www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How do you deal with Traditionalists?

Antonius:

I don't believe you really want a return to the Latin Church's ancient traditions. If so, the Low Mass that is in the 1962 Typical Edition of the Roman Missal would have to be forbidden again. The Low Mass that so many of us remember was actually the taking of an abuse and making it regular. The Solemn High Mass and High Mass--sung--is closer to what could be termed our ancient traditions. We might also have to do some more research to determine what had been cut out to make these two forms what they were as set down in the Missal established after the Council of Trent.

Low Mass developed because of the idea that only one person could be remembered at one Liturgy. Priests were given stipends to remember people and, as an abuse, would celebrate as many Masses in a day as they could. Doing this day after day led many to cut down as much as they could and the Low Mass--the minimum--came into being. It should also be noted that much of this was something that most people had no idea of since they did not understand the language and many of these Low Masses were not attended by anyone but the priest. I've read of situations where the wealthy would build a chapel and hire a priest away from his assignment so that he could celebrate Masses all day for their departed relatives. So there was also some kind of encouragement to get in as many as possible in a single day.

You see, the history of the Latin Church is a history of Liturgy being added to and cut down--a living thing. At the time of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, it seems, from my reading of history, that the Latin Liturgy was similar enough to that of Byzantium that they had no trouble serving in Rome. It also seems that the principle difficulty they had with the Germans in Moravia was that they served in Slavonic while the Germans served in Latin. It seems to have been an argument of liturgical language vs. vernacular. I would have to ask what period of time you mean when you state that we should be returning to our own ancient liturgical customs.

The Latin Church, like the Latin language, focused on what was essential, much like the Latin language asks the question "what is required." It has been her particular genius to concentrate what other liturgical traditions have elaborated on. Neither approach is wrong. I do, however, jump right in to agree with you if your principle objection to the Vatican II liturgical development is the lack of reverence shown in so many quarters. That, however, is not something that the Church or the Council mandated or even foresaw. That is something that has developed with the encouragement of those who thought that the breaking of ancient patterns of reverent behavior inpeded "the full and active participation of the people" called for in the documents of the Council and since. Pope Paul VI and the Council Fathers spoke of a "noble simplicity" to replace the many layers of often-conflicting rules and overlapping celebrations. We should also remember that there was a major simplification of the Latin Liturgy in 1937 but only those with a knowledge of Latin would appreciate the simplification done at that time: in the proper parts of the Liturgy for each day there were three or more prayers--one seasonal, one for the day, and one for a particular saint that might be remembered that day. We grew up with only one at each place that the Liturgy called for a proper prayer. Do we go back to three or more at each place? My great-grandmother was totally opposed to this change to her last days.

I hope you have read the many instructions that the present Pontiff has written about the restoration of reverence and proper liturgical practice. You are probably also aware of the many shrill voices raised in chorus opposing his efforts.

In Christ,
BOB

theophan:

Traditionalists like me do not object to the type
of "liturgical development" in the Western Church
that took place over the centuries prior to Vatican
II. We object to the wholesale abandonment of Tradition
and Doctrine that embodies the "Novus Ordo",
in which every word of every prayer in the
Mass has been changed, and virtually everything that
was distinctly Catholic doctrine has been removed,
to the extent that many protestants are perfectly
comfortable using prayers from the "Novus Ordo" in
their "services". Whereas, in the Eastern Catholic Churches, as I understand it, the
Liturgies were translated into the vernacular
WITHOUT changing the meanings.

However, it's probably not appropriate to
continue this discussion on a Byzantine Forum...

Antonius:

If you are focusing on the translations that have come out of ICEL, I cannot agree with you more. But they have little to do with the actual text of the Liturgy that was promulgated in Latin. They are the fruit of those who wanted to send the English-speaking world off in the direction of a misguided ecumenism that wished to water down Catholicsm for the sake of a union with our Protestant brethren. In many cases the translations are terrible. There we can agree. But, again, that was not the intent of the Fathers of the Council or of the Church. Hopefully we will see a reversal of this last 40 years and the putting of the English speaking world back onto the same track that our brethren in other countries are on.

You mention that many Protestants are comfortable with the prayers that we currently use. Let's see what happens when the translations are complete for the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal that are currently coming out.

On the other hand, we must always remember that the Lord said that He was Truth. He did not say that He was custom or small "t" tradition. Vatican II was the work of all the bishops of the Catholic world gathered in council under the presidency of the Roman Pontiff. That, for Catholics, is a sign that there is something more here than the opinion of a group of bishops. We believe that the Holy Spirit was at work there. Nowhere in the decrees was there mention of any of the liturgical abuses or doctrinal aberrations that so many traditionalists object to. What the Council called us to do was to see things from a whole new angle--the same doctrines from a different angle. Liturgy was supposed to be opened up so that people again participated fully and consciously so as to build their faith. It was not to be the province of only those learned in Latin or in the clergy alone.

On another thread, I posted that we are not responsible for what others do or for what they do to us. We are responsible for how we react. I, too, was for many years opposed to the liturgical moves made in the Latin Church. Then I met a priest who had advanced degree work in liturgy who showed me that much of what I had seen and much of what was being passed off as the Church's wishes was nothing more than some liturgist's own interpretation of the documents surrounding the liturgical reform. There can be beauty in the Latin Church's liturgy if it is done as the Church wishes it to be done. I have seen and experienced this beauty and know that it can be done.

We have to be careful, though, in any objection to the reformed liturgy. Christ still comes to His people for their sanctification, even when the forms are flawed and even when the priest is unworthy. To state otherwise is heresy, the willful refusal to believe what the Church puts before us to believe. When one is tempted to believe that only the Tridentine liturgy is authentic, one steps outside the same Catholic Tradition one hopes to defend.

In Christ,

BOB

Christ is risen!

How to deal with traditionalists? Being an ex-Latin trad (SSPX), I can only say by trying to understand them. One has to understand that the average traditionalist is always on the defensive. They are constantly fighting a battle with the local bishop, the local priests, and even amongst themselves. Truth be told, it is a rather sad existence: to try to be faithful to your Church, but not in the way your Church wants you to be faithful to it. It is a very paradoxical state that should only merit our sympathy.

If you encounter them, usually when they come to an Eastern Catholic Church, try to explain why things are done the way they are. A good knowledge of the old Roman rite will help in making comparisons. For example, if they come for Sunday Liturgy, they might ask, "Why don't you kneel at the Consecration?" A good response to Latin traditionalists would be to appeal to Latin tradition; there was no penetential kneeling during Mass in the ancient Roman rite. During Lent, at the Collect on weekdays, the clergy intoned "Flectamus genua" (Let us bend the knee). This was absent on Sundays, even during Lent. Such a respnse would pacify even the most zealous Trad. Here, like in many things, knowledge of the other leads to understanding of the other.

This being said, you should try and find the good qualities of the traditionalists, ones that we Eastern Catholics should ponder. Traditionalists are very committed; they are usually not "Sunday Catholics". Most importantly, they have a much more healthy attitude (when taken in moderation) of criticism towards the current state of the world and the Church. JPII is a nice guy and all, and I don't think many could do a better job as Pope, but the "rah-rah" attittude of most conservative Catholics towards his papacy is very unhealthy, and basically only a continuation of "extreme ultramontanism" of the "bad ol' days" before the "New Pentecost" (here read: Second Vatican Council). Being Catholic is not the same as being a member of the John Paul II Fan Club; it does not mean considering his Catechism as the Fifth Gospel and his encyclicals as part of the Canon of Scripture. The traditionalists (at least the more moderate ones) form the loyal opposition of the right, which in my opinion is the conscience of the Latin Church; the voice of St. Pius X and Pius XII ringing in the ears of ecclesiatics who would rather ignore their legacy. The traditionalists have their defects, and even their severe defects, but in the present church (ex: just pick up any current issue of Commonweal, America, or your local Latin diocesan newspaper), at least they are still Catholic in the full sense of the word.

Arturo

Theophan:

Unlike some Traditionalists, I do not state that
the Tridentine Rite is the "only authentic Liturgy",
but I will always believe that is remains
FAR SUPERIOR to the "Novus Ordo". As far as
Vatican II is concerned, I think that the
"bishops of the Catholic world" that took
control of the Council (Hijacked, as some say)
were about as Catholic as the Arian bishops,
and that the Council itself, while certainly
being a LAWFUL council, was not so much GUIDED
by the Holy Spirit, but rather PERMITTED by
the Holy Spirit, as part of the vision of
Pope Leo XIII. As far as the Third Typical
Edition of the Roman Missal, the American
Bishops will simply ignore it, just like they
do with any Vatican instruction that they don't
like, since there is no enforcement mechanism
to ensure their obedience.

All this is why I believe that the Eastern
Catholic Churches are by and large the principal
hope for the future as they still have an
uncorrupted Liturgy. Since Vatican II, the
Eastern Churches are, in my opinion, the
"house built upon the rock" of Matthew 24,
while the Novus Ordo Church is the "house
built upon the sand". And we all know what
happened to the "house built upon the sand"...

That is I exclusively attend a Byzantine
Ruthenian Rite parish...................

Theophan,Arturo,Antonius,

I wish I could combine all your fine last posts for a great summary, but I am not as talented as some here, I am a "old school" Latin, but like many, I look to the East to get myself in order.

james

I am a Western/Latin Catholic who could be labeled a traditionalist. I would prefer to slit my own wrist than have to listen to the "music" of Marty Haugen or David Haas [mgilleland.com] .

I used to live not too far from a very well-known parish that offered a reverent Novus Ordo in Latin, yet I'd still prefer the Tridentine Mass any day--even if it were a low Mass (though I consider low Masses to be a bit of an abomination, at least on Sundays).

The first time I went to a Byzantine Catholic parish, I did so partially out of curiousity and partially because it was much more convenient than the approved Tridentine Mass in the area I used to live.

I try to be a good guest when I am lucky enough to be able to attend the Divine Liturgy. I try to blend in and have never referred to the Divine Liturgy as the Mass (on the other hand, I have had conversations with born and raised Byzantines who call the Divine Liturgy the Mass).

But a funny thing has happened. I have fallen in love with the Byzantine way. If I had the option, I would now prefer to attend the Divine Liturgy of our Father among the Saints John Chrysostom even over the Tridentine Mass. (It's somewhat irrelevant, as I consider myself lucky if I can get to either the Divine Liturgy or Tridentine Mass even a few times a year.)

I have read The Way of a Pilgrim and (parts of) the Philokalia and have found that the Eastern/Byzantine/Orthodox/whatever approach to spirtuality via the Prayer of the Heart appeals to me more than anything else I have ever encountered, whether it be Carmelite spirituality or whatnot.

Being a "traditionalist" or whatever I am is not terribly fun. Most Catholics think I'm nuts. Most bishops would like it if we went away and aren't very generous in letting us have our beloved Mass. The S.S.P.X-type crowd thinks that we've compromised our faith and that the indult only exists to poach people away from their Masses. The Feeneyites just irritate the heck out of me.

I don't know if this stream of random thoughts makes any sense to anyone, but I thought I should share my thoughts on the subject.

Jason

Dear Jason,

Well, don't fight it then! Welcome!

As an EC, I also love Carmelite and Benedictine spirituality - in fact both have strong Eastern roots.

When I visited Chartres Cathedral's crypts, I saw beautiful, although fading, icons that made me feel at home there, as I would be in any Eastern Church.

There is much in Eastern spirituality and liturgical tradition that was once well represented in the West.

Welcome, once again.

Alex

Actually, I do love Benedictine spirituality. I have read the Rule of St. Benedict a number of times and was always deeply moved by it.

I consider Benedictine Spirituality to be very compatible with the Prayer of the Heart. I think there is a parallel between what St. Benedict in his Rule describes as the twelfth degree of humility and the constant repitition of the Jesus Prayer.

Once upon a time, I was considering joining a Benedictine monastery [clearcreekmonks.org] , and I still consider St. Benedict to be one of my patrons, which I suppose one could guess by my avatar and nom de guerre.

This weekend I will be travelling and hope to be able to attend the Divine Liturgy.

Jason

I wholeheartedly agree!

[Linked Image]

Are you an Oblate by any chance?

Michael

No, but I've given it some thought.

Ejus is obitu nostro praesentia muniamur,
Jason

(May we be strengthened by his presence at the hour of our death)

This discussion regarding "tradition" needs some balance. Someone once said:

Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof