In this weeks Catholic Herald there is an interview with Archbishop Vincent Nichols. One of the questions asked was "Does it really matter therefore whether we receive him in a Mass celebrated in the ordinary form or in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?" to which the Archbishop rightly responded that "frankly the form of the Mass doesn't matter in comparison to that mystery which it provides."

He then went on to say this...

...most troubling of all to my mind is the mindset that somebody might get caught into, because perhaps they don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something, that they begin to turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer, the ordinary form of the Mass and say: "I can't accept that."

That's really quite serious, because if they can't accept that then they are inexorably distancing themselves from the Church.

[Catholic Herald]

Here's what's "really quite serious"...

In every diocese, in hundreds of parishes across the country, every Sunday there are priests who "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer".

They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they change the words of the prayers at Mass to conform with their own personal interpretation and ideology. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they actively encourage laypeople to take part in those parts of the Mass normally reserved for the priest like the Per Ipsum. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they allow it to become the norm that the propers of the Mass are something most people barely even know exists let alone something actually heard and sung. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they discourage use of the sacrament of confession. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they break the bread at the line "he broke the bread" instead of waiting for the proper time. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" each and every time they choose to modify the liturgy according to their own whim and fancy.

More seriously than that though are the Bishops who "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they turn a blind eye to the priests they know to be doing the above. When they respond to letters from laypeople with words of assurance but do absolutely nothing of substance and leave such priests in place for years and years to wreak untold harm on their congregations. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they take part in the abuses themselves!

But the biggest kick in the teeth?

The Archbishop who after years of silent assent with the above turns around now and has a go at laypeople who quite understandably after years of being treated like turds say something like "to hell with it, let's just go to a traditional Church where they do things properly"

I am definitely most at home with the ordinary form of the Mass but there are many things in the Masses as celebrated in our Diocese to which I have to say "I can't accept that" or to use the official language: "the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease" (RS 4)

It is not that I "don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something" as though this is a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of personal preference, "The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim. (RS 11)

Who is turning their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer?

Look no further than our very own Bishops.

...but I know what I like.

I blogged a few days ago I blogged on the subject of "What is a traditional Catholic? It caused rather a bit more discussion that I had expected (my blog entries do not usually attract 37 comments).

As part of that blog entry I wrote...

I think we need to make a distinction between "traditional" and "traditionalist".

The traditional Catholic holds on to what is good until it gets old. The traditionalist Catholic holds on to what is old, whether it turns out to be good or not. All Catholics ought to do the former, while the latter seems a bit risky to me.

I'm not a huge fan of sort of Catholic whose arguments consist of shreiking incredulously "but its the twenty-first century!" either (you know who you are).

Traditionalists and Modernists both make the same error, they say "everything old is good" or "everything new is good".

Having read the comments and thought on it a bit, I think I may have got my words mixed up. I was talking about "traditionalists" but I think I meant to say "traditionalism".

My current understanding is that ist words like "Chemist", "Violinist" and "Archaeologist" simply mean that a person has expertise in a particular area. A violinist knows all about the violin, a traditionalist knows all about tradition.

The word I mean't to use was an ism word. These words like "Communism", "Socialism", "Marxism" etc have a more ideological feel. They say "this is my system for understanding the truth about the world" and of course there is only one system for understanding the truth in about the world and that is Catholicism.

Traditionalism puts tradition ahead of all things and essentially says "everything old is good" while Modernism does the opposite and essentially says "everything new is good". It is traditionalism and modernism to which I object.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to any traditionalists who may have been offended by my original blog entry. I won't bother apologising to the modernists because they don't seem to have noticed (perhaps they don't have the internet yet).

Jackie Parkes has been getting a bit frustrated recently with people defining themselves as "traditional Catholics", not because she objects to traditional Catholicism, but because she objects to the idea that traditional Catholicism is some kind of specialisation and the implication that because she goes to an ordinary Mass, therefore she is not traditional (see here and here).

As she says...

As far as we were aware it was always traditional to go to Sunday Mass.

Are these kinds of different Masses? Is it better to go to one? Does it make you a 'Traditional' Catholic?

Is there anywhere in the Cathechism or some other document that describes how & if you are a traditionalist?

I've been Catholic for 46 years of course I'm Traditional.

Attending these Trad events doesn't make you anymore Traditional!

What are you if you don't go to a Trad Mass? Liberal? Non-Traditional? Non-Catholic? Not so good Catholic? Crap Catholic? New Rite Catholic? English/Irish Catholic? Basic Catholic? Uneducated Catholic? Roman Catholic? Follower of the Pope Catholic? Boring catholic? Sorry I think that was the Trad one!

I think we need to make a distinction between "traditional" and "traditionalist".

The traditional Catholic holds on to what is good until it gets old. The traditionalist Catholic holds on to what is old, whether it turns out to be good or not. All Catholics ought to do the former, while the latter seems a bit risky to me.

I'm not a huge fan of sort of Catholic whose arguments consist of shreiking incredulously "but its the twenty-first century!" either (you know who you are).

Traditionalists and Modernists both make the same error, they say "everything old is good" or "everything new is good".

Update:

Apologies to anybody who is just very traditional but feels accused of being a traditionalist. That wasn't my intention.

I just wanted to add that I like Ben Trovato's explanation below..

I refer to myself as a traditional Catholic as a shorthand way of saying:

1) that I believe all that the Church teaches even the difficult bits, as opposed to 'cafeteria' or 'liberal' Catholics; and

2) that I prefer the traditional forms of worship, and displaying reverence, as opposed to the modern, informal, 'happy clappy' or 'charismatic' approaches.

I would like it if saying 'I am a Roman Catholic' conveyed all that; but alas it no longer does.

That pretty much sums up what I mean by it as well.

Update:

I think I got this blog entry wrong. I have posted a correction here.