Return to Tradition

There have been numerous news reports in the secular media lately about about the return to tradition for Catholics, and how so many young people, especially, are being pulled in this direction. Maybe the stalling of the Motu Proprio is actually a good thing; just look at all the media attention that has surrounded it. Here is one of those articles and some excerpts from it.

The new Mass ushered in an era of liturgical chaos and a sense among many Catholics that a crucial dimension of beauty, holiness and transcendence had been lost in translation. In 1984, Pope John Paul II ruled that local bishops could grant permission for the celebration of the traditional Mass in certain instances, but in the United States, many bishops balked. Catholic authorities saw the traditional Mass as a sign of division.

Traditionalists have a powerful ally in Pope Benedict, who supports the Vatican II reform but believes that it has gone too far. “I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it,” then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote in 1997. Now, as pope, he’s going to give it to them.

Traditionalists of any religion fundamentally differ from modernists in that they see truth as objective and delivered within the rules, rituals and teachings of the tradition. Truth, so considered, is something around which individuals must shape their lives. The modernist sees religious truth as subjective, something that can be shaped to fit the lives of individuals in different times and places. If they’re right, there’s nothing regressive about reclaiming attractive and useful elements of tradition within a modernist context

Comments?

I think it’s cool!
:thumbsup:

This is happening with young people in all denominations. I think it comes from the fact that we young people don’t have tradition in our lives. Also, we think a lot of movements have gone to far. Then there is the issue of not wanting to be like our parents.

From the third paragraph, there can be a bond between a “modernist” and “traditionalist.” Why not? Centuries upon centuries have shown that to be the case when the TLM is the focal point of worshipping God.

What do you make of this statement though?

Modernists nevertheless make a point that traditionalists ignore at their peril. Tradition has to be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances without abandoning its core principles. A tradition that loses touch with the needs of the living community is in danger of degenerating into rigid formalism

BTW, I don’t think the author knows that modernism is a heresy…

Well there’s modernism and there’s Modernism. I thought his reference was to the secular modernism, but if it’s of the Modernist heresy, then I’ll have to concede my point.

I noticed that article, too. I think that bringing the TLM back will help to draw people in to the Catholic Church. They can’t get such beauty anywhere else.

I have especially noticed an increased interest in Tradition among young people. That’s one of the reasons why I started my blog…to kind of get some of my friends interested in the TLM, etc…

One poster on here recently pointed out that he never would have joined the Church if he hadn’t gone to a TLM. He said that if he would have attended a NO Mass, he would not have been able to tell the difference between it and an Anglican service.

Remember there are Anglicans (High-Church, very similar to the Catholic) and Anglicans (Low-Church, much less formal). Only the former would be doing anything that resembles an NO - unless it was an extremely informal NO!!!

Most would be more like my Baptist friend who was asking lots of questions after Ash Wednesday service last year. Although fairly “smells and bells-y” it was in form a basic weekday Mass - much less formal than what you’d see on EWTN on weekdays for example. And it was still enough to leave her a little bemused about ‘all the ritual’.

I have bookmarked your blog. Nice. Good luck with it.

Thanks. :slight_smile:

The modernist sees religious truth as subjective, something that can be shaped to fit the lives of individuals in different times and places. If they’re right, there’s nothing regressive about reclaiming attractive and useful elements of tradition within a modernist context.

The problem as I see it, though, paramedicgirl, is that the modernist is not likely to find too many “elements of tradition” as being “attractive and useful” for his setting.

Yet he rationalizes what he likes by searching for still earlier “traditions” to establish his superiority of knowledge and power over the traditionalist.

Traditionalists of any religion fundamentally differ from modernists in that they see truth as objective and delivered within the rules, rituals and teachings of the tradition. Truth, so considered, is something around which individuals must shape their lives. The modernist sees religious truth as subjective, something that can be shaped to fit the lives of individuals in different times and places. If they’re right, there’s nothing regressive about reclaiming attractive and useful elements of tradition within a modernist context

In my opinion a modernist as defined here would be liable to every variation in the wind. Our problem in the Church today is that tradition (small T if you will) gets mashed together with the Truth or Tradition(capital T) and the Truth suffers. I really think that modernism as defined here is a position no Catholic should be occupying.

I dont know about others, but I dont know how much more I can take, this “stalling” is turning into mental abuse.

I dont know about others, but I dont know how much more I can take, this “stalling” is turning into mental abuse.

You can’t look at it that way. It should build character. Look at the effects already. Two years ago would you have seen such interest in the Latin Mass? Two years ago would you be watching Bishop Fellay’s videos?

Remember: Once issued, you may be disappointed and besides that, you won’t have anything to look forward to.

The suspense is killing me too.

:frowning:

Catholics have been waiting for forty years…I guess a few more months won’t hurt…much. :o

I agree the word is getting out due to the hype/suspense, especially with those Cardinals coming out saying it does exist…but there is a point when this waiting game gets to be too much.

I dont know how I can be disappointed if the MP is issued, unless of course it doesnt really authorize anything (eg still require local Bishop’s “approval”), but I highly doubt the Pope would let the purpose of the MP be undermined like that.

It is clear to me that the MP is the most significant change needed to get some real widespread reform going. Once it is issued it will only be a matter of a year or so before we see some strong widespread Catholicism promoted on every level, especially for the younger generation. At this point our hands are tied and we are stuck waiting to see what is going to happen. :frowning:

I CANT IMAGINE what those who have been waiting for over 40 years have had to go through, who knows how many had their faith weakened in that time period. I hurts me deeply to think about it.

With all the news coverage it’s been getting, I doubt if any of what BXVI says will be undermined. Look at things in perspective. When JPII issued Ecclesia Dei, how many even knew about its “wide and generous” application of Latin Mass? The only thing most people remember about it is that it “excommunicated” the Archbishop. Very little if any hype about the Latin Mass back then.

Methinks BXVI knows what he’s doing.

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.