Trads - what's up with ya'll

[Aloysius]

It was once re-branded as Catholic vs Catholic bickering.

the spirit of the rule as I interpret it is that we shouldn't be debating the validity of things at the heart of people's experience of their Catholic faith.  like saying the novus ordo is invalid or receiving on the hand is evil and wrong or saying the pope is not really the pope would be prohibited; but mostly leeway is usually allowed for respectful discussions about issues within the church even if two Catholics are debating each other.

anyway mediators can correct me if i'm wrong on the current level of interpretation of the rule.  it's mostly a catch all to keep things from getting nasty and people feeling attacked over things that they have every right as Catholics to be devoted to.

[fides' Jack]

Thank you, that helps.

[fides' Jack]

I'll respond to the original query:

I grew up more rad-trad than most.  We were schismatic (my parents didn't know it at the time).  The group I was with ended up being excommunicated years later.  

We left that group when I was 15.  We ended up going to the Latin Mass for several more years at an FSSP parish almost 2 hours away, until a new mission (and later parish) was started a bit closer to home (45 mins).  

I'm still thankful for the whole experience, largely because we were actually taught the catechism there.  Thanks to that I have a much better understanding of Catholic moral teaching than most conservative, orthodox Catholics.  I make that statement as a matter of fact, but the truth is that in the past it was a source of spiritual pride for me, and I know now that it will ultimately only serve as a path to my condemnation (I know better, therefore I should not fall into the same errors as others do.  But I'm still just as much of a sinner as everyone else, if not more so, so my punishment will be greater in the end.).

The contrast during the transition in some of the most formative years of my life led to an overall disdain for anything Novus Ordo-related.  That disdain lasted for almost a decade, during which time I knew I had to work on humility, and did.  Also during that time I had to overcome a bitterness due to several different personal things happening, related to my diocese and it's hierarchical members, that were very hurtful - and these were almost entirely due to a very poor understanding of Church teaching on their part.  But we had a great bishop for a while (in my opinion at the time he was one of the best bishops in the country), and he made a tremendous impact on my life and was instrumental in my being able to drop a lot of the emotional baggage I had been carrying around.

As of right now I do believe that the smells and bells and language and reverence and traditions of the Usus Antiquior make it extrinsically better than the Novus Ordo, but the single most important part, the intrinsic quality of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist, remains intact as long as it's validly celebrated.  I hold no animus toward anyone with differing opinions on the matter - I'm wrong, I'm sure, about a great many things, too.  Vatican II was a travesty, and a number of bad things came out of it, but I am not qualified to say specifically what all of those bad things are (some of it, such as Communion in the hand, are pretty irrefutably mistakes).  My general opinion is probably somewhere along the lines of that of Bishop Schneider in Kazakhstan, but the recent statement given by Archbishop Vigano has given me reason to wonder about the direction the Church will go in the future.

I do not have disdain for the Novus Ordo Mass (I attend one, currently), but I do have disdain for bad music and architecture.  I think Novus Ordo parishioners have some good qualities that Rad-trads lack, and vice-versa.  Rad-trads just happen to be right more often, and that makes them prideful.

(Due to the Catholic-vs-Catholic stuff, I will not respond to any argument made about these aforementioned issues so it doesn't become a debate)

In the recent movie, A Hidden Life, a man makes the statement, "Don't they know evil when they see it?"  Currently, the goings-on in the world have made it clear that the fog of satan has enveloped almost the entire world.  Certainly most bishops have been blinded by it.  The blindness to the evil in the world has been my biggest source of frustration lately.  Much more so than TLM vs NO craziness (even though they are definitely related).  I will say though, it's been my experience that rad-trads seem to be able to see through the fog much better.  Interestingly, the old, excommunicated, schismatic group I grew up in cannot - I went to their website recently and they're buying into a lot of what's going on, too.

God has allowed the minds of men to become cloudy and unable to see clearly, as He did several times in the Old Testament, so that men can reap the consequences of the sins they committed and ultimately turn back to Him.  As it is right now, the fog is so thick that one cannot stay on the path through it without a solid catechesis and strong prayer life.  It's impossible.

That's what's up with me, anyway.

[chrysostom]

I guess I'll say my piece too.

i knew nothing of all the internecine disagreements until I converted. They didn't surprise me as the Catholic Church is the largest in the world, and when I learned of competing perspectives my mind was more often than not drawn to agree with the more traditional one in each disagreement.

Not always, but often.

Constantly vocal critics of anything tire me out, even I'm favorable to some of the critic's points.

[Ash Wednesday]

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

It was once re-branded as Catholic vs Catholic bickering.

the spirit of the rule as I interpret it is that we shouldn't be debating the validity of things at the heart of people's experience of their Catholic faith.  like saying the novus ordo is invalid or receiving on the hand is evil and wrong or saying the pope is not really the pope would be prohibited; but mostly leeway is usually allowed for respectful discussions about issues within the church even if two Catholics are debating each other.

anyway mediators can correct me if i'm wrong on the current level of interpretation of the rule.  it's mostly a catch all to keep things from getting nasty and people feeling attacked over things that they have every right as Catholics to be devoted to.

That is correct!

Debating things like the validity of the papacy/Novus Ordo/Vatican II is not allowed because we don't want this board to be a place where Catholics getting caught up in these debates end up feeling fear, confusion or cause of scandal -- being led into beliefs that are not in communion with the Church. 

By all means, most things are welcome for discussion except those specific things -- but I posted the reminder because I've been here for a very long time and often the subject of "traditionalism" can get a bit dicey. 

[Ash Wednesday]

17 hours ago, Aloysius said:

it's interesting to note I think a lot of people who were JPII-era "conservative (for lack of a better term)" Catholics have ended up a bit traddy during the Francis era. 

I'm probably one of those, at least somewhat. Though I've long been very much attracted to traditionalism (of the FSSP variety, not SSPX) I probably have not been able to go full all in, partially because I cannot always attend a Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) so I willingly attend the Ordinary Form otherwise. My main desire is to just see the Extraordinary Form more available and to see some devotions and practices brought back (For example, Ember Days). But as far as what Mass someone wants to attend, whether they wear a veil or how they are receiving communion, I generally avoid those debates even on other forums or groups. In my experience they are rarely constructive and I figured we are all adults and people can discern and decide these matters for themselves. 

The term "traditionalist" or "trad" is a very loaded term though -- I've seen some call a Catholic who is faithful to ALL the teachings of the Church a "pre-Vatican II trad" which I find both sad and laughable. What people call "trad" is often the source of debate, because many people have different views of what that means. Some say that "trad" means "recognize and resist" (recognizing the papacy and Vatican II, but resisting what they find problematic) -- others would include schismatics or sedevacantists, though I think that being outside the communion of the Church is NOT following tradition at all...

I generally leave the discussions of Vatican II and the "hermaneutic of continuity" to clergy or theologians more capable than I. I've had concerns about matters like widespread religious indifferentism and modernism, but that is so much above my pay grade I just take any concerns and turn it over to God. I'm inclined to think that Pope John XXIII desired to call the Second Vatican Council for good reason, and while I do NOT approve of the fake "spirit of Vatican II" -- I don't think everything after the 50s was horrible. So because of that, I'm sure that some would say I'm NOT a "real trad". Not that I care. For all intents and purposes I just consider myself to be a Catholic. 

I do think while trads do invite some of their own criticism, I also think they get demonized and stereotyped in ways that aren't charitable, and I don't think that helps relations within the Church at all. It seems like people at various wings in the Church point fingers at each other as the cause of everything that's bad, when, really, we should mind how much time we do that -- as opposed to spending time in prayer and examining ourselves.
 

[fides' Jack]

43 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I'm probably one of those, at least somewhat. Though I've long been very much attracted to traditionalism (of the FSSP variety, not SSPX) I probably have not been able to go full all in, partially because I cannot always attend a Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) so I willingly attend the Ordinary Form otherwise. My main desire is to just see the Extraordinary Form more available and to see some devotions and practices brought back (For example, Ember Days). But as far as what Mass someone wants to attend, whether they wear a veil or how they are receiving communion, I generally avoid those debates even on other forums or groups. In my experience they are rarely constructive and I figured we are all adults and people can discern and decide these matters for themselves. 

The term "traditionalist" or "trad" is a very loaded term though -- I've seen some call a Catholic who is faithful to ALL the teachings of the Church a "pre-Vatican II trad" which I find both sad and laughable. What people call "trad" is often the source of debate, because many people have different views of what that means. Some say that "trad" means "recognize and resist" (recognizing the papacy and Vatican II, but resisting what they find problematic) -- others would include schismatics or sedevacantists, though I think that being outside the communion of the Church is NOT following tradition at all...

I generally leave the discussions of Vatican II and the "hermaneutic of continuity" to clergy or theologians more capable than I. I've had concerns about matters like widespread religious indifferentism and modernism, but that is so much above my pay grade I just take any concerns and turn it over to God. I'm inclined to think that Pope John XXIII desired to call the Second Vatican Council for good reason, and while I do NOT approve of the fake "spirit of Vatican II" -- I don't think everything after the 50s was horrible. So because of that, I'm sure that some would say I'm NOT a "real trad". Not that I care. For all intents and purposes I just consider myself to be a Catholic. 

I do think while trads do invite some of their own criticism, I also think they get demonized and stereotyped in ways that aren't charitable, and I don't think that helps relations within the Church at all. It seems like people at various wings in the Church point fingers at each other as the cause of everything that's bad, when, really, we should mind how much time we do that -- as opposed to spending time in prayer and examining ourselves.
 

Hear, hear!

[Ash Wednesday]

Paraphrasing but I think it was Father Ripperger who warned Catholics about the pitfalls of getting into theological debates that are out of their league, or spending too much time online getting really wound up by the scandals and concerns going on in the Church. And I think that's pretty wise advice. 

After understanding "trads" a little more over the years, I think partially, one of the problems is that people don't always know someone's voice or demeanor -- it gets completely lost over the internet. So online discussion can come across as a lot more cold and rude than, say, two Catholics meeting for some Theology on Tap, at times navigating differences with charity, over a beer. 

I also would argue that at the heart of it, many trads DO mean well, and many are just protective of reverence for the Lord, and have genuine concern for the Church and for souls. And I think at times there is often a lot of misunderstanding and breakdown in conversation because people can take certain terminology and opinions too personally. So it's not that they have bad intentions despite coming across as angry and disapproving all the time. Though naturally scripture dictates that everything must be done with charity.

[Lilllabettt]

I could have been a trad, but there were too many crazy eyes - get me? 

[chrysostom]

Peace, now post this thread both on c a t h o l i c a n s w e r s and f i s h e a t e r s and sit back and enjoy as you either a) get banned and/or b) smugly sit back to see all of your negative impressions confirmed.

Couldn't resist...

[fides' Jack]

5 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Paraphrasing but I think it was Father Ripperger who warned Catholics about the pitfalls of getting into theological debates that are out of their league, or spending too much time online getting really wound up by the scandals and concerns going on in the Church. And I think that's pretty wise advice. 

After understanding "trads" a little more over the years, I think partially, one of the problems is that people don't always know someone's voice or demeanor -- it gets completely lost over the internet. So online discussion can come across as a lot more cold and rude than, say, two Catholics meeting for some Theology on Tap, at times navigating differences with charity, over a beer. 

I also would argue that at the heart of it, many trads DO mean well, and many are just protective of reverence for the Lord, and have genuine concern for the Church and for souls. And I think at times there is often a lot of misunderstanding and breakdown in conversation because people can take certain terminology and opinions too personally. So it's not that they have bad intentions despite coming across as angry and disapproving all the time. Though naturally scripture dictates that everything must be done with charity.

I'm a big fan of Fr. Ripperger; he's a very learned man and holy exorcist priest.  I'd be a little afraid of meeting him in person, just because he is so knowledgeable and understands people's souls so well, I feel like he could see through me in a heartbeat.  But I also know that he knows people I know, so there is a chance...

He did indeed say the things you attributed to him.  He also said to just stay away from online conversation boards completely, especially political boards and those where Catholics debate things Catholic...  So clearly I'm not the best at following his advice.

But even he will not comment on the subject of what happens if the pope falls into heresy, or a few other things that seem pertinent today.  I believe he said he doesn't think he's qualified to be able to do so.  But if he's not qualified, there are truly very, very few who are.

[Peace]

On 10/25/2020 at 10:09 PM, chrysostom said:

I'm guessing you like to learn things by talking it out? (correct me if I'm wrong.) My learning style is more to watch and wait. Strengths and weaknesses in both methods, but as long as goodwill is present I respect the spirit of inquiry!

Nah. My preferred learning method is more like this:

On 10/25/2020 at 10:09 PM, chrysostom said:

In this post, you seem to be critiquing the manner or attitude in which opinions are expressed. But also perhaps the opinions themselves. Are you wondering about what's behind the attitude you perceive in some Catholics or are you wondering about the actual opinions and ideas regardless of how they are expressed?

It's actually weird but I find there to be a pretty big difference between the Trad men and the Trad women that I have met, when it comes to the attitude aspect.

Generally the Trad women I have met, I often tend to think to myself "Where do they make these amazing creatures at? I could definitely see myself marrying one."

I don't know about going to adoration for the first date though.

Now the guys, I have found, on the other hand, have tended to be pretty hard-headed sometimes, to be honest. Like I remember a couple weeks ago I was at a party and I was just having a casual conversation with somebody about the candidates, Trump and Biden. Literally as soon as I said the word "Biden" my Trad friend (not even a part of the conversation) apparently hears me from afar and screams at me, "You can't vote for Biden!" Stuff like that. It's pretty annoying to be honest. I wasn't even talking about voting for the man. Second, I am a grown man who can think for myself. I can talk to these guys about baseball, or volunteering, stuff like that. But can't have any type of a convo relating to politics, theology, etc.

But it could be that there are plenty of Trad guys out there that are more chill. The one's I personally know are a bit too aggressive with the "my way, there is no other way" attitudes in conversation. But it could be that I am just not meeting the right people. That's possible.

As for the actual opinions, I would say that the main issues are the ones I identified in my initial post. I guess at a high-level the issue is that there seems to be a "best" or "proper" way of doing everything without recognizing any possibility of one thing being "best" for some Catholics and another thing being "best" for other Catholics. I don't really get the worldview where there seems to be little room for change or diversity, I suppose.

 

On 10/26/2020 at 12:28 AM, Aloysius said:

it's interesting to note I think a lot of people who were JPII-era "conservative (for lack of a better term)" Catholics have ended up a bit traddy during the Francis era.  I think that's a combination of Benedict's program of mutual enrichment between TLM and Novus Ordo that many of found resonant and drove them more into traditional liturgical norms, and then a sense of dismay over things said and done by Pope Francis (and / or the way things said and done by Pope Francis were portrayed by the media) that maybe made them a bit more fretful about the direction of the church and outspoken about that.  When it comes to what you identify as a trad-lean in the phorums probably has a lot to do with people that went along that trajectory, and back in the day most traddys were eventually chased off the boards, despite all my attempts to mediate between the two groups... ahhh memories.  :D

I imagine in the Church at large there is such a movement of attitudes, though I am not sure how much it's a movement towards being a 'trad' or just being a fretful 'conservative' catholic confused and worried about what they perceive is going on.  it would be interesting to see good polling done in that regard to know whether this trad movement is actually growing or just getting more visible on the internet.

I would guess that it is pretty small, but still growing a bit? In my diocese, I remember, at some point they were adding TLM at some parishes and there was pretty decent demand for it initially, but then it seemed like once there was a certain number of parishes that offered it, like there wasn't enough demand for it really justify any more TL Masses from there.

On 10/26/2020 at 12:28 AM, Aloysius said:

either way people with such anxieties about the direction of the church would certainly tend to be more outspoken about their problems.  to them the church must seem like quite a dysfunctional family at the moment, and a thread like this must seem like a family member saying "oh come now, remember the good times!".

one thing that might be true in terms of people not accepting different cultural iterations of the liturgy might also be that they're spinning their wheels so caught up in the sense of loss of the traditions of the liturgy and the liturgical spirit.  look to the Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholic liturgies to see a preserved liturgical spirit, for example.  While enculturation can be good, it's not just supposed to be a meeting where anyone can express their prayers in any individualistic personal way (although it would be good to have additional prayer meetings like that, that's not what the liturgy is for).  there is a certain ethos of the liturgy you can see across all eastern liturgies and the traditional roman liturgy; gospel music or some specific enculturated aspect need not take away from that, what tends to take away from that is an underlying attitude of innovation that some people approach the liturgy with.

Personally I like good gospel music and think it can fit into the Roman Liturgy just fine, though i do prefer the solemn approach of gregorian chant, but there's some heights of spirituality a good gospel song can reach that are great.  I think adding more musical instruments should always be viewed with suspicion though--a good liturgical principle is that the music should be driven as much as possible by the human voice and the words being sung IMO.  But give me Gospel music over the music of Haugen and Haas any day!!

Yeah I guess I can understand it from the aspect like, if that is the way that you prefer to express your Catholicism, and you feel like it is under attack that opportunities to worship in that manner are dying out, then you would feel like an extra need to be hyper-vigilant about standing up for it.

On one hand, I can totally understand folks standing up for it, fighting for the right to practice it, etc. I'm totally cool with that I and I think that folks should be able to worship in the older way if that's what's good for them. I just don't think you have to throw other forms of worship or expressions of the faith under the bus, in order to advocate for yours. That's one of my main issues I guess.

[Peace]

On 10/26/2020 at 3:40 PM, fides' Jack said:

I'll respond to the original query:

I grew up more rad-trad than most.  We were schismatic (my parents didn't know it at the time).  The group I was with ended up being excommunicated years later.  

We left that group when I was 15.  We ended up going to the Latin Mass for several more years at an FSSP parish almost 2 hours away, until a new mission (and later parish) was started a bit closer to home (45 mins).  

I'm still thankful for the whole experience, largely because we were actually taught the catechism there.  Thanks to that I have a much better understanding of Catholic moral teaching than most conservative, orthodox Catholics.  I make that statement as a matter of fact, but the truth is that in the past it was a source of spiritual pride for me, and I know now that it will ultimately only serve as a path to my condemnation (I know better, therefore I should not fall into the same errors as others do.  But I'm still just as much of a sinner as everyone else, if not more so, so my punishment will be greater in the end.).

The contrast during the transition in some of the most formative years of my life led to an overall disdain for anything Novus Ordo-related.  That disdain lasted for almost a decade, during which time I knew I had to work on humility, and did.  Also during that time I had to overcome a bitterness due to several different personal things happening, related to my diocese and it's hierarchical members, that were very hurtful - and these were almost entirely due to a very poor understanding of Church teaching on their part.  But we had a great bishop for a while (in my opinion at the time he was one of the best bishops in the country), and he made a tremendous impact on my life and was instrumental in my being able to drop a lot of the emotional baggage I had been carrying around.

As of right now I do believe that the smells and bells and language and reverence and traditions of the Usus Antiquior make it extrinsically better than the Novus Ordo, but the single most important part, the intrinsic quality of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist, remains intact as long as it's validly celebrated.  I hold no animus toward anyone with differing opinions on the matter - I'm wrong, I'm sure, about a great many things, too.  Vatican II was a travesty, and a number of bad things came out of it, but I am not qualified to say specifically what all of those bad things are (some of it, such as Communion in the hand, are pretty irrefutably mistakes).  My general opinion is probably somewhere along the lines of that of Bishop Schneider in Kazakhstan, but the recent statement given by Archbishop Vigano has given me reason to wonder about the direction the Church will go in the future.

I do not have disdain for the Novus Ordo Mass (I attend one, currently), but I do have disdain for bad music and architecture.  I think Novus Ordo parishioners have some good qualities that Rad-trads lack, and vice-versa.  Rad-trads just happen to be right more often, and that makes them prideful.

Yeah I dunno how a group can be right more often when they are in schism, but that is just me.

You see the thing about music and architecture, is that there is a good deal of subjectivity here. You may like Jazz and Gothic, I may like classical and Victorian. You don't have to go around telling everyone how bad classical and Victorian is. Just listen to Jazz, and let the folks who like classical listen to that.

On 10/26/2020 at 3:40 PM, fides' Jack said:

(Due to the Catholic-vs-Catholic stuff, I will not respond to any argument made about these aforementioned issues so it doesn't become a debate)

In the recent movie, A Hidden Life, a man makes the statement, "Don't they know evil when they see it?"  Currently, the goings-on in the world have made it clear that the fog of satan has enveloped almost the entire world.  Certainly most bishops have been blinded by it.  The blindness to the evil in the world has been my biggest source of frustration lately.  Much more so than TLM vs NO craziness (even though they are definitely related).  I will say though, it's been my experience that rad-trads seem to be able to see through the fog much better.  Interestingly, the old, excommunicated, schismatic group I grew up in cannot - I went to their website recently and they're buying into a lot of what's going on, too.

God has allowed the minds of men to become cloudy and unable to see clearly, as He did several times in the Old Testament, so that men can reap the consequences of the sins they committed and ultimately turn back to Him.  As it is right now, the fog is so thick that one cannot stay on the path through it without a solid catechesis and strong prayer life.  It's impossible.

That's what's up with me, anyway.

Yeah this is another thing that I don't get. It does seem that Trads have like this nostalgic view of the past, and always see society getting worse-and-worse.

I think you can say with respect to some moral issues, things are getting worse, but with respect to many others, things have gotten much better over time. Heck, my grandparents and your grandparents likely could not even have worshiped together. I mean, it is difficult to harken back a couple hundred years to a time where 1/5 of the population was enslaved, like people were not blind to evil back then. Personally, I don't think that we can say that the "fog of Satan" is worse today than yesteryear. I think you can only say that if you are looking at a narrow range of issues (like abortion and homosexuality, for example).

 

On 10/26/2020 at 5:04 PM, Ash Wednesday said:

The term "traditionalist" or "trad" is a very loaded term though -- I've seen some call a Catholic who is faithful to ALL the teachings of the Church a "pre-Vatican II trad" which I find both sad and laughable. What people call "trad" is often the source of debate, because many people have different views of what that means. Some say that "trad" means "recognize and resist" (recognizing the papacy and Vatican II, but resisting what they find problematic) -- others would include schismatics or sedevacantists, though I think that being outside the communion of the Church is NOT following tradition at all...
 

Yeah that would often be a topic that came up in some of my old debates. Like, at a fundamental level what is "traditional"? In the US at least it seems to connote a particular form of worship (a particular implementation of the TLM, particular forms of music and worship, etc.) but I always said that that particular form of the TLM was never universal in the church, and not even the oldest form of Mass within the church. I think we can see a substantial amount of variation in practice across the world, and throughout time, so I never thought it was fair to choose one particular slice, and call that the "traditional" form as though it has been the universal standard for the whole Church interrupted throughout time.

On 10/26/2020 at 7:19 PM, Lilllabettt said:

I could have been a trad, but there were too many crazy eyes - get me? 

That girl from that one TV show? Haven't seen it, but have heard of her character.

20 hours ago, chrysostom said:

Peace, now post this thread both on c a t h o l i c a n s w e r s and f i s h e a t e r s and sit back and enjoy as you either a) get banned and/or b) smugly sit back to see all of your negative impressions confirmed.

Couldn't resist...

Yeah actually I think the Mediators of Meh here find a good balance, between letting people banter and discuss freely, and letting things get out of control. Some boards I feel like are too stifling, other boards I feel like there is no moderation at all.

[Anastasia]

20 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

But even he will not comment on the subject of what happens if the pope falls into heresy, or a few other things that seem pertinent today.  I believe he said he doesn't think he's qualified to be able to do so.  But if he's not qualified, there are truly very, very few who are.

I guess one of the major differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox is the understanding of the responsibility of the laity: absolutely everyone in the Orthodox Church is responsible for keeping the orthodox = correct teaching. The history of the Church is full of cases when the Bishops fell into heresy and the true faith was mostly defended by some lay women and obscure monastics, like it happened during iconoclast (until the Pope finished the iconoclastic heresy off). A person can be "learnt" but lacking the right spirit (be full of pride) while there are holy persons including holy fools who had no formal theological education yet the Bishops and Patriarchs would come to see them for an advice and this a norm; an Orthodox Archbishop prostrating himself before the holy woman, a mere nun (a fool of God) is nothing unusual.

As for the Traditionalists versus liberals (?), the two opposite poles in the Roman Catholic Church I think both side rarely try to listen to each other and look at the facts. I also think that in their extremes there are very much alike in essence. For example, a priest endlessly breaking the Mass for various announcements about a congregation's life, bringing people into the altar, making children hold hands around it while consecration etc. clearly using the Mass/Eucharist as a tool of making some "community show" where he is a star or whatever. Likewise, a priest who tries to be traditional, instead of placing the Blessed Sacrament on the regular altar as we used to have i.e. close to people began placing it onto the high marble altar which is very far so the Sacrament could be hardly seen. When I asked him why he did it he said "because I wanted to bring an attention to the beauty of the high altar". My words that he cannot use Our Lord to bring an attention to the altar but he must use the altar to bring attention to Our Lord were met with quite disapproval - although eventually he ceased doing that. So, I am quite convinced that all evils in the Church as the result of the attempts to use Our Lord, either for ourselves, the beloved or for the ritual - or to push Him on the second place.

I think Novus Ordo can be done magnificently, with reverence and beauty and I have seen such examples. On the other hand, when it is done without reverence it is dreadful. Also, the orientation of a priest towards the congregation, while is not intrinsically problematic, is  perfect for those priest who want to make a show of themselves. I guess "traditionalist Mass" at least guarantees that there will be no liturgical abuse.

To make a total, my conviction is that Mass must help worship God, to connect with Him and to be lifted up (like a space craft) - so all that shifts an attention away from Him and "flattens" are out of a place there.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Anastasia

[Aloysius]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah I guess I can understand it from the aspect like, if that is the way that you prefer to express your Catholicism, and you feel like it is under attack that opportunities to worship in that manner are dying out, then you would feel like an extra need to be hyper-vigilant about standing up for it.

On one hand, I can totally understand folks standing up for it, fighting for the right to practice it, etc. I'm totally cool with that I and I think that folks should be able to worship in the older way if that's what's good for them. I just don't think you have to throw other forms of worship or expressions of the faith under the bus, in order to advocate for yours. That's one of my main issues I guess.

I definitely understand the point you're making here, but would just point out that this phrasing is a little bit worrying to me as regards the spirit of the liturgy in the sense that it's not supposed to be about personal preference and satisfying some particular market demand of the laity.  like it's ok to have the traditional brand for those who like it, the x brand for those who like that, the y brand for those who like that.  that's a bad mentality.  enculturated forms that fit the spirit of the liturgy, as I said that can be fine (which in many ways is the point you're making), but it's not about appeasing personal preferences of worship or something like that; and extending that to "here's our guitar mass, here's our praise and worship concert style mass, here's our young people mass, here's our liturgical dancing mass, now choose YOUR brand of spirituality and go there!" is just contrary to the spirit of the liturgy in my opinion--all about innovation and fulfilling individual preferences, not about a single unifying form all people regardless of what kind of preference they have for prayer meetings (all of the above could be types of prayer meetings that are organied outside the liturgy and I'd have no problem) come together for.  coming up with a coherent version of the liturgy that's adapted to a culture is one thing, adapting it to 'personal preferences of worship' is quite another.

it is supposed to be something perceived as unifying and relatively timeless; again, compare the TLM and Eastern Orthodox liturgies and see the similar attitudes they're treated with--whatever cultural form the NO takes it should be expressing the same attitudes and spirit of the liturgy as the TLM and Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholic liturgies.

this is why I liked Benedict's mutual enrichment project through Summorum Pontificum--the idea of opening up permissions to use the TLM as much as possible was not to get the TLM to replace the Novus Ordo--it was about exposing more people to the liturgical spirit of the TLM (and in the other direction infusing more mainstream people into TLM communities that may have become kind of ghettoized and rigid and out of touch with the rest of the church sometimes) so that it would rub off on the way the NO was celebrated--get it away from this attitude of innovation and trying to please people and the 'community show' or 'community meeting' aspect it all too often takes on.