Top 10 Whoppers (and other myths) concerning Traditionalism

  1. By it’s very nature, the TLM prohibits lay participation in the Mass. Wrong. To quote Pope John Paul II; “silent prayer is active participation”.

  2. Traditionalists believe that you have to be a baptized Catholic to even hope of attaining salvation. All non-Catholics are going straight to hell. Wrong. That particular heresy (Feenyism) has been rejected by the vast majority of Traditionalists. In fact, some of the more strident supporters of Invincible Ignorance are Traditionalists, probably because they actually understand what I.I. really teaches.

  3. During the TLM, the priest turns his back to the people. Wrong. The priest joins with the people in facing God physically present in the Tabernacle. It really is all about God, and not all about us.

  4. **The SSPX is sedevacantist (believes that there is currently no valid pope). **Wrong. The SSPX has always looked upon our pope as the valid, legitimate Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.

  5. Traditionalist reject ecumenism. Wrong. Traditionalists wholeheartedly accept and embrace ecumenism. That is if you define true ecumenism as converting heretics and pagans to the One True Church.

  6. **The Latin Mass didn’t even exist until the Council of Trent (the mid-1500’s). **Wrong. The Latin Mass dates back to the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in the 6th century. Even before that, the Canon of the Mass dates to the 4th century, and the Latin Mass itself was in it’s infancy in the 1st century. The Consecration has remained unchanged since Saints Peter and Paul first preached in Rome.

7.** Traditionalists reject Vatican II. **Wrong. The vast majority of Traditionalists recognize V2 for what it really is… a valid Council that essentially said “let’s talk about this” rather than “this is the way it’s going to be”.

  1. **Mel Gibson is “an SSPXer”. **Wrong. Mel Gibson attends Mass as celebrated by a so-called independent priest.

  2. **Traditionalists expect you to wear expensive clothing to Mass. **Wrong. Traditionalists expect everyone to wear their best… even if their best is a pair of overalls and a pull-over shirt. No one should ever purposfully dress-down to attend Mass. After all, we’re going to The Lord’s House, not a barbecue at the beach.

  3. No one understands what’s going on at a TLM. That would be true only if you’re;
    a. Illiterate. (The local language is on the opposite page)
    b. Too lazy to ask “hey, could someone explain to me what’s going on”?
    c. Too lazy to learn some of the more basic prayers in Latin.

Understanding what’s going on at a TLM isn’t really all that difficult. Just don’t expect everything to be dumb-downed and spoon-fed to you. Yes, we’re expected to put forth at least some effort.

Can anyone think of any others?

Thank you. If it is ok I would like to print this off and give it to a few people.

I know I’m splitting hairs on a good list, but how do we know about the Consecration since Ss. Peter and Paul? At least, for the words surrounding them (the Qui Pridie) it is traditionally (correctly or no) attributed to Pope Alexander. Likewise, for the Canon, the 4th century De Sacramentis only approximates it- and only the central part. Plus the Words of Consecration there are not the same as in the Canon

Kathleen,
Feel free, my friend! I also have a number of posts concerning the TLM on my blog that you may want to reference, as well…


AJV,
Concerning the Canon going back to the 4th century, I got that info from NewAdvent.org. And as we both know, that’s a reliable source of information. But hey… you very well could be right as well!

In ref to the Consecration being used by Sts. Peter and Paul when they preached in Rome, it just makes sense that when they were preaching to Romans, they would say “Hoc est Enim Corpus Meum…” rather than speak in Aramaic or Greek. I know that may be presumptuous of me, but I think it’s correct.

But those most sertainly are excellent points you raise. But I ask of you to look at the broader picture of what I’m saying… and that’s that the Latin Mass (at least in it’s infancy) really does date back to the 1st century, and was formalized no too long thereafter, and that it wasn’t something dreampt up in the 1500’s by Pope St. Pius V (as many incorrectly believe).

I don’t really think there is a contradiciton between me and the CE: the article on the Canon of the Mass gives almost the whole 4th century reference from De Sacramentis- “Fac nos hanc oblationem, etc.”. You can read it and compare it with your missal.

In ref to the Consecration being used by Sts. Peter and Paul when they preached in Rome, it just makes sense that when they were preaching to Romans, they would say “Hoc est Enim Corpus Meum…” rather than speak in Aramaic or Greek. I know that may be presumptuous of me, but I think it’s correct.

That is true, but what I was trying to say is how does one know they didn’t say add “quod pro vobis/multis tradetur/confringetur” or something else? Or likewise, that they didn’t just say “Hic est enim Calix Sanguis Mei” ?

But those most certainly are excellent points you raise. But I ask of you to look at the broader picture of what I’m saying… and that’s that the Latin Mass (at least in it’s infancy) really does date back to the 1st century, and was formalized no too long thereafter, and that it wasn’t something dreampt up in the 1500’s by Pope St. Pius V (as many incorrectly believe).

I do get that idea But I think also that if there are many who err too much towards 1500, isn’t it also possible to err towards giving the prayers of the Mass an earlier date when most of them did not find their place in Rome until around the 11-13th century?

But I really do get your point about it being invented in 1500 which is eminently correct I just like to split hairs on everything. :slight_smile:

LOL!!! Point well taken, brother!!

That we want to simply turn the clock back to circa 1950. This is the one that annoys me the most. I don’t want to bring back St. Agnes’ Church in Podunk, IA in 1958 with Fr. Jones the drunk and Fr. O’Malley who said Mass as quickly as possible so he could disappear until next Sunday. That is not the point of traditionalism and is just a weak ploy to discredit the argument for a return to authentic Catholicism (in both Masses).

Thank you, this is an awesome list. But the whole "turn the clocks back’ thing could be added. But that’s it.

Caveman: This is good to know. Let’s hope some “traditionalists” read it, as well as those who’ve jumped to conclusions about tradtionalists.

You are correct about point 4. However you should add that SSPX may well recognise the Pope as the valid and legitimate Pope but they still refuse to obey him!!

So what is an independent priest? It is one who is outside of the Church and its structure.

So while Mel’s Chapel might not be SSPX it is still not part of the Catholic Church of his local Bishop.

I believe you are incorrect on this. “Feeneyism” is not a heresy.
It’s a straightforward understanding of the dogma of the Church.

Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, Vicar for Canonical Affairs and Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Worcester wrote a letter to Rev. John B. McCormack, Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston clarifying the status and theological positionof the 14 sisters of the St. Ann’s House that were regularized in 1988.

“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical…In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.”

Also,Fr. Feeney died in official, full communion with the Church and was never required to recant his position on EENS. If I recall he merely recited the Athanasian Creed.

Hey. I could propose a trade: anti-TLM’s will no longer cry, “mumbled-mass” if TLM’s stop saying, “clown mass”. :smiley:

Scott

That we want to simply turn the clock back to circa 1950. This is the one that annoys me the most. I don’t want to bring back St. Agnes’ Church in Podunk, IA in 1958 with Fr. Jones the drunk and Fr. O’Malley who said Mass as quickly as possible so he could disappear until next Sunday. That is not the point of traditionalism and is just a weak ploy to discredit the argument for a return to authentic Catholicism (in both Masses).

I believe this is more true than some would like to admit.:o

I commed those many who see the problems that were in the 1950’s and even prior, but there are just as many who would lead us to believe it always was like Bing Crosby and the The Bells of St Mary’s prior to Vatican II.

Not that I don’t understand. I do, I completely understand. If you were only 8 years old in 1956 or 1958 you probably never thought about Fr. Jones the drunk or Fr. O’Malley and his speedy mass. Things were how they were and then all that you knew changed. So I understand why it could be an emotional/sentimental thing just as much as a spiritual thing.

Personally I am more comfortable with the TLM, but that is only because I was raised that way. Take a 23 year old and put them in the TLM and they would be more comfortable with the Novus Ordo. And I really think I would have a hard time forcing my kids to start attending the TLM. Mainly because I was forced and became resentful, and also because they have learned as it is. It would have to be a gradual change to not shock them. Going from one mass to the other truly feels like a different religion. You end up feeling lost and wondering if you are at the right place

Terry

As a traditionalist I can say this- there are some traditionalists who seem to think that the TLM was free of Liturgical abuse. That is laughable! Pope St. Pius X didnt write Inter Sollicitudines for his health after all- you can usually identify some of the practices of an era by what the powers-that-be are prohibiting. Nor did modernism and unorthodox practice suddenly appear out of nowhere in 1963.

Come on, that’s outrageous! Everyone knows that once the new Mass was introduced, thousands of good holy priests just suddenly started committing massive liturgical abuse…they couldn’t even help themselves! Remember, the Novus Ordo is “magically corrupting!” It seems that you are saying that lots and lots of priests received very poor formation in the seminaries in the 1940’s and 1950’s…how dare you say such a thing!:slight_smile:

Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.

TOPIC:

FR. FEENEY AND THE JEWS

Feeneyism" is a heresy since he denied baptism of desire.

I’m 23 and if I’m anywhere decently close, I will choose TLM every time (unless there is an Eastern Catholic DL, then sometimes I assist at the DL).

Start another topic on Feeney and the Jews if you want. It’s not for this discussion.

“Feeneyism” is not a heresy. You don’t determine what heresy is. When the Church condemns it as a heresy it will be a heresy. The best you can hope for is that it’s an error.

But it’s not.

Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are theological speculations. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. Like Limbo, they can be discarded or reformulated to incorporate the necessity of water Baptism.

Of course, I also believe that the Novus Ordo generally has more cases of Liturgical abuse then the TLM. The reason for this is that the rubrics of the Novus Ordo are much less rigid then those of the TLM and in them exists a great deal of room for interpretation. Most cases of Liturgical abuse in the NO are caused by Liturgical experimentation (Liturgical dancing and other “theatrics”), liberal interpretation of the rubrics (standing around the Altar holding hands, bongo drums, ect.) and the desire for some in the clergy and laity to turn the Mass into a political statement (Altar girls, laity- particularly women- standing around the Altar at the consecration, “tweaking” the prayers to give them a new spin, ect.).

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.