Tradition - Traditionalism

[presbyter]

The net result is that we have divided into two groups who only seem to speak to one another in abuse.

I think this is untrue.

I think this is untrue also.

I'm all for tradition, I just haven't got any time for the idea that there's a war going on.

I'm all for tradition and I don't experience any war going on either BUT -

i) - I do not have a personal lived experience of the church in the United States, where I get the impression that this type of debate is more prominent and forceful.

ii) - I am acquainted with individuals (both clerical and lay) who it could be possible to slot into Mannion's taxonomy, of which Baldovin's book is a rational critique. A very, very few of these individuals might be said to be really forceful in their views - in my opinion - and one or two could be deemed "nutters".

Rather than a polarisation of two opposing factions - Mannion identifies five agendas: Those who wish to:

- advance the official reform
-restore the pre-conciliar
- reform the reform
- inculturate the reform
- re-catholicise the reform

but as Rita Ferrone points out (Liturgy - Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2007, Paulist Press) none of these groups within themselves can pinpoint specifically what they want. There's fog and there's fudge.

[Southern Comfort]

i) - I do not have a personal lived experience of the church in the United States, where I get the impression that this type of debate is more prominent and forceful.

Not so. Virtually nothing is happening in the US compared with the UK. The "dialogue" in the UK is renowned world-wide for its quantity, its intensity, its unChristian vitriol, the miniscule number of people involved, and the sheer ignorance and opinionated-ness of many of its protagonists. Most of the people dealt with in Baldovin's book are English and acidic, alas. I say 'ignorance and opinionated-ness' because they think they know it all; but in fact they are prime examples of a little knowledge being a very dangerous thing. Probably the most obnoxious examples are those who, while very knowledgeable in their own particular fields and rightly acknowledged as experts, think that this gives them the right to pontificate on areas about which they know next to nothing. What Baldovin is trying to do (and they're probably too entrenched to see it, even when it's waved in front of their noses) is show them how a broader knowledge of history (and theology) effectively debunks all their positions.

You can see this sort of thing replicated in more than a few parishes. Mr X, who is very successful in the city and handles millions of pounds every day, thinks that he knows everything and can tell Father what to do about any topic which is raised in the life of the parish. On the other hand, Mr Y, who is also very successful and also handles millions every day, is too humble, and insists on saying "Let Father decide. He knows best." IMO, both these stances are far from what we need in our parishes.

[NorthernTenor]

Southern Comfort condemns the "unChristian vitriol" and "acid" with which liturgical matters are often discussed.

After a pause for a refreshing cup of tea, I will limit my comment to agreement.

[NorthernTenor]

[Rather than a polarisation of two opposing factions - Mannion identifies five agendas: Those who wish to:

- advance the official reform
-restore the pre-conciliar
- reform the reform
- inculturate the reform
- re-catholicise the reform

but as Rita Ferrone points out (Liturgy - Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2007, Paulist Press) none of these groups within themselves can pinpoint specifically what they want. There's fog and there's fudge.

This simply observes a breadth of discussion, though it is arguable that its scale is the inevitable result of the revolution of and surrounding the Novus Ordo and its implementation. Without continuity, there is no common hermeneutic.

[NorthernTenor]

The abuse, too, in my opinion, tends to be rather one-sided.

On the evidence of some posts to this board, mcb, I'm not sure that's true. I think it fair to say that my views on liturgy and music often fail to chime with a number of those who post (or have posted) frequently here. My experience of the public and private response to my posts, and observation of comments on some clergy and catholic scholars in good standing, is mixed. It runs from the polite and thoughtful to the abusive and libellous - of a kind that would have been removed even from Holy Smoke.

The anger and vitriol on both sides doesn't surprise me (though it is disappointing). It is the product of revolutionary change and cultural dislocation, and the reaction to it. It is itself evidence for the defence of an organic understanding of tradition and development.

I'm happy to say that I exclude your own posts from my negative observations, and acknowledge the friendliness of your PM to me, which was most welcome.

[mcb]

I said tends.

[NorthernTenor]

I said tends.

On the evidence of some posts to this board, mcb, I'm not sure that tends to be true.

[nazard]

I am much relieved that many of you have experiences of debate between parties of differing views which are conducted in a reasonable manner. Please pray that this practice will spread so that I might one day experience it.

[johnquinn39]

'Traditionalism' - the EF Mass, altar rails, the priest turning his back to the table of the Lord, archaic and non-inclusive language, polyphony and plainsong are just post-modern novelties for people who do not understand V2.

Traditionalism is not, in my view, tradition.

[NorthernTenor]

'Traditionalism' - the EF Mass, altar rails, the priest turning his back to the table of the Lord, archaic and non-inclusive language, polyphony and plainsong are just post-modern novelties for people who do not understand V2.

Traditionalism is not, in my view, tradition.

That begs two questions, John.

[nazard]

'Traditionalism' - the EF Mass, altar rails, the priest turning his back to the table of the Lord, archaic and non-inclusive language, polyphony and plainsong are just post-modern novelties for people who do not understand V2.

Traditionalism is not, in my view, tradition.

A few questions for you to think about:

1) What are the quotes around the word 'traditionalism' for?

2) Does the hyphen mean "which is"? If not, what does it mean?

3) If the EF Mass is a post modern novelty, when did the "modern" period end?

4) Why do you include altar rails in this list?

5) In both forms the rubrics tell the priest to turn his back to the table of the Lord when he is addressing the assembly. How is this associated with 'traditionalism'?

6) Archaic language is often clearer tham the contemporary idioms. Which phrases give you problems?

7) Can you present any evidence to demonstrate that the so called "non-inclusive" language is actually non inclusive? The grammar of every language I have ever tried to learn tells you that mixed gender groups of beings and beings whose gender is unknown are referred to by the masculine noun or pronoun.

7) Polyphony and plainsong as post modern novelties give rise to problems with the dating of eras, see 3) above.

What bearing does an understanding of V2 have on these issues? Are you confident that the people who implemented the reforms understood V2?

9) Obviously traditionalism and tradition are different things, otherwise we would not call them by different names. Why do you point out that they are different?

[mcb]

acknowledge the friendliness of your PM to me, which was most welcome.

Yes, well, PM = private message = private, which is why it's called... never mind. To paraphrase for public consumption, then: I think the forum needs all shades of opinion, and there's such a thing as being provocative for its own sake.

Odd forum quirk: you can edit your post after someone else has replied to it. That can be irritating.

[mcb]

post-modern novelties for people who do not understand V2.

I like this observation, and I think there's some truth in it. I think a lot of the hard-liners really like the idea of belonging to an elite, with private access to ritual refinement that the rest of us are too coarse to appreciate. "Small church getting smaller" and the new Donatism are terms I've come across to describe this tendency.

[alan29]

I like New Donatism. I seem to remember being told by a church historian that the major heresies were the result of people not moving with the church and feeling that it had taken a wrong turn. Clinging on to the wrong kind of tradition, maybe. Anyway I have yet to meet anyone who, like me, remembers the normal parish sunday mass pre Vat2 who would gladly turn the clock back.
Why is archaic English superior to modern English - I just don't get that one at all.

[Southern Comfort]

5) In both forms the rubrics tell the priest to turn his back to the table of the Lord when he is addressing the assembly.

I think you'll find that this is far from the case in the Ordinary Form.

6) Archaic language is often clearer tham the contemporary idioms.

That is certainly not a sustainable position. Clarity is precisely what archaic language, by definition, does not have.

7) Can you present any evidence to demonstrate that the so called "non-inclusive" language is actually non inclusive? The grammar of every language I have ever tried to learn tells you that mixed gender groups of beings and beings whose gender is unknown are referred to by the masculine noun or pronoun.

I think you probably need to study what happened in the 18th century when the grammarians got hold of the English laguage and started to codify practices which were the opposite of what had hitherto been the case. For example, up until then it had been perfectly correct to say "If anyone loves me, they will keep my word" until the grammarians insisted that we should use "he" instead of "they". Forget about other languages, concentrate on English. The "inclusive language" movement, far from being an ultra-left feminist manifestation (yes, I know you didn't say this, but many do) is in fact a movement which wants to take the grammar of English back to where it was several hundred years ago, before academics started to tinker with it.

7) Polyphony and plainsong as post modern novelties give rise to problems with the dating of eras, see 3) above.

I suspect that what John is trying to say is that a lot of folk who espouse plainchant and polyphony never actually lived in the era when those things were common, unlike old fogeys like me who did, and so they have no direct experience of what it was like back then; and therefore that to promote these things is indeed to indulge in post-modernism.

8) What bearing does an understanding of V2 have on these issues? Are you confident that the people who implemented the reforms understood V2?

Read Marini's book, if nothing else.

It is abundantly clear that the people who implemented the reforms were doing nothing more than responding to the demands of bishops' conferences around the world ─ the same bishops who had voted for the V2 documents and set the whole train in motion.

I'm very tired of hearing people trying to claim that the Council Fathers did not want such-and-such, or that what happened afterwards was completely different from what they envisaged in the Council documents. All the historical evidence shows that this is nonsense: even if the Council Fathers had not explored all the implications at the time they voted in the Basilica of St Peter, they certainly moved forward with a vengeance, once they had seen the potential of the reform they had unleashed. They asked for things which had never been mentioned in the Council documents and which had possibly never entered their imaginations at the time. But it was they that asked for them, not the implementers who dreamt it all up.

I view this as a manifestation of a great pastoral sense among the bishops of the world; and I suspect that many of those who are bishops today do not have the same pastoral sense. It would be great to return to that time, when true episcopal pastors were concerned about people and their spiritual growth and their role in the ekklesia and not about toeing the curial line in order to keep the bureaucrats out of their hair.

9) Obviously traditionalism and tradition are different things, otherwise we would not call them by different names. Why do you point out that they are different?

Because they are. Tradition is a handing-on of the great truths which underpin our faith. Traditionalism is a clinging to practices and externals which existed at one point in the Church's history but which may not be relevant in another period of the Church's history and which have quite possibly had their day in our own time.

I've said it before on this forum, and I'll say it again:

The great liturgist Joseph Gelineau once described the liturgy as being like a house. You need four walls and a roof and a door ─ these are the unchangeables, Tradition, if you like. Once you have these, you can decorate the interior of the rooms in the house in any way you like; and you can have your bedrooms and living room upstairs or downstairs, according to your taste; and as long as everyone knows where the bathroom is, and as long as you don't do something stupid like putting the fridge behind the front door so that no one can get in or out, the house is yours to do with as you and your culture see fit ─ traditions, if you like. It's the walls and the roof that are sacrosanct, not the rest of it.