Traditional Catholicism


#1

What is it? Is there liberal Catholicism?


#2

Of course there is liberal Catholicism…

But I’ll go and make a try to define “traditional Catholicism”: Being faithful to the magisterium, not trying to be more catholic than the pope, but living the catholic faith in a way that is not mainstream today, but was mainstream about 50 years ago, because you like it and think you profit most from it for your spirituality/relationship with God.


#3

I suppose traditional Catholicism promotes Latin Masses, no? And receiving the Host through tongue?


#4

If you mean by promoting that most people who consider themselves “traditional catholics” try often to visit masses in the rite before 1962 as frequwntly as possible and therefore receive AT LEAST there on the tongue - yes (note that receiving on the tongue is not prohibited in any way in any mass :smiley: - on the contrary).

If you mean by promoting that “traditionalists” thing that all other masses apart fromt he TLM and all other forms of receiving than on the tongue should be banned - usually not (although there ARE such people, but I would beg you to consider them not as normative for this brand of catholics ;))


#5

Traditionalists are those who still believe what was taught, and who still practice the Catholic faith, as it was before all of the changes, which have been thrust upon the Church in the name of Vatican II, came about.

Just about all of the changes that have come about in the name of Vatican II weren’t actually called for in Vatican II. For example, Vatican II never called for the Mass to be in the vernacular. It allowed for the use of some vernacular, but specifically said that the sacraments were to remain in Latin; it also did not call for altar girls, communion in the hand, the priest facing the people, profane (secular) music at Church, stripping of the Church buildings and removal of altar rails, etc, etc, etc…

Everything has changed since Vatican II, and in the name of Vatican II, yet Vatican II itself called for virtually none of it.

The one’s who refused to simply follow along with the changes just because they were taking place, and who still believe and practice the faith as it was prior to the Council, are now labeled “Traditionalists”.


#6

Those changes you speak of (except for the music and the changing of the churches) were allowed by the competent authority. One who attends Mass in the vernacular, with the priest facing the congregation, served by an altar girl, and receiving Communion in the hand while standing is no less orthodox than those who call themselves “traditionalists.”

To the OP: it depends on what you mean by “liberal Catholicism” or by the word “liberal.” Liberalism may have many meanings. One way in which it is defined is a heresy condemned by the Church. In that sense, there is no such thing as a Liberal Catholic. If they have adopted the specific heresy as defined by the Church, then they’ve ceased to be Catholic at all.


#7

Why didn’t Pope Paul reform the Mass the way in which the *Constitution on the Liturgy *states that it be reformed.Why did Pope Paul reform the Mass the way that Annibale Bugnini and a handful of priests wanted it reformed? There is no mention in the Constitution of the priest facing the people,communion in the hand,the Tabernacle removed from the altar,the Canon replaced with Eucharistic prayers, the words of Consecration changed and the entire Mass in the vernacular.Why didn’t Pope Paul listen to the Fathers and go strictly by the Constitution?


#8

Good question: Why did Pope Paul VI do the contrary of what Vatican II said?

Vatican II called for the sacraments to remain in Latin and for Gregorian chant to be retained, yet when he published the new mass, which he called a “new rite”, he said this…

Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969: *"1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

  1. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past [indeed], which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

  2. …This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed…

  3. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.

  4. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church…

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…" *

Vatican II said that both Latin and Gregorian chant are to be retained. I wonder why Paul VI did not follow Vatican II? We hear many people complain that Vatican II was never properly implemented, yet we see here that this incorrect implementation started with Paul VI!

But hae to say, I do agree 100% with what he says next:

“9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment.” ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Indeed, regret and bewilderment are precise words to describe the liturgican reform, which Cardinal Ratzinger said was the primary cause of the crisis in the Church

Cardinal Ratzinger: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy…” (Milestones, latin-mass-society.org/ratz.htm ).


#9

Great to have you back, Pax et Caritas. I pray that they let you stay.
In Annibale Bignini’s book Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 he writes about how his invovlement in the reform began in 1948 and right there with him was Msgr. Montini the future Pope Paul]

*REFORM OF THE Liturgy *PG 8-9 “
On May 28, 1948 a commission for liturgical reform was appointed…Father Annibale Bugnini…was appointed secretary…In the twelve years of its existence the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy…the commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope { Pius XII}, who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini" Pope Paul VI }


#10

http://bestsmileys.com/oneofakind/1.gif

Sheesh…here we go again with the handwringing.

Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically set up the commission to determine what the precise changes were to be to the Mass. The overwhelming majority of the bishops–NOT a “handful”–asked for the greater use of the vernacular. The Pope listened and gave what the commission that had been set up asked for.

This continual harping about this subject, as if the Church and the Pope don’t have the authority to change these disciplines, is getting really old. Bugnini surely did have some influence, but certainly did NOT do it single-handedly or against the wishes of the majority of the bishops.

If you don’t like the changes, that’s fine, and I can respect your preferences. But PLEASE stop acting as there was something illicit done, or that those who prefer those changes are any less orthodox for their preferences.

Peace,


#11

Note they asked for greater; not exclusive use.


#12

Traditional Catholicism


What is it? Is there liberal Catholicism?

I am fairly ignorant of Vatican documents and commissions and the like, unlike many of the posters here. But in my experience, active Catholics do seem to generally fall into one or the other group. To me, the difference appears to be in the focus; the Traditional seems more Christ-centric, and the Liberal seems more people-centric. There are notable exceptions, of course.

I can’t comment on where the “official” Catholic line is drawn, or even if it should be. But I think if Christ is not at THE center of the various practices in the Church, those practices should be up for re-evaluation.

-Tim


#13

=ncjohn;2696872]http://bestsmileys.com/oneofakind/1.gif

Sheesh…here we go again with the handwringing.

Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically set up the commission to determine what the precise changes were to be to the Mass. The overwhelming majority of the bishops–NOT a “handful”–asked for the greater use of the vernacular. The Pope listened and gave what the commission that had been set up asked for.

This continual harping about this subject, as if the Church and the Pope don’t have the authority to change these disciplines, is getting really old. Bugnini surely did have some influence, but certainly did NOT do it single-handedly or against the wishes of the majority of the bishops.

Bugnini had a huge role in the writing of the new liturgy. But put him aside and read Pope Pius X. The reformers were already active in 1947 when he wrote his encyclical on the Liturgy Read how he exposes what they are up to.Bugnini was one of those reformers.

MEDIATOR DEI
Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius XII On the Sacred Liturgy November 20, 1947
8. Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about – during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth/U]. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.


#14

:sleep:

And this shows what exactly? Who influenced it makes no difference. That the proper authorities authorized the changes is the only thing that matters.

You are welcome to stand outside of communion and decide that you don’t like the changes that were made. As I’ve said, I can totally respect your preference and your right to your opinions about how you think things should have happened. There are many results of the implementation of Vatican II that I’m not thrilled with either, but we are at just one point in time and our pilgrim journey toward the final perfection is always still short of that.

But the fact is that a valid Ecumenical Council decided that the liturgy needed to be changed. And the valid Pope decided to appoint a commission to determine the extent of the changes to be made. And that valid Pope then decided to implement those changes in the Mass that bears his name.

As you yourself highlighted from Mediator Dei,

Of course if one doesn’t recognize the Pope as being valid, the conclusion that no valid change has been made logically follows. And even if one does recognize the Pope as being valid, one can feel that the changes made were not prudential. But whether the demonized Bugnini influenced the changes is irrelevant. He did not make the changes; they were made by the Pope after consultation with his appointed commision.

One cannot deny that both a valid Ecumenical Council and a Pope have the authority to “introduce and approve new rites…” and to “…modify those he judges to require modification.” And one cannot with honesty then cast aspersions on the “orthodoxy” of those who do prefer those validly introduced or modified rites.

You are entitled to believe that the whole Church has fallen into error. You are entitled to believe that those in communion with the post-Conciliar Church are just a bunch of flaming liberals. But as I’ve said previously, just please be honest about the premises you’re working from so people can give proper weight to what is being said and the foundation it comes from.

Peace,


#15

This thread is closed.


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.