On Vocations, Priestly and Religious
#11
Quote:While I'm excited to read that your seminary is open to Tradition, and yourself and fellow seminarians are like-minded, what happens to the seminarian or candidate who says, "I only wish to offer the TLM"? Or what if the priest celebrates the NO in Latin and AO-- or just speaks unequivocally? And really, I think we all know the answer.

This is why some trads really infuriate me. Sure, if the Church were composed entirely of priests and Latin scholars, that'd be fine. But the liturgy has changed (I should be glad to discuss the Catholicity of that change elsewhere, to be sure), and the people are in a much different place, pastorally speaking, than they were 50 years ago. It's been two generations since Vatican II, and the parishioners of my generation simply could not handle the straight up EF, despite its intrinsic beauties. Saying we need to out and out abolish the Novus Ordo seem incredibly imprudent. I remember going to my first Extraordinary Form - a Low Mass. It was almost completely unintelligible to me. Perhaps the firm traditionalists who have never regularly attended anything else see it differently, but without a suitable introduction (which trads almost never provide), the Mass shuts people out. There's almost an attitude of "keep the Mass secret and unintelligible to the parishioners", and certainly I have never heard a priest preach on the sections of the Mass, to help the people understand what is being done.

The problem is this: Catholics in the United States are almost entirely ignorant of their own tradition. How can we ease them into seeing the wonders of it? My answer: start with the Novus Ordo. Abolish the liturgical abuse; start doing sections in Latin, e.g. the Sanctus and Agnus Dei; start introducing chant into the liturgy; preach true participation of the Mass - which is praying the Mass along with the priest - and preach the virtues of reverence and veneration; increase the Latin sections until the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are all accounted for; finally, one may begin to be able to re-introduce the Extraordinary Form. Without this preparation, the beauty of the TM would go either unnoticed or repudiated as meaningless.

Thus a priest or seminarian who informed his Ordinary that he would offer only the EF or the NO in Latin should be censured, and harshly - for that shows no concern for the people. His intentions might be noble - the reform of tradition - but such reform must come about from where people are at. The right spirit in the Church, it seems to me, is "Come as you are." However, She does not say "Leave as you are." If I could work my will, the Ordinary Form of the Mass would be an accurate, beautiful translation of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. I think a good case could be made for Mass celebrated, at least in part, in the vernacular (if someone wishes to argue homilies and sermons should be delivered in Latin, I should love to hear it). However, that is not up to me, it is up to the Magisterium.

Traditionalists often seems as if they wish to make no concessions for human weakness, especially with the liturgy and liturgical reform. But an "all or nothing" approach seems foolish.
Reply
#12
(11-10-2012, 07:53 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-10-2012, 07:42 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: There are more suitable threads where we can talk about why the NO, even if valid, isn't Catholic any more than a bowl of tapwater.

This is apparently the minority, "fringe" view now.

I was going to point out the same thing.  Since Philosoraptor is new, he needs to know that a minority of posters here is very vocal in presenting the above view.  However, many of us disagree with it.  Personally I accept the teaching in summorum Pontificum.
Reply
#13
(11-10-2012, 08:25 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: The problem is this: Catholics in the United States are almost entirely ignorant of their own tradition. How can we ease them into seeing the wonders of it? My answer: start with the Novus Ordo. Abolish the liturgical abuse; start doing sections in Latin, e.g. the Sanctus and Agnus Dei; start introducing chant into the liturgy; preach true participation of the Mass - which is praying the Mass along with the priest - and preach the virtues of reverence and veneration; increase the Latin sections until the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are all accounted for; finally, one may begin to be able to re-introduce the Extraordinary Form. Without this preparation, the beauty of the TM would go either unnoticed or repudiated as meaningless.

Thus a priest or seminarian who informed his Ordinary that he would offer only the EF or the NO in Latin should be censured, and harshly - for that shows no concern for the people. His intentions might be noble - the reform of tradition - but such reform must come about from where people are at. The right spirit in the Church, it seems to me, is "Come as you are." However, She does not say "Leave as you are." If I could work my will, the Ordinary Form of the Mass would be an accurate, beautiful translation of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. I think a good case could be made for Mass celebrated, at least in part, in the vernacular (if someone wishes to argue homilies and sermons should be delivered in Latin, I should love to hear it). However, that is not up to me, it is up to the Magisterium.

Traditionalists often seems as if they wish to make no concessions for human weakness, especially with the liturgy and liturgical reform. But an "all or nothing" approach seems foolish.

I am encouraged to see your concern for souls.  This is a wonderful quality to see in a seminarian.

Many traditionalists do not take the impatient, imprudent approach that you describe as problematic.  We too love our Catholic traditions and have as much right to call ourselves traditional Catholics as these others.
Reply
#14


"This is why some trads really infuriate me. Sure, if the Church were composed entirely of priests and Latin scholars, that'd be fine. But the liturgy has changed (I should be glad to discuss the Catholicity of that change elsewhere, to be sure), and the people are in a much different place, pastorally speaking, than they were 50 years ago."

What does that mean?  How does one "pastorally" change?

" It's been two generations since Vatican II, and the parishioners of my generation simply could not handle the straight up EF, despite its intrinsic beauties"

Was there a substantial change in humanity between the time of Pius V and now?  Why can't the parishoners of "your generation" handle the TLM?  European peasants handled it fine for hundreds of years.  They rioted and died when the latin was taken out, which many of them didn't even understand. 

"Saying we need to out and out abolish the Novus Ordo seem incredibly imprudent. I remember going to my first Extraordinary Form - a Low Mass. It was almost completely unintelligible to me. Perhaps the firm traditionalists who have never regularly attended anything else see it differently, but without a suitable introduction (which trads almost never provide), the Mass shuts people out. "

Two things: One, there is an inherent irony in your entire post, because you are appealing to the NO as a tradition!  Your reasoning is synthesized down to what people are used to and comfortable with should not be changed.  Why don't you feel the same way when Paul VI changed the mass?  Where is your consideration for that generation of Catholics that left the Church or heard mass in a storage shed?  Two, the mass doesn't shut people out, people shut the mass out.  There is truth in there being an inherent difficulty to progressing spiritually and using the mass as a guide, but making it easier by watering down and destroying doctrine isn't the way to do it.  That's the same logic used to justify abortion.  "We need to have insitutionalized chambers of death so that mothers don't have back alley abortions."  Or, in this case, "We need to have a muted down liturgy that meets the people on their own terms so that they're not scared away." 

"There's almost an attitude of "keep the Mass secret and unintelligible to the parishioners", and certainly I have never heard a priest preach on the sections of the Mass, to help the people understand what is being done."

Oh, gimme a break.  Get a missal and follow along.  Do you also demand to watch foreign movies re-dubbed in English?

"The problem is this: Catholics in the United States are almost entirely ignorant of their own tradition."

That's one of the problems, and a huge one, yes. 

"How can we ease them into seeing the wonders of it? My answer: start with the Novus Ordo. Abolish the liturgical abuse; start doing sections in Latin, e.g. the Sanctus and Agnus Dei; start introducing chant into the liturgy; preach true participation of the Mass - which is praying the Mass along with the priest - and preach the virtues of reverence and veneration; increase the Latin sections until the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are all accounted for; finally, one may begin to be able to re-introduce the Extraordinary Form. Without this preparation, the beauty of the TM would go either unnoticed or repudiated as meaningless."

The NO is not traditional.  The liturgical abuses are just accidents in a program that is substantially different than the TLM.  The mass of Paul VI, in it's original form, with no "abuses" is no better than a clown mass.  It still avoids the mention of sacrifice.  Still no offertory.  Still no separation of priest and lay people.  Still no Aufer a Nobis or Judica me.  A protestant attending a NO could not be sure what kind of liturgy he was attended, because there's nothing that's explicitly Catholic about the NO. 

It's not simply about "getting people to KNOW tradition."  It's about getting them to follow it.  Tradition isn't some archaic trophy to be displayed in a hall and dusted off once in a while.  It's the living Catholic faith, handed down from Christ and the apostles.  In the very strictest sense, there are only traditional Catholics, because Catholicism cannot be separated from Tradition. 

"Thus a priest or seminarian who informed his Ordinary that he would offer only the EF or the NO in Latin should be censured, and harshly - for that shows no concern for the people."

So you agree then, that the changes to the mass in the 60's should be censured?  That is the logic you are using. 

"His intentions might be noble - the reform of tradition - but such reform must come about from where people are at."

No, no no!  Tradition doesn't reform!  It *may* be re applied in later times when we are faced with problems that we haven't been placed with but Tradition is unchanging.  You are preaching the Cult of Man.  Concessions can be made insofar as the faith is not jeopardized.  What was it Augustine said?  In essentiall things, unity, in non essential things, libery, in all things, charity.  The essentials must remain (the sacrifice of the mass, the sacraments, the dogmas) and the non essentials may be given concessions (eastern rites, local customs that do not infringe on the essential things).

"The right spirit in the Church, it seems to me, is "Come as you are." However, She does not say "Leave as you are.""

She doesn't say "come as you are and remain as you are."  We must be transformed in Christ.  The Church is for sinners, but not for sinners to remain as they are, but to realize their natural end through grace and "throwing off the old man."

" If I could work my will, the Ordinary Form of the Mass would be an accurate, beautiful translation of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. "

The language of the mass is not, and has never been a problem.  I would prefer the TLM to be in one universal language, but would not seriously protest a vernacular one.

"I think a good case could be made for Mass celebrated, at least in part, in the vernacular (if someone wishes to argue homilies and sermons should be delivered in Latin, I should love to hear it). However, that is not up to me, it is up to the Magisterium. "

There's nothing magesterial about language, that's disciplinary.  Language can change at the whim of the pope or whoever has the power to change it.  There can be bad changes, but language is not dogmatic by any means.

"Traditionalists often seems as if they wish to make no concessions for human weakness, especially with the liturgy and liturgical reform. But an "all or nothing" approach seems foolish."

I think that is a very naive statement.  Concessions shouldn't be made according to human weakness, no.  Did Christ tell us that sin can be shrugged off because we're "only human?"

No.  He said "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect."


More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#15
The problem, Mythrandylan, is this: you lack moderation in liturgical reform. Yes, I readily grant that the change from the Tridentine Mass to the Pauline Mass was quite painful. I'll accept your word for it, though I was not present for the change, and doubt you were either. Yes, I would also agree the form of the Mass should, in general, be changed only slowly (and to say that the TLM didn't change seems nonsensical). None of this is relevant, however, for this reason:

The people are not in a position where they can access the Extraordinary Form. You don't seem to care about this: "Just grab a missal and follow along." I can tell you, as a man recently discovering the EF, it is not that simple. You have likely been attending the EF for years and don't remember or never experienced the difficulty. Only with careful devotion and practice am I able to follow the movements of the Mass; I cannot expect the same level of commitment from the people. They cannot follow it as the European peasants did, for they lack the tradition of the peasants. How are they to acquire it?

And thus, they need to be led towards the EF. As you said: "Come as you are, but not remain as you are". This process of 'not remaining' - transformation - is precisely my goal. What's yours? Just abolish the NO? That would be a terrible mistake, for, regretfully, the NO is tradition for contemporary parishioners. They grew up with it. Most of their parents grew up with it, and it is all they know. Abolishing it and replacing it with a completely unintelligible Mass would be like teaching a child to swim by hurling him into the sea. More prudent methods seem possible. I have outlined mine. What is yours? Thus it is imperative to begin liturgical form from where the parish, the congregation is, not where we should like them to be.

Quote:Tradition doesn't reform!
I meant 'reform' in the sense of re-form: a renewal, a bringing-back of what something was in the past.

Reply
#16
(11-10-2012, 07:21 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: On the contrary! the change is happening right now, from the bottom up. At the Josephinum (my seminary), we joke that there's only three kinds of seminarians: rad-trad, trad, and conservative. 

This accords with my experience as a layman encountering new priests. It's not changing that quickly everywhere, but things are changing and for the better. This is due to the adroit leadership of our Pope.

I'm glad to hear that you will be learning the TLM. It is truly and deeply reverent and fitting.

Do be aware that around here you're going to need some thick armor. There are those who seem to think that if you deny that 9/11 was a plot hatched by evil Jew-Masons to destroy Pope Williamson I, the world's last Roman Catholic bishop, you're some kind of idiot as well as being an outright heretic. This phenomenon is due to a hitherto-undiscovered warping of the space-time continuum by the intense electronic activity of the Internet interfering with the Schumann Resonance of the Earth's magnetosphere, disrupting the brain wave patterns of certain unfortunates. Try not to get too angry at them... it's bad for your blood pressure and it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

Reply
#17
.
Reply
#18
(11-10-2012, 09:39 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: .

QFT
Reply
#19
(11-10-2012, 07:59 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(11-10-2012, 07:53 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-10-2012, 07:42 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: There are more suitable threads where we can talk about why the NO, even if valid, isn't Catholic any more than a bowl of tapwater.

This is apparently the minority, "fringe" view now.

Catholics today do well to remember that our English ancestor Catholics thought it a view worth dying for. 

Except Cranmer went against the Pope and the Church. Now the Mass came right from Peter. Big difference!


Philosoraptor, just PM me if you every have a question about the EF, like how it is arrange, the rubrics, and what-not. It is easy once you get your stride. But please feel free.
Reply
#20
(11-10-2012, 10:05 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(11-10-2012, 07:59 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(11-10-2012, 07:53 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-10-2012, 07:42 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: There are more suitable threads where we can talk about why the NO, even if valid, isn't Catholic any more than a bowl of tapwater.

This is apparently the minority, "fringe" view now.

Catholics today do well to remember that our English ancestor Catholics thought it a view worth dying for. 

Except Cranmer went against the Pope and the Church. Now the Mass came right from Peter. Big difference!


Philosoraptor, just PM me if you every have a question about the EF, like how it is arrange, the rubrics, and what-not. It is easy once you get your stride. But please feel free.

That, of course, makes it worse.

If the NO wasn't Catholic when Cranmer forced it across England, it's not Catholic now.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)