Trads: the new "old Catholics"?

Regarding how Catholics should regard other religions (e.g. trying to affirm what is good and to have a good rapport with their members), how Catholics ought to regard the sacraments (e.g. receive them more often, participate more fully and more consciously), what the Mass ought to be like (e.g. more balanced between priest, choir, and people; more social and less individualistic), what the Body of Christ ought to be like (e.g. more socially cohesive and more engaged in the world – without prejudice to the contemplative calling of course which is also encouraged): are traditionalists outside of these trends? None of these is brand new, actually, or post-VII. In fact these concerns are all at least 120 years old, and surely older than that.

Are traditionalist Catholics at risk of becoming the new Old Catholics: a group that decides to remain isolated and in effect lands itself outside the current of the Church? Certain of itself, but effectively missing the teachings, or the urgings, or the exhortations, of the Church?

You can not be a traditionalist Catholic and be seperated from the Pope. That is imposible.

Trads in schism with Rome are, ultimately, excommunicated because they are too rigorous. “Old Catholics” were permissive, and one of the first things they did was to abandon priestly celibacy.

Before people jump on me, the formal reason for the schism with Lefevre was disobedience, and nothing he actually said has, in itself, been declared to be heretical. However the situation only arose because of Lefevre’s rigour.

Just make the TLM available to everyone that wants to experience it and we’ll call it a level playing field.

Right now you’re stacking the deck in favor of the NO and condescending to those who aren’t jumping on that crazy NO bandwagon by calling us schismatics and such. And this is the spirit of Vatican II?

Just how much more of this nonsense are we supposed to hear?

You have put together an accurate synopsis of the trends of the contemporary Church. I would note, however, that these are all trends that no Catholic is required to adhere to. Thus no Catholic is required to believe the changes made in the liturgy are a good thing (although he must be obedient). No Catholic is required to believe that the ecumenical endeavors some leaders in the Church are engaging in will bear fruit.

As far as being more engaged in the world one might argue that with the greater number of lay societies and involvement prior to Vatican II, along with the greater number of Catholic schools and colleges which taught the Faith, and with the greater number of religious orders Catholics were having a greater effect on the world than they are now (of course “effect” is a different word than “engage”).

As far as social cohesiveness if you mean within the Church that seems to have gone completely by the wayside after Vatican II and we as Catholics are enjoying perhaps less social cohesiveness than at any time in the Church’s history.

The matter of priestly celibacy, mandatory or optional, is not really a traditional - conservative - liberal - radical issue. It is a minor discipline, nothing more, so I do not see it as an example of permissiveness.

Optional celibacy should not even be a factor. Married men ordained as priests are no less priests than single men, and it has always been so.

Of course, I am not arguing that the Old Catholics did not run off the rails, they most certainly did.

It’s pretty sad.
*
Michael*

I agree with this point, it should be available at least in every deanery, I think that would be fair.

Nevertheless, the T L M is now an “acquired taste”, had circumstances been different the N O would be the acquired taste.

Since there is no practical possibility or likelihood of eliminating the N O, I really think the correction or ‘reform’ of that liturgy should be the highest priority for the good of the church. Ironically, a more widespread availability of the T L M could easily be a catalyst for that process!

There should be (among other things) a strong revival of the traditional hymnology of the western churches. Local scholas developed in ‘traditional’ congregations can travel and sing for N O Masses. Monophonic chant can make a comeback if more examples of it are found across a diocese.

People will go to a Mass that nourishes their spirituality, and the hierarchy will react favorably when they observe the public reaction.

Traditionalists can perform an important role in this process.

*Michael *

Michael, I have seen this in my own diocese. I’ve sung in my cathedral choir since 83. Ours was one of the first dioceses to be “renovated” after VII. They ripped out the choir loft and pipe organ as well as the communion rails. (And restored both pipe organ and choir loft in 92)

We celebrated our 200th anniversary in 92. For which we prepared Vittoria’s Missa: O Quam Gloriosam est Regnam. We had the Abp. of Salamanca, Spain as well as the Cardinal Abp. of Lyons, France in attendance and all the bishops and archbishops of Louisiana in attendance.

The Cardinal dropped a bombshell on us. He gave the Apostolic Blessing in Latin. Only five of us in the choir knew the response and a handful more in the congregation and, yes, even, amongst the priests few knew it. In a word, our response was…lame. After that, the choir has had free range on both sacred polyphony and chant. The year after, we began to chant the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei during Lent. My children grew up learning at least this part of their heritage.

I am more than aware of what we have lost. I consider myself a traditionalist but I will not leave HMC. I see the “traditionalist” movement as simply reclaiming what got thrown out wholesale around 1969. I will never forget that I had to sing Simon and Garfunkle for my graduation Mass from a Catholic high school in 69. I feel the same way at 55 as I did at 18.

I view this as “Hit a Nerve Thread” maybe you should ask to start a new Forum.

This is a quote from the website for the United Catholic Church

We of the independent Catholic movement are Catholic Christians not under the jurisdiction of Rome. We are an outgrowth of the Old Catholic Church in Utrecht, Netherlands. We have not left the Church. Along with all Catholic Christians, we are the Church. Our clergy are validly ordained bishops, priests, and deacons in the Apostolic Succession, and are recognized as such. We are fully Catholic, and we pray for and look forward to the time when once more the unity Jesus prayed for exists. We await that unity (without uniformity) enjoyed by the early Church. Though incorporated as a church, we are not just a denomination; we are a post-denominational fellowship. Our churches practice the inclusivity of Jesus toward the outcast and marginalized – including women, homosexuals, indigenous peoples, minorities, heretics, sinners, and the poor. We even accept rich folks.

The United Catholic Church includes traditionalist parishes, progressive parishes, and everything in between. You can walk into one of our parishes and hear the Tridentine Mass in Latin, with the priest and congregation facing the altar and communicants receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. In another the Novus Ordo Mass will be indistinguishable from what you will experience in most Roman Catholic parishes. In still another you will find a woman priest and her congregation gathered around the altar at an intimate Mass rich in inclusive language. What binds us together is a rich orthodox Catholic faith, a dedication to follow Jesus in all things, a love of the Eucharist, a commitment to serve the lost and the outcast, and that unique spirituality we call “Catholic.”

Sure sounds traditional to me :rolleyes:

I guess the Old Catholics were sort of liberal, whereas the traditionalists are effectively conservative. Here is a list of Old Catholic-type concerns from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[LIST]
*]Adherence to the ancient Catholic faith;
*]maintenance of the rights of Catholics as such;
*]rejection of the new dogmas,
*]adherence to the constitutions of the ancient Church with repudiation of every dogma of faith not in harmony with the actual consciousness of the Church;
*]reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity;
*]preparation of the way for reunion of the Christian confessions;
*]reform of the training and position of the clergy;
*]adherence to the State against the attacks of Ultramontanism;
*]rejection of the Society of Jesus;
*]solemn assertion of the claims of Catholics as such to the real property of the Church and to the title to it.
[/LIST]

The ones I bolded, though, reflect somewhat an applicable paradigm of separation. The last one, in italics, is a bit of a joke! :stuck_out_tongue:

No, I really want to know if there is any application for a tendency in which at first one believes oneself to be cleaving to tradition, but ends up missing out on correct development of the Church.

[quote=ctos][LIST]]other religions
[list]
]trying to affirm what is good and to have a good rapport with their members[/list]
]the sacraments
[list]
]receive them more often, participate more fully and more consciously[/list]
]the Mass
[list]
]more balanced between priest, choir, and people; more social and less individualistic[/list]
]the Body of Christ
[list]
]more socially cohesive and more engaged in the world – without prejudice to the contemplative calling of course which is also encouraged[/list]
[/LIST]
[/quote]

Shouldn’t we be sympathetic to the wish, mind, and long-term direction of the Church?

How can we know whether the ecumenical endeavors will bear fruit? How do we know that it is not our own fault if they fail?

As far as being more engaged in the world one might argue that with the greater number of lay societies and involvement prior to Vatican II, along with the greater number of Catholic schools and colleges which taught the Faith, and with the greater number of religious orders Catholics were having a greater effect on the world than they are now (of course “effect” is a different word than “engage”).

Well, in the immediate century or less prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic influence on the world didn’t prevent the U.S. Civil War, the Great War, the Great Depression, the rise of Bolshevism, the rise of National Socialism, World War II, and the onset and about one third of the Cold War. I’m not blaming the Church of course, but after all, how much effect does that amount to?

As far as social cohesiveness if you mean within the Church that seems to have gone completely by the wayside after Vatican II and we as Catholics are enjoying perhaps less social cohesiveness than at any time in the Church’s history.

I see some signs of social cohesiveness… Any other ideas about this? Ways to compare?

I think a balance of hymns would meet the spiritual needs of the faithful. Not everyone has the same tastes, so, a complete abolition of everything new would be ugly, and quite pointless as there is some newer material that is quite orthodox and accessible.

Why do you say that traditionalists can play an “important role” in reforming the Novus Ordo rite so that it will nourish spirituality? Traditionalists tend to be reactionary, and tend to inflate the value of the earlier liturgy. They don’t take seriously the efforts of the Church over the past numerous decades. I think it may be a sentimental sop to them, to suppose that they can perform an important role.

I think that the cure is to encourage a fuller education of what the liturgical reform was supposed to accomplish, and to dissuade people associated with the liturgy from doing things that are too loud and too sentimental. The goal is that the liturgy should be coherent, non-repetitive, complete, participatory (balanced between priest, choir, and people, or between priest and people in the absence of a choir), and solemn without being somber. Traditionalists as a whole are too reactionary to be anything other than a blunt force against the worst excesses of the Novus Ordo.

If I were you, pray to the Lord to reveal the truth to you.

.

I certainly will. Thank you very much. :slight_smile:

And what frame of reference do you have? I can at least say that I have experienced both NO and TLM as they were both intended. Fuller education? Of what? Did I not go through the transition?

Loud? Sentimental? What does that mean? Croaking away at On Eagles Wings or Taste and See? If so, what frame of reference to Mozart, Pallestrina, Vittoria et al?

I have experienced both the TLM (before V II) and the NO in the course of my lifetime. Have you? If you haven’t, what gives you the right to sit in judgment on those of us who remember what HMC was before 1965? Is it not conceivable that there was a significant number of us who were not happy with the change but who nonetheless remained faithful to HMC?

I think that you are trying to draw me into a distracting ad hominem detour… Personally I have experienced a 1950s-era low Mass and a 1950s Midnight Mass, at an independent chapel recently. I have seen the Novus Ordo rite done correctly. I have been to an indult TLM.

Anyway try to offer ideas and commentary, without being distracted by passions. Thank you.

In prudential matters such as changes to the liturgy a Catholic is free to not believe the changes were good, though, as I said, he must be obedient. I believe Dietrich von Hildebrand put it best when he once said in an article for Triumph magazine, “We obey, but we do not agree.”

As far as ecumenism goes if some Protestant bodies decide to reunite with the Church then great! However, if worked out, I don’t see any real unity unless they accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith including the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope. Further, as Dietrich von Hildebrand pointed out (and I attest to as a former Protestant myself) there is no overarching authority in Protestantism. So even if a denominational head or church head decides to reunite each Protestant is still free to go where he wills.

And, when it comes right down to it, it seems that since the desire for Protestants is that they fully embrace all the Truth the Church has to offer and participate in the Sacraments, that a better word for what we hope and pray for, instead of ecumenism, would be evangelism.

As far as the Church’s effect on society I read a very good book by Catholic sociologist Joseph A. Varacalli called,

Bright Promise, Failed Community: Catholics and the American Public Order

where he argued (as I rembember) that the closest we ever came to a “Catholic moment” was post World War II where there was enough of a Catholic infrastructure through schools, churches, universities, religious orders, etc. where if things had kept going the way they were we could have had a real impact on this nation. Unfortunately, as he argues, that moment has now been lost but he helps point the way to its restoration.

I look at the (supernatural) reason we experienced so much hardship in the last half of the 20th Century, in addition to our own sin, is that we did not obey Our Lady of Fatima when she asked Russia to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart in 1929.

Some traditionalists may paraphrase this as, “We obey, but we do not obey.” :stuck_out_tongue:

The implication then is that the Church was imprudent. But how is that really possible? For over a century the Church was trying to rectify an imbalance between priest, choir, and people. Doesn’t it sound like a good idea, that they should each put something into the celebration of Mass? Why, really, should the priest do all the talking during a low Mass, and trade exchanges with the choir at high Mass? I invite you to answer the question honestly and without prejudice, rather than reciting the excogitations that normally pass for traditionalist discussion, e.g. ‘during Mass we contemplate along with the priest, we read along and we’re participating honestly really we are!’ Think about it reasonably and objectively. Why should we need a book for Mass? Consider other cultures into which Mass arrives, cultures which may not have much interest in books, or in Latin for that matter. What are they supposed to do? You may be “free not to believe the changes were good”, but aren’t they actually good?

As far as ecumenism goes if some Protestant bodies decide to reunite with the Church then great! However, if worked out, I don’t see any real unity unless they accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith including the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope. Further, as Dietrich von Hildebrand pointed out (and I attest to as a former Protestant myself) there is no overarching authority in Protestantism. So even if a denominational head or church head decides to reunite each Protestant is still free to go where he wills.

Yes, each Protestant is an individual. But working with the people whom those individuals consider their heads is perfectly reasonable. There is also material distributed to help individuals. And there are the faithful. We are supposed to evangelize. I don’t see what you have really said in this paragraph, except that a convert believes the full Catholic faith, and that the actual circumstance of a given Protestant is somewhat confusing.

And, when it comes right down to it, it seems that since the desire for Protestants is that they fully embrace all the Truth the Church has to offer and participate in the Sacraments, that a better word for what we hope and pray for, instead of ecumenism, would be evangelism.

Since they embrace some of the faith, the word ecumenism is used:
“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (Unitatis Redintegratio, I.3). Nations generally are evangelized. What does it matter? If ecumenism fails, how do we know it isn’t our fault? Why is it our place to doubt the prelates almost en masse?

As far as the Church’s effect on society I read a very good book by Catholic sociologist Joseph A. Varacalli called, Bright Promise, Failed Community: Catholics and the American Public Order

Thank you. I have ordered it through a library service. In about 6 months I’ll have read it. :smiley:

where he argued (as I rembember) that the closest we ever came to a “Catholic moment” was post World War II where there was enough of a Catholic infrastructure through schools, churches, universities, religious orders, etc. where if things had kept going the way they were we could have had a real impact on this nation. Unfortunately, as he argues, that moment has now been lost but he helps point the way to its restoration.

What does he suggest, so I don’t have to wait six months? :slight_smile:

I look at the (supernatural) reason we experienced so much hardship in the last half of the 20th Century, in addition to our own sin, is that we did not obey Our Lady of Fatima when she asked Russia to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart in 1929.

This is an imaginary reason, when it comes down to it, because you don’t really know this. I admit I don’t fully understand the issue, but in any case I was referring to 1860-1960, not 1960-2000.

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.