Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

Yesterday my mom and I were driving somewhere and a catchy song that I don’t really like (has lots of profanity, etc.) came on the radio. My mom said, “So I’m guessing you don’t like this song much.” I replied, “No.” “Thats okay,” she replied, “Traditional Catholics believe that catchy praise and worship songs are of the devil, too.”
I didn’t make any faces, but this is basically what went through my head: :confused::(:eek::hmmm:
She went into a store and after she came back out, I tried to explain that not all Traditional Catholics believe that, and that sometimes praise and worship songs aren’t used in the right way.

What are some misconceptions about Traditional Catholics that you have come up against, and how did you respond?

Sometimes, I’m treated like I’m affiliated with the SSPX, or a sedevacantist movement. There is a misconception that all traditionalists think the OF is blasphemous. You know, that kind of thing.

Bingo. Probably the most prevalent and painful misconception out there about us.

Also, for some reason, whenever I advocate Latin be used in the Holy Mass (as has been commended by every Pope for the past century and Vatican II…), the most frequent response is “Jesus didn’t speak Latin, God understands whatever language Mass is in”… as if I didn’t already know that.

Actually, Jesus lived during Roman rule, so he probably did speak Latin. :thumbsup:

Can you give some examples of the misconceptions. I have recently returned to the church after a long absence so by default I fall into the group of traditional Catholics. The traditional high mass in Latin is one my fondest memories of my youth.

Not quite. He lived in the Roman Levant so he would’ve spoken Syriac and a bit of Greek perhaps (and Hebrew for Temple).

Any who, the argument about not using Latin because Christ didn’t speak it and prayer is understood in any language is such a silly argument. What I like to do is fill in the missing necessary premises for arguments like that and show people their implicit assumptions :p.
1 Christ didn’t speak Latin
2 Christ understands all languages
3 I am a worshipper who does not speak Latin
4 If worshipper does not understand than a vernacular should be used because intelligibility to the worshipper is the most important part of prayer.

C: Use vernacular

Why people say #1 I don’t know, Jesus didn’t speak English, French, Arabic or Slavonic either.

Well, some parishes wrongly use Praise and Worship music in the Mass. Praise and Worship music even if Catholic composed, is not intended for the Mass. It is not liturgical music. Perhaps your mom was reacting to the abuse of using incorrect and inappropriate music in the Holy Mass.
Some musicians believe that if the music “moves” them it’s ok for use in the Liturgy. Not.
There’s so much beautiful music in our history, that our children are not familiar with it. It’s a shame. When Sunday school children have no idea how Immaculate Mary goes…it’s a really sad and upsetting situation.

To be fair, there should also be a thread titled “misconceptions about Novus Or–err, I mean, Mainstream Catholics”

Common ones I hear are that:

“We don’t get with the times”

“Since the popes have changed church teaching you should follow along too”

“the way we are worshipping is illegal”

“we are wasting our time with the Tridentine form because it has been erased from existence during/after Vatican II de jure and de facto

I don’t understand when you say “wrongly used.” When I returned to the church I at first mourned the traditional mass of my childhood and was uncomfortable to the point of almost not returning. I overcame that urge and eventually received the sacraments. I still am somewhat uncomfortable but I know I am a better Catholic now than I ever was in my youth while attending Catholic schools.

I understand there are churches that still celebrate the Latin Mass at least on occasion but I am not close enough to any of them to make it practical to attend their services.

I don’t get why you assumed I’m a Latin Mass person. I’m a musician. Praise and Worship was not ever intended for the Mass, that’s all.

I didn’t assume that I but I can see it was implied for which I apologize. I am interested in how music is being “wrongly” used. Is the music “wrong” per se or rather is it a preference that some are uncomfortable with?

That we’re all anti-Semites or conspiracy theoriests. That one came from my dad.

It is wrong. It is permitted, currently, but it is wrong. Vatican II and every Pope in the last century has said that the music of the Roman rite is Gregorian chant, though polyphony and organ both have their places too. Contemporary Christian music, and also contemporary secular music for that matter, do not belong in the Holy Mass.

Music used in the Liturgy can be wrong if it does not impart dignity to what is transpiring.
for example…a rousing, rocking, Lamb of God is very inappropriate considering that portion of the liturgy. That’s what I meant. It’s more than being “uncomfortable”. It’s disrespectful and some who advance these things really don’t understand that. I suppose those who favor this type of thing are not intending to be disrespectful, but it is, regardless of whether you attend a “modern” Mass or any other.
That’s what I meant. No worries. :pshaw:

I like a lot of what you have said here. It is reasonable to say that Jesus most likely did not speak Latin, not that that matters as you said. Aramaic and Greek what have probably been the languages most commonly found in that culture. For me, I consider myself a traditionalist who actually prefers the Of Mass when done reverently. That being said, Latin is the language of the Church similar to how English is the language of the international business world. While the Church has the common bond of the Latin language throughout the world, it is important to remember that the people need to be edified so that they can understand what is happening.

1)How do you know that Christ did not speak at a minimum some Latin? I would personally be very interested how you came up with such information.The plain ugly truth is you have no idea if he did or he did not. Scripture makes no reference to what language he spoke, nor does it indicate if He ever learned any other languages. Your dismissal is clearly your own prejudice against the use of Latin…
2) Agreed Jesus certainly does understand all languages.
3) Not speaking Latin is certainly your own decision and not a permanent defect in any way. Young boys routinely learn enough Hebrew for Judaic services as do Muslims learn Arabic, both reading or writing.
4) The fact that people can and do learn other languages to engage in prayer defeats your argument on its face.

I am not saying Jesus did speak Latin, Greek, Hebrew,or any language other than Aramaic although I suspect he probably did speak and understand Hebrew, But you cannot make a blanket statement saying that he didn’t either. There is absolutely no proof to back up that claim.

Understanding what’s happening just requires looking at a missal or even one of those ecclesia dei books that they have these days and reading the translation. Do it a few times and you’ll get what’s going on.

Understanding the words being used without a missal requires effort, a thing that people don’t want to go out of their way for.

It’s no different than if I moved to Spain and suddenly had to go to Mass in Spanish all the time.

Jesus, being the all-knowing God, could speak whatever language He wanted to! But, obviously, to his disciples, He spoke Aramaic.

Makes sense. Don’t forget that the Apostles were able to speak in many languages at Pentecost. So if the Holy Spirit could do that for them, then I’m sure Jesus, being God, could do the same.

Probably the misconception that we only go to the EF for Mass.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.