Why stick with tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I often ask myself this question as I make hard sacrifices to attend the Latin Mass and follow traditions adhered to for ages that have been thrown away for the most part. I am constantly questioned by family and the world for my choice. And I must constantly question myself when the choice to follow tradition places me in an extreme minority within my own religion.

Overall, above every reason except that I feel it brings greater glory to God, I choose to follow tradition because it is the only thing on earth that can connect me with my ancestors and the early Christians. It is my lifeline to something truly meaningful in this artificial modern world.
 
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
Many will put forth reasons, so I’ll leave it to them, but I will say a few things.

The OF has too many options - and the English translation has a zillion more. For example: Gather us in with the questionable line ‘not in some heaven light years away’ can replace the scriptural Entrance Chant from the Roman/Simple Gradual.

Many tradtions are not just old things we are used to, but have imense beauty and theological significane and lift up the heart and mind to God: Like when the Priest joins the people in facing the Lord (ad orientum). There is no tradtion east or west of the Priest facing the people.

But why tradtion? Imagine Christmas without Christmas trees, Silent Night etc. Now how would one feel if someone said words to the effect of so what, they’re just tradtions not doctrine.
 
I choose to follow tradition because it is the only thing on earth that can** connect me with my ancestors and the early Christians.** It is my lifeline to something truly meaningful in this artificial modern world.
Yes indeed.
I, too, feel more connected with the Church when assisting at a traditional Mass.
In the same way, even at an OF Mass, knowing that we are celebrating the same Sacrifice as Christians (ie Catholics) always have, brings me closer to the Communion of the Saints. That, too, is tradition. So celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass does the same thing, but it is much clearer that the Sacrifice is the unchanging Sacrifice that Jesus made for us once on the Cross.
 
Yes indeed.
I, too, feel more connected with the Church when assisting at a traditional Mass.
In the same way, even at an OF Mass, knowing that we are celebrating the same Sacrifice as Christians (ie Catholics) always have, brings me closer to the Communion of the Saints. That, too, is tradition. So celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass does the same thing, but it is much clearer that the Sacrifice is the unchanging Sacrifice that Jesus made for us once on the Cross.
So the TLM is the same Mass that the old saints attended? How cool is that?! 😃

Unfortunately, the NO Mass is but 40 years old 😦
 
The problem with this word is that it is an official form of the Church: “Holy Tradition” is invoked often. I find it very queer that an institution can speak of its adherence to ancient traditions when it allows the same to be swept away 1930 years after its establishment. “Why stick with tradition” can be answered with the sound-byte: “because the Church officially teaches the holiness of Tradition and the Magisterium”. The more germane question is “why abandon tradition when the very body in question claims adherence to tradition”?
I agree.

And I don’t know if this fits your argument but the other way to look at it is that Apostolic Succession is also “handed down” and not skipped a generation or two and certainly not started with the last council.
 
Good responses so far. I’m enjoying this exchange.

What do you guys think of this article?

traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm
The wesite itself is a big turn off to many here including some trads. I’ve read it before, it’s rehash of an old argument.

Why not look at the positive things going on in the Church now ? We have a pope w/strong faith and a lot has changed since H.H. became pope.

These folks are focusing their energy in a positive way, instead of arguing on forums. 😉
newliturgicalmovement.org/
 
[bibledrb]Psalm 45:11[/bibledrb]
I’m not quite old enough to remember when the old Mass was the OF, but in the 1970’s, '80’s and '90’s, I saw the reverence and solemnity of the Mass at my parish & others ebb away.

In the old Mass I find the quiet awareness that we are in God’s house that I formerly found in the new Mass when it was very new.
 
[bibledrb]Psalm 45:11[/bibledrb]
I’m not quite old enough to remember when the old Mass was the OF, but in the 1970’s, '80’s and '90’s, I saw the reverence and solemnity of the Mass at my parish & others ebb away.

In the old Mass I find the quiet awareness that we are in God’s house that I formerly found in the new Mass when it was very new.
Can you explain what you mean when you say you ‘saw the reverence and solemnity… ebb away’?
 
I converted to Catholicism because I came to believe that Christ founded it 2,000 years ago. I came from a Church that was founded relatively recently, and had was raised in a Church that didn’t even go back to the Reformation (Methodist).

So you can imagine my puzzlement at the efforts–conscious or not–to make the Church SEEM as though it were founded in the 60’s.

To me, a timeless Church should have a timelessness about it–and certainly should not grab onto the fads of the age.

The Traditional Latin Mass does seem timeless–because it it. The Novus Ordo was a mass from the 60’s, and it seems very “today” rather than timeless–at least to me.
 
This was intended to rebut my brief, general statement: “3. It is not subject to fads and abuse.”

Your link indicates that there was a feast celebrated in the 11th Century. I was referring to the actual, literal rubrics in the missal of 1962.

Indeed, did the feast that you were citing even use an official version of the mass? I can’t imagine that it did.

I’ve been to countless Traditional Latin Masses, and I’ve not see even one abuse. (On rare occasion you’ll find an honest mistake.)

I do know that the Society of Saint John took it upon themselves to imagine who the the mass WOULD have developed into: they lost their contributors and are no longer in the US–but they were not abusing the missile of 1962, they created a new one.

So, I stick my my original general statement: I do indeed believe that that is an advantage to the Traditional Latin Mass. It does not seem to me that your link contradicted my statement at all, but in any event I fell very comfortable in a forum setting making an unremarkable statement reflecting the general experience and agreement of all (with you being the only exception that I’ve ever run into…and even then coming up with an 11th Century issue)–without implying that I’ve read every single book and document in existence–and validated the claims of each–before making an internet post.

There is simply no comparison between the two masses in 2010 in this regard.
 
This was intended to rebut my brief, general statement: “3. It is not subject to fads and abuse.”

Your link indicates that there was a feast celebrated in the 11th Century. I was referring to the actual, literal rubrics in the missal of 1962.

Indeed, did the feast that you were citing even use an official version of the mass? I can’t imagine that it did.

I’ve been to countless Traditional Latin Masses, and I’ve not see even one abuse. (On rare occasion you’ll find an honest mistake.)

I do know that the Society of Saint John took it upon themselves to imagine who the the mass WOULD have developed into: they lost their contributors and are no longer in the US–but they were not abusing the missile of 1962, they created a new one.

So, I stick my my original general statement: I do indeed believe that that is an advantage to the Traditional Latin Mass. It does not seem to me that your link contradicted my statement at all, but in any event I fell very comfortable in a forum setting making an unremarkable statement reflecting the general experience and agreement of all (with you being the only exception that I’ve ever run into…and even then coming up with an 11th Century issue)–without implying that I’ve read every single book and document in existence–and validated the claims of each–before making an internet post.

There is simply no comparison between the two masses in 2010 in this regard.
According to the article, the practice of the “feast” endured for several hundred years after that, and is attested in the liturgical books of the time. My point, really, is that one’s perspective may be a little skewed when comparing (1) a Mass practiced only by a small cadre of especially dedicated priests, against (2) a Mass practiced by everyone else (including plenty of other equally dedicated priests, but also all those who are not) in the age of phone cameras and YouTube. We know, of course, that there were plenty of abuses of the TLM for centuries, since popes and bishops over and over again had to issue documents condemning them and correcting the liturgy. But we don’t have any video or audio, and practically no “candid” photos, so it’s impossible to get much of a sense of it. I posted one example significant and long-lived enough to have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. (And for all we’ve heard of them, I don’t think a Catholic Encyclopedia in the year 2700 will have an entry on “Clown Mass.”)

I don’t think very many TLM lovers would really be happy with the results if those priests who do a lame, lazy, or downright awful job of the OF were suddenly pressed into saying the EF instead. It’s easy to say that there are no abuses in the EF right now and it’s super-reverent, so everyone should be doing it, but what’s the saying? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Don’t mistake my point, I do think that the nature of the EF makes it harder to introduce abuses. (It might be a different story if there were any priests who were fluent in Latin.) Still, to claim that the EF is “not subject to fads or abuses” is just setting yourself up for disappointment. For a very basic example, look at the Masses celebrated versus populum and the stripped-down, modernist-style churches – of the 1950s. My point is simply that if we get unjustifiedly complacent about it (“Oh, that could never happen here!”) we just invite it all over again.
 
According to the article, the practice of the “feast” endured for several hundred years after that, and is attested in the liturgical books of the time. My point, really, is that one’s perspective may be a little skewed when comparing (1) a Mass practiced only by a small cadre of especially dedicated priests, against (2) a Mass practiced by everyone else (including plenty of other equally dedicated priests, but also all those who are not) in the age of phone cameras and YouTube. We know, of course, that there were plenty of abuses of the TLM for centuries, since popes and bishops over and over again had to issue documents condemning them and correcting the liturgy. But we don’t have any video or audio, and practically no “candid” photos, so it’s impossible to get much of a sense of it. I posted one example significant and long-lived enough to have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. (And for all we’ve heard of them, I don’t think a Catholic Encyclopedia in the year 2700 will have an entry on “Clown Mass.”)

I don’t think very many TLM lovers would really be happy with the results if those priests who do a lame, lazy, or downright awful job of the OF were suddenly pressed into saying the EF instead. It’s easy to say that there are no abuses in the EF right now and it’s super-reverent, so everyone should be doing it, but what’s the saying? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Don’t mistake my point, I do think that the nature of the EF makes it harder to introduce abuses. (It might be a different story if there were any priests who were fluent in Latin.) Still, to claim that the EF is “not subject to fads or abuses” is just setting yourself up for disappointment. For a very basic example, look at the Masses celebrated versus populum and the stripped-down, modernist-style churches – of the 1950s. My point is simply that if we get unjustifiedly complacent about it (“Oh, that could never happen here!”) we just invite it all over again.
Interesting point, one that I have considered many times. If we suddenly reverted to all EF all the time, we could see a lot of strange aberrations. Right now, it is something unique and special, shared by a group that feels persecuted and so we do not take it for granted.

However, that didn’t make me feel any better this morning as I walked down Madison Ave behind St Patrick’s Cathedral on my way to TLM at a parish near Grand Central. I was lamenting that I couldn’t just go into my cathedral church and worship there the way my father and his father did. :rolleyes:
 
Can you explain what you mean when you say you ‘saw the reverence and solemnity… ebb away’?
Well, this took some thinking. In general, older practices and attitudes persisted for several years after the introduction of the new Mass, and new practices were adopted at different times in different parishes.

In 1970, we still received Holy Communion from a priest on the tongue, kneeling at the altar rail with an altar boy holding a paten under the chin.

The other priests in residence came out to assist in distributing Holy Communion. Now less value is placed on receiving from the hand of a priest. We have EMHCs that come forward to assist, even when there are so few worshippers that the use of EMHCs slows down Communion.

When Communion in the hand was introduced to our parish, we were instructed to step to the side after receiving the host and consume it immediately, while facing the altar and tabernacle. Even in introducing a novelty, some of the old careful attitude remained. And we did as we were instructed for a while, but over the years people started taking the Eucharist and then consuming while walking away from the EMHC. This makes it easier for abuses to occur (I found a host between the pages of a hymnal).

When a bow of the head before Communion was introduced, obviously some of the old attitude of reverence persisted, but not enough to make the new practice take hold. Most people here receive without making some sort of external sign of respect for our Lord.

Some parishes I visited experimented with hosts that tended to leave crumbs.

We used to genuflect every time we walked in front of the tabernacle (even if we were at a distance from it); now few of us do that.

IIRC, the lector used to genuflect toward the altar or tabernacle before reading. That was replaced by a deep bow, which in turn has been replaced by more shallow bows.

When the priest and altar servers processed out at the end of Mass, we genuflected for the crucifix and priest; that practice has disappeared.

We were taught to genuflect and cross ourselves if sprinkled with Holy Water during Mass. I don’t think people genuflect any more for the “rite of sprinkling”.

We used to maintain a prayerful quiet before and after Mass, until the '80s or '90s. If people spoke in Church, they spoke in whispers. Different parishes lost the quiet at different times.

We used to have votive candles before our statue of Mary & maybe elsewhere, part of the contemplative atmosphere that evaporated.

Other parishes lost more than candles, tossing out statues, icons and altar rails.

We had Mass both in the Church and in the school cafeteria. The cafeteria was noisier than the Church, especially after Mass, but people generally restrained themselves to a murmur until they got out into the hall after Mass.

Even in the cafeteria, where there were no kneelers, people would kneel for the consecration. We now have a kneelerless chapel instead of the cafeteria. The carpeting there is as soft as a kneeler, but far fewer people kneel there than kneeled on the linoleum in the cafeteria.

The flakier songs used to be restricted to the young people’s Masses. In the cafeteria, we told Michael and his sister to row their boat ashore, but in the “big church” we would still “Sing to Mary, pure and holy”. Somewhere along the way, even in the adult Masses, we started to try to “sing a new church into being” and pretend that we ourselves are the bread of life.

We had a problem for some years with homilies that were very thin on moral or doctrinal content. I’m not sure that all the priests I heard were blessed with a deep and abiding faith.

Early on, the priests at our parish always used Eucharistic prayer I (the “Roman canon”) and honored all the saints of the canon by name. I can’t remember the last time I heard Sts. Linus, Cletus, Clement and company explicitly honored in the new Mass.

There seems to be more of a problem in recent years of priests and deacons not strictly following the rubrics, but it may just be that I’m more aware of the rubrics.

Last year I sat behind a family that shared a snack shortly before they went up for Communion. That was new. But in general, things have been gradually improving around here for the last decade.

Almost all of the pious practices I remember are restored with old Mass, as much as circumstances permit. The changes go beyond Mass. Confession lines at our parish have become strikingly longer in the couple of years since the old Mass returned.
 
Uh oh… I’ve seen some of these threads so I hope that everyone keeps it civil 🙂
Ok, for me I actually go to BOTH NO and EF (NO on Sat, and EF on Sun). It was funny because during RCIA I was drawn big time to the EF without even knowing anything about it at all. I found a parish that had EF and a webcam and for about a month I watched it via webcam scared to go but I finally went there, sat in back by myself (this was before I had my first Communion so I just sat while everyone else went up).
The first time I went I was like amazed at the amount of reverence and how beautiful it all was. I had no clue what was being said as I’d never been to a Latin Mass and didn’t know any Latin, but still I just was in awe the entire time. I went back again the next week, and the next and so on. I finally got a Latin/English Missal and started learning how to follow along and realized as I did, what everyone means by the “Sacrifice of Mass”, that is something I never understood at the NO Mass.
Ok, so here’s the differences I see and this only concerns my own opinion at two different parishes.
NO
*Talking before, DURING (yes, during), and after Mass
*People at the NO parish (my home parish) don’t seem too reverent (other than a few), and seem like they go for social hour sometimes (I don’t mean to judge them, but it seems that way sometimes and it’s not everyone)
*The Mass itself seems like it’s lacking in some way, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it
*I do like that I can understand it but think that so much was taken away when it was changed (based on what I’m reading in my Latin Missal), that all of that could have just stayed and made the Mass so much better.
*I like that my NO parish is kind of smaller so people there know you and care about you
EF
*About 95% of the people that go to the parish with the EF are very respectful, usually no talking before, def none during, and very little afterward.
*REVERENCE
*I love the extra prayers that are in the EF, and how much they show our need for God in all things
*The EF parish is bigger so nobody there really has a clue who I am or knows my name even though I’ve been going for 6 months or so now

All this being said, I think if I had come into the Church and there wasn’t the NO I may have been super confused at first, but I would have stuck it out simply because even without knowing what was being said, I could tell how reverent it was. The NO was good for me in the beginning to help me learn, but I prefer the EF now.
I’ve been on Facebook to often. Where is the “Like” button for this post?
:):):):)🙂
 
Yes, ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’. What I basically mean is, why is the Latin, pre-VII Mass better than the current NO Mass? Why stick with a TLM over that? What’s the main ‘beef’ with the NO Mass and why? Please don’t just say 'EMHCs". Please explain why you feel that way.

And keep it civil. I do not want this thread closed down.

Thank you,
coolduude:cool:
Typical. “I am going to pose a question that is by its nature argumentative, but expect no one to take exception.”
 
I really like the concept of the priest facing the same direction as the people and leading them toward Christ. My only question is why the Traditional Mass is not conducive to participation (at least the one I went to recently). The choir even seemed to sing without direct reference to what the priest was doing. They were singing the Kyrie before the priest got to that point, and began to sing the recessional before he began to read the Last Gospel, and it put me off. No wonder you hear of people reciting their rosaries and other prayers during Mass.

Education is necessary in either form. Reverence is I believe a function of the direction of the priest and the mindset of the people who have gathered.

Ruth
 
I really like the concept of the priest facing the same direction as the people and leading them toward Christ. My only question is why the Traditional Mass is not conducive to participation (at least the one I went to recently). The choir even seemed to sing without direct reference to what the priest was doing. They were singing the Kyrie before the priest got to that point, and began to sing the recessional before he began to read the Last Gospel, and it put me off. No wonder you hear of people reciting their rosaries and other prayers during Mass.

Education is necessary in either form. Reverence is I believe a function of the direction of the priest and the mindset of the people who have gathered.

Ruth
Dear Ruthmary,

You get out what you put in. I attended a High Mass last night here in NYC and realized I participated far more in that Mass than I probably do at a NO, being audible.

The Latin Mass offers for a more introspective participation, no less full then shouting out “Amens and Alleluias.”

Take a moment before Mass begins and unite yourself, body, soul and mind with the priest’s words, actions and intentions.

I don’t know where you are located, but there some oratories and parishes are offering “dialogue masses,” perhaps that would be more conducive for you.

If you have a little extra money you might try:

sanctamissa.org/workshops/

This is a great site to increase your understanding and participation in TLM:

sanctamissa.org/en/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top