Gumbleton crowd.” Yes, they have a following. It is more than likely a following that is numerically larger than those attached to the EF, but much smaller than the whole of the Church, which I’m sure if polled would only care that they could hear the Mass in their language (which at this time puts them in the OF “camp”). Thing is, within these fora, the O’Brien et al crowd don’t tend to post. When they do, they get quickly jumped by A) the group that they would call “conservatives” (and which SOME traditionalists call “slow liberals”) and B) the traditionalists, which they would call radicals (I suppose. Hence my ambivalence regarding labels).

Finally, I think I should explain something. Yes, I’m one “attached” to the OF, but really only for two reasons. First, it has what I would call a “noble austerity.” Second, (and probably more important for me) I really think it’s wonderful that I can hear the Canon of the Mass in my own tongue and the Consecration audibly. I’ve nothing AT ALL against the OF or those attached to it and, indeed, from a prose point of view, it’s sublime (compare the offeratory of the two, for example).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hey.

Second, I believe that kneeling while receiving the Eucharist in a church that doesn’t have a communion rail and is celebrating the OF Mass is some how forbidden or discouraged because it will hold up the Communion line. I think the posture one is to take is to stand, but, bow before one receives.

With respect, a correction: the rights of the faithful to kneel for Holy Communion should they choose to do so has been affirmed by the Holy See, precisely when I cannot recall, but during the reign of the current Holy Father, the presence or absence of communion rails and the custom of the parish or diocese notwithstanding.

 

[ProVobis]

To answer the original question, it is hard to be traditional because there is a system in play that makes traditional the opposite of modern, and since many accept modern as good, opposite of good is bad.

Good point.

I don’t consider myself a traditionalist, having been in hi-tech for over 30 years and where most spend their weekends at work and frown on anyone taking time off to go to Church. So I have to play their progressive game but still find time to go to Mass on Sunday. The quiet, peaceful atmosphere in the EF hits the spot for me.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Perhaps it would help you to recognize that calling the Novus Ordo, and the raft of practices associated with it, a work of destruction, is not intended as an attack against you, or any other average NO-attending Catholic. It is simply a recognition that the foundational principles of the NO were destructive, having the intent to make Catholic worship acceptable to Lutherans and other similar protestant sects, and of the obvious quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake.

**That’s where you wont’ get agreement. It is not a fact that the “foundational principles of the NO were desructive.” That is your opinion. It is not a fact that we were trying to make it more palatable to Lutherans. That has been denied by the Holy See and by the Protestant observers at the council. And the “quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake?” Also not a fact and any respectable social scientist would laught at such an assertion. “Correlation does not prove causation” and there is no way to prove that nuns left the convent, people left the churches, etc, because of the OF. **

The average Catholic of the early 21st century can not be held responsible for the failings of the NO. They, presumably, just want to practice the faith the best they can and hopefully save their souls. They were brought up in the NO, or that’s all that is available to them, and they don’t understand why its problematic.

**A great number of us (and apparently the Holy Father himself) would disagree that it is problematic at all. **

The Holy Spirit preserved the Church from defection and the the NO is valid. But just because it is valid, and just because the Holy Spirit preserved the Church from defection, doesn’t mean that the NO isn’t deficient. It is certainly possible for a valid Mass to be deficient with respect to some “better” Mass. With respect to the traditional Mass, the Novus Ordo is deficient, and I have no doubt that the common Mass of the 22nd century will be closer to the traditional Mass than to the Novus Ordo.

Again, your last paragraph is simply rife with personal opinion, which is, quite fortunately, not shared by the Vicar of Christ on Earth or the greater part of the Church Militant. But thank you for going a long way toward proving my assertion.

 

[floresco]

I’m sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I’ve had something of a full agenda to attend to.

First of all, I apologize if you were offended. The poster that responded to you was posting, FOR you, a quote that I had provided in another thread, by HH Pope Benedict XV. He has been confused before, when that encyclical has been quoted in the fora, with HH Pope Benedict XVI. And yes, I clarified that in a rather flip manner (the time period, ie, pre-or-post Vatican II seems to matter to some traditionalists and kindly note I said “some,” not all). It was not aimed at you, however.

I do not “expect the worst from Catholics who are attached to tradition” and I regret if my writing comes off that way. I am, however, accustomed to all manner of misrepresentation and misinformation by, again, SOME traditionalists, which undoubtedly comes across; indeed, I can hardly see how it would fail to do so. Nonetheless, I maintain that within the world of these fora, all of them within Catholic Answers, those orthodox Catholics who post and who prefer or have an attachment to the OF, have far more to complain about in terms of the denigration of that form, the popes who celebrated it and ruled during it’s dominance, etc. BY a great many attached to the EF than those attached to the EF have to complain about the denigration of that form by those attached to the OF. I believe any objective exmination of the postings to these fora will bear out that assertion. …

When you employed your “flip manner” there was nothing to indicate that it applied to only “some”. There was a clear implication that those inclined toward tradition do not accept magisterial authority and there were no qualifications on it. And this was not an isolated incident. I remember the details of this one because I was involved, but my reaction at the time was that this was typical for you. I am only writing this because you asked. You really seem unaware of the way you are coming across.Your tone is often quite negative.

I find it unlikely that any of us can accurately ascertain who is doing the most denigration without an objective examination. You are perhaps familiar with a phenomenon known as “confirmation bias”. We know that people’s impressions of this sort of thing tend to be inaccurate. Most people are going to be quite sure that it is the “other side” who behaves worse. To find out what is really happening, we would need some objective way to measure denigration and apply it to a statistically significant random sample of posts.

However, even without doing this, I think it is safe to say that each side is doing more denigration than it ought to be and that each of us should strive not to denigrate authorized forms of the Mass or the people who are attached to them.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

When you employed your “flip manner” there was nothing to indicate that it applied to only “some”. There was a clear implication that those inclined toward tradition do not accept magisterial authority and there were no qualifications on it. And this was not an isolated incident. I remember the details of this one because I was involved, but my reaction at the time was that this was typical for you. I am only writing this because you asked. You really seem unaware of the way you are coming across.Your tone is often quite negative.

I find it unlikely that any of us can accurately ascertain who is doing the most denigration without an objective examination. You are perhaps familiar with a phenomenon known as “confirmation bias”. We know that people’s impressions of this sort of thing tend to be inaccurate. Most people are going to be quite sure that it is the “other side” who behaves worse. To find out what is really happening, we would need some objective way to measure denigration and apply it to a statistically significant random sample of posts.

However, even without doing this, I think it is safe to say that each side is doing more denigration than it ought to be and that each of us should strive not to denigrate authorized forms of the Mass or the people who are attached to them.

Well, again, within these forums, I think any objective observer would disagree and I think the most cursory reading of the archived threads would bear this out.

I shall endeavor to be more vigilant in examing the tone of my postings. I do not, however, plead guilty to attacking denigrating the EF nor to denigrating traditionalists as a whole. Also, very often some people are offended because they are rather pointedly looking to be so. A writer can do little about that.

 

[adstrinity]

With respect, a correction: the rights of the faithful to kneel for Holy Communion should they choose to do so has been affirmed by the Holy See, precisely when I cannot recall, but during the reign of the current Holy Father, the presence or absence of communion rails and the custom of the parish or diocese notwithstanding.

Should you find the documentation, would you please post it? I have read, on this forum, a few times (though none recent), that bowing was what one was SUPPOSED to do…it showed respect to God in the priest’s hand, but did so efficiently (I think is the reason). This was for all, those who wanted to kneel and those who weren’t doing ANYTHING before receiving Jesus. …But, all the things I say do not mean anything without the proof to back it up…but I wouldn’t know how to begin to look.

Good point.

Awww. Thank you. You do my humility a disservice.

I don’t consider myself a traditionalist, having been in hi-tech for over 30 years and where most spend their weekends at work and frown on anyone taking time off to go to Church. So I have to play their progressive game but still find time to go to Mass on Sunday. The quiet, peaceful atmosphere in the EF hits the spot for me.

Yes, I must agree. There is a church that celebrates the OF about five minutes away from me, and it is done fairly reverently, no abuses to speak of, things that make me cringe in a bad way here and there, but, I don’t know if God is being abused or disrespected…all things considered, the church is beautiful, stained glass and statues, but, though the EF church I drive to is less gradiose in structure (it’s more modern), the atmosphere, the reverence of both the priests and people, and the Celebration itself does have more of a respectful quality about it. I think you hit it, though, quiet. No chatting before or after Mass and parents teach their children how to behave, or at least be quiet at the EF’s to which I have been, where it’s not given a priority at all the OF’s to which I’ve been, which brings me to my next point that I just realized: it’s hard to do anything above and beyond, and, there’s also a certain mindset that prevails in all humans called sloth. I’d go on, but, there’s too much speculation involved.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Should you find the documentation, would you please post it? I have read, on this forum, a few times (though none recent), that bowing was what one was SUPPOSED to do…it showed respect to God in the priest’s hand, but did so efficiently (I think is the reason). This was for all, those who wanted to kneel and those who weren’t doing ANYTHING before receiving Jesus. …But, all the things I say do not mean anything without the proof to back it up…but I wouldn’t know how to begin to look.

Surely. See this link for a copy of a letter from then-Undersecretary for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Msgr. Marino, now the Papal Master of Ceremonies.

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/LawText/LawIndex/47

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Perhaps it would help you to recognize that calling the Novus Ordo, and the raft of practices associated with it, a work of destruction, is not intended as an attack against you, or any other average NO-attending Catholic. It is simply a recognition that the foundational principles of the NO were destructive, having the intent to make Catholic worship acceptable to Lutherans and other similar protestant sects, and of the obvious quantitatively measurable destruction of the faith that followed in its wake.

The average Catholic of the early 21st century can not be held responsible for the failings of the NO. They, presumably, just want to practice the faith the best they can and hopefully save their souls. They were brought up in the NO, or that’s all that is available to them, and they don’t understand why its problematic.

The Holy Spirit preserved the Church from defection and the the NO is valid. But just because it is valid, and just because the Holy Spirit preserved the Church from defection, doesn’t mean that the NO isn’t deficient. It is certainly possible for a valid Mass to be deficient with respect to some “better” Mass. With respect to the traditional Mass, the Novus Ordo is deficient, and I have no doubt that the common Mass of the 22nd century will be closer to the traditional Mass than to the Novus Ordo.

With all due respect…you just proved my point. It’s not our fault that the NO is deficient? PLEASE! That is YOUR opinion. For the OP–Really…you haven’t seen the NO attacked? Then you haven’t opened your eyes enough honey…this is the kind of stuff I hear regurgetated at us ALL the time. “Our traditional Mass is better…we learn the real stuff…that confession is important…that there is a heaven and hell…” Well guess what…I hear that at my NO Mass too.

 

[maurin]

Yes please go away and start another thread criticizing the Ordinary Form.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: [1124] “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition”.”

In both forms.

Critiquing and criticizing are not tthe same thing, Elizabeth. What fear do you have to see Cranmer"s Communion Service Juxtaposed to the Eucharistic prayer that you would say, “go away?”

 

[Stylites]

In my mind, meaningful worship is a very personal thing. I have had a hobby in recent years, one that many ‘traditionalist Catholics’ would condemn. I have visited about 200 different houses of worship, all sorts of Protestant and Orthodox churches, but also churches of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, synagogues, mosques, temples of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. This stems from a great thirst for knowledge as to why and how various people worship God.

You have a cool hobby!

One other experience. A few years ago I went to Burlington, Co, for a family reunion. There was a Catholic Church, so I dropped by. Well, it claimed to be a traditional Catholic Church but turned out to consider the Papacy heretical since Vatican II. The priest showed me pictures of John Paul II kissing the Koran and other evidence of Papal heresy. Just how true any of these charges are I don’t know and could not refute him. But his narrowness and intolerance and bitterness was so apparent and his rant so harsh that I wouldn’t want anything to do with that ‘religion’ if it is ‘traditional’ Catholicism. It seemed to reek of the spirit of Muslim crazies who think that their faction alone is on its way to heaven and the entire rest of humankind will burn in hell. He certainly approved of the intense pain this would inflict eternally upon others (like me)! I wanted to ask him how the love of Christ was made evident in all this, but decided to listen and not run afoul of his raving lest I become an immediate target, too.

Today’s Scripture readings seem to apply well to this sad scenario.