Why people become traditionalists

The liturgical debates are quite heated, but it shows people have VERY strong feelings about the liturgy, the liturgy being the expression of the church, a way of the church to pass on her beliefs to the parishoner.

That said, I will explain why many people end up in the Traditional Movment, saying(many times quite unfairly) Novus Ordo This and Novus Ordo that. Most people who are Traditionalists are people who did not start out going to the traditional mass, they either only known the Novus Ordo their entire lives, or went to the Novus Ordo after the old mass was supressed in stages between 64-70. Now for me, the matter of the missal itself is secondary, because I believe that even if the 62 missal was kept, it would have still had the same poor translation to English, and the rubrics of the mass where the priest is facing the people, the altar rails removed and having lay readers would have taken place by the 70s, so the church would largely be where it is today in terms of liturgy.

Now, on why people eventually end up in the SSPX, SSPV, in schism or Sede territory is because they finally had enough of the “renewal”. It is not these people one day and say “Oh I have a problem with the offertory” and leave. These people are sick of seeing the mass reduced to an almost Evangelical Portestant service externally, trying to get across to their children why the Eucharist is what is, while a small Army of EMHCs are on the altar, and trying to explain to their children what father says during the sermon is not actually what the church teachers. They are sick of having to slog though 45-60 minuites of banal music that sounds like the theme songs of commercials from the 70s and 80s, they are sick of being told they need to “get with the times” when they simpily request just an occasional classic Catholic hymn in English, much less Latin. THey finally reach their breaking point and start to parish shop, and find the liturgical and theological life in these parishes not much better, if not worse, then they often find, by accident, a parish that offers the Latin mass. Because Bishops are still too stingy with Indults, the chapels they go to the offer the Latin mass are in at best an illregular relationship with Rome, if not outright schism, but these people are hungry, hungry for tradition, hungry for just somthing to be reverent, somthing that they can identify as Roman Catholic, somthing of beauty. This is not to mention the many more people who silently siffer in their pews week after week, just to fill their weekly Sunday and day of obligation duty.

Now understanding this, often times when faithful Catholics go to chapels outside of the diocean structure, they develop a seige mentality, they see the structural church as apostate, and start to view the Novus Ordo as invalid(even a Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin with Tridentine rubrics), and in too many cases, view attending an indult as being invalid or sinful, and get further and further away from the instituional church. It doesnt need to be this way, but all too often it is. Pray that the civil wars over liturgy end one day, and the groups like the SSPX are brought full back into the fold, and Cardinal Ratzingers reform of the reform fully takes place when todays seminarians became pastors and restore elemnets of tradition.

Good topic. I remember that not too long ago a friend of mine wanted to check out a mass at an SSPX chapel and I did go with him. Now, even if they are in schism, that was one of the most reverent and best Masses I had ever been to in my life. Of course it was a reverently celebrated Tridentine Mass, so naturally the liturgy was going to be good. I just enjoyed being inside a church with a high altar and an altar rail. And it looked unmistakably like a Catholic church on the inside.

Further, they draped a lace cloth over the altar rail before holy communion. When people came up they would put their hands underneath the cloth. I believe this was meant to be an inoffensive way to prevent communion in the hand and it seemed to work really well.

The homily by the priest was memorable even to this day with a quote from C.S. Lewis and an anecdote from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. It was a positive message on why the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.

Thus I can definitely understand why someone would be drawn to a church like that. For some, it would perhaps even be tough not to go. We do have an indult, thank God, yet it is 20 miles outside of town out past an industrial area that no one near the city would ever drive by. It is at 8 a.m. on Sunday which is rather early for the trip people have to make to get out there. The church itself is rather unappealing inside.

Hence I pray that the SSPX will be reconciled (and God bless our Pope for the efforts he has made towards this, I believe he is very sincere in his desire for their reconciliation). I also hope and pray that the Church would grant traditional types an apostolic administration such as that talked about in the latest issue of the Latin Mass magazine (an excellent magazine even if one does not consider himself a “traditionalist.”)

God bless.

A good litany of problems/abuses.

And a spot on analysis: …but these people are hungry, hungry for tradition, hungry for just somthing to be reverent, somthing that they can identify as Roman Catholic, somthing of beauty.

Although some people do consider the Novus Ordo invalid, I suspect that they are only a small percentage. As memtioned above, people become traditionalists because of their hunger for reverence and beauty.

[quote=Brennan Doherty]Good topic. I remember that not too long ago a friend of mine wanted to check out a mass at an SSPX chapel and I did go with him. Now, even if they are in schism, that was one of the most reverent and best Masses I had ever been to in my life. Of course it was a reverently celebrated Tridentine Mass, so naturally the liturgy was going to be good. I just enjoyed being inside a church with a high altar and an altar rail. And it looked unmistakably like a Catholic church on the inside.

Further, they draped a lace cloth over the altar rail before holy communion. When people came up they would put their hands underneath the cloth. I believe this was meant to be an inoffensive way to prevent communion in the hand and it seemed to work really well.

The homily by the priest was memorable even to this day with a quote from C.S. Lewis and an anecdote from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. It was a positive message on why the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.

Thus I can definitely understand why someone would be drawn to a church like that. For some, it would perhaps even be tough not to go. We do have an indult, thank God, yet it is 20 miles outside of town out past an industrial area that no one near the city would ever drive by. It is at 8 a.m. on Sunday which is rather early for the trip people have to make to get out there. The church itself is rather unappealing inside.

Hence I pray that the SSPX will be reconciled (and God bless our Pope for the efforts he has made towards this, I believe he is very sincere in his desire for their reconciliation). I also hope and pray that the Church would grant traditional types an apostolic administration such as that talked about in the latest issue of the Latin Mass magazine (an excellent magazine even if one does not consider himself a “traditionalist.”)

God bless.
[/quote]

The SSPX does not have the valid priesthood necessary to confect the Eucharist. Unfortunately you did not attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but simply another non-Catholic religious service.

Rather than focus on the schismatic (or are they heretical?) SSPX, you might look into the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter (FSSP). They are not in schism.

The bishop of my diocese is arrogant enough not to allow the Tridentine indult. This has embittered many and has empowered wayward groups like the SSPX. I hope out new bishop allows the indult…

Actually the SSPX does have valid orders, not even the Vatican would argue that, and even the validly of the SSPX bishops are not in question. While SSPX masses may be illict, they certainly beyond a doubt, valid.

[quote=Crusader]The SSPX does not have the valid priesthood necessary to confect the Eucharist. Unfortunately you did not attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but simply another non-Catholic religious service.


[/quote]

This is incorrect. The SSPX priests are validly ordained, which means the SSPX Masses are valid.

Marcel Lefebvre was a validly consecrated archbishop, and he consecrated (illicitly but validly) four bishops. He and they ordained the priests who work in the SSPX.

[quote=Karl Keating]This is incorrect. The SSPX priests are validly ordained, which means the SSPX Masses are valid.

Marcel Lefebvre was a validly consecrated archbishop, and he consecrated (illicitly but validly) four bishops. He and they ordained the priests who work in the SSPX.
[/quote]

From Ecclesia Dei:

  1. “In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”

So individuals excommunicated from the Church can just keep right on consecrating and ordaining? Is this one of those “valid but not licit” issues?

Seems very fishy to me…

Yes valid but not lict. The Old Catholic schism that took place after Vatican I still has some valid lines, the Polish National Catholic church in the US has a valid priesthood(The orders of the other old Catholics in the US are in doubt). The Eastren Orthodox still have valid orders despite their schism.

[quote=Crusader]So individuals excommunicated from the Church can just keep right on consecrating and ordaining? Is this one of those “valid but not licit” issues?

Seems very fishy to me…
[/quote]

You’re in WAY over your head!

All these years that Rome has let the liberals get away with so much must have been done with the confidence that they weren’t smart enough to effect a schism or didn’t care enough about apostolic succession to want it.

When the Anglicans tried to restore their priesthood after 100+ years of not ordaining, they were told that the line was broken. To this day, many Episcopalians/Anglicans after their “ordinations”, pick up their cassocks and run to the nearest Eastern Orthodox bishop to get ordained (hopefully, a Catholic bishop wouldn’t but who knows?). Sure, this action shows that they question the validity of their own orders; and the various Episcopal churches maintain two sets of books on their clergy. But, it shows they have a lot better understanding of the issue than many of the SSPX detractors. Such ignorance can only embolden the schismatics.

[quote=PASCENDI]All these years that Rome has let the liberals get away with so much must have been done with the confidence that they weren’t smart enough to effect a schism or didn’t care enough about apostolic succession to want it.

When the Anglicans tried to restore their priesthood after 100+ years of not ordaining, they were told that the line was broken. To this day, many Episcopalians/Anglicans after their “ordinations”, pick up their cassocks and run to the nearest Eastern Orthodox bishop to get ordained (hopefully, a Catholic bishop wouldn’t but who knows?). Sure, this action shows that they question the validity of their own orders; and the various Episcopal churches maintain two sets of books on their clergy. But, it shows they have a lot better understanding of the issue than many of the SSPX detractors. Such ignorance can only embolden the schismatics.
[/quote]

Poppycock. An EO bishop would NEVER ordain an Anglican minister. You are sadly mistaken in your comments.

[quote=Crusader]Poppycock. An EO bishop would NEVER ordain an Anglican minister. You are sadly mistaken in your comments.
[/quote]

Again, you’re in WAY over your head. First heard this from no less an authority than John Hardon, SJ. Then, read it in one of his books on protestantism. Later, a convert priest from Anglicanism told me of half his classmates. His examination of the issue led him into the True Church. He felt going to an Orthodox bishop was wrong and he tried to affirm for himself the validity of his ordination. He couldn’t a so therefore followed Cardinal Newman’s example many years later.

[quote=PASCENDI]All these years that Rome has let the liberals get away with so much must have been done with the confidence that they weren’t smart enough to effect a schism or didn’t care enough about apostolic succession to want it.

When the Anglicans tried to restore their priesthood after 100+ years of not ordaining, they were told that the line was broken. To this day, many Episcopalians/Anglicans after their “ordinations”, pick up their cassocks and run to the nearest Eastern Orthodox bishop to get ordained (hopefully, a Catholic bishop wouldn’t but who knows?). Sure, this action shows that they question the validity of their own orders; and the various Episcopal churches maintain two sets of books on their clergy. But, it shows they have a lot better understanding of the issue than many of the SSPX detractors. Such ignorance can only embolden the schismatics.

Again, you’re in WAY over your head. First heard this from no less an authority than John Hardon, SJ. Then, read it in one of his books on protestantism. Later, a convert priest from Anglicanism told me of half his classmates. His examination of the issue led him into the True Church. He felt going to an Orthodox bishop was wrong and he tried to affirm for himself the validity of his ordination. He couldn’t a so therefore followed Cardinal Newman’s example many years later.

[/quote]

I honestly don’t believe you know how foolish the above comment appears. To suggest that Eastern Orhtodox Bishops ordain “many” Anglican ministers is beyond the nonsensical.

It’s quite clear to me now that those “traditionalists” who discount what the Church directs in favor of what they believe should be allowed are every bit as pernicious as those on the extreme other end of the spectrum.

Fr. Fessio, SJ has termed this sort of thinking "The Fallacy of False Symmetry"
And that’s the problem here. You see it on a “spectrum” requiring the REDUCTIONISM to reduce these deferences to degree when we are really talking about KIND. The result : RELATIVISM. To wit, these people aren’t wrong because of _______ or _______ but because they are “extreme.” Truly a nonsense word and normally little more than a pejorative.

To quote Msgr. Sheen “Thought saving devices have been invented that rival labor saving devices in their ingenuity. Fine-sounding phrases like ‘Life is bigger than logic’ or “Progress is the spirit of the age,” go rattling by us like express trains, carrying the burden of those who are too lazy to think for themselves.”

“Extreme” is one such thought saving device seldom applied to anything but that which is logically consistent. Granted, it may be hurled at someone who is incorect (even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while).

But as Aquinas points out, there are errors of excess and those of defect. It does no good to conflate both into errors of excess.

The errors of defect begin with first principles that are wrong and followed to their logical conclusion. E.G.: Nazism and the extermination of 12 million was the logical conclusion of eugenics and other wrong ideas.

Today, we have people who think they may hold an incorrect premise, but when it takes them someplace they don’t like, they can avoid such “extremism.” It’s foolhardy

Here is why I am a traditionalist in pictures:

The Gospel being read North:
latin-mass-society.org/images/warerec0311.jpeg

The Consecration:
latin-mass-society.org/images/warerec0315.jpeg
latin-mass-society.org/images/warerec0316.jpeg

In painting why I am a traditionalist:

http://www.unavoce.org/agemian.jpg

http://forums.catholic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15&stc=1

Sounds like this has gotten way off track from the initial question and on into a critique of philosophical processes.

The comments about Anglican clergy being ordained by EO bishops is mostly, if not all, anecdotal. There possibly may have been a few somewhere (and possibly during the more active times of Anglican/EO formal discussions in years past) that may have doubted their ordination and ‘possibly’ found a vagrant or disobedient EO bishop to ordain them. But in that case, why would they not just become EO or RC, if a valid ordination was seen to be that important?

But no jurisdiction of Eastern Orthodoxy that I know of would just ‘validly ordain’ (and for that matter ordain into what?) any non-orthodox who would come to them. It would be the same as if the Anglican asked a Catholic bishop to ordain him so that it would be a valid ordination but he planned to stay Anglican.

If a Catholic or anyone of another Christian denomination joins Orthodoxy, they are at the least re-chrismated by all jurisdictions if not re-baptized by some jurisdictions. They must also reject the teachings of their former church where they differ from Orthodoxy. Now why would anyone even suspect that the Eastern Orthodox church would just happily ordain any Anglican who so wished?

It’s just not going to be possible to have a civil, rational discussion about this, is it? Your pictures explain nothing. It’s like you folks have a standard counterargument for just about everything, almost like you’re working from a “playbook”. But the counterarguments don’t really say anything substantive.

Basically as crusader said, it comes down to “you want what you want, current Church teaching is irrelevant”.

[quote=Melman]It’s just not going to be possible to have a civil, rational discussion about this, is it? Your pictures explain nothing. It’s like you folks have a standard counterargument for just about everything, almost like you’re working from a “playbook”. But the counterarguments don’t really say anything substantive.

Basically as crusader said, it comes down to “you want what you want, current Church teaching is irrelevant”.
[/quote]

Ok, what church teachings are we denying, list them?

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.