Caritas Unitas et Veritas
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Questions and Comments to Jeff's FAQ
Q1. Why do traditionalists insist on the Latin language, which is dead?
A1. Traditionalists do not insist on the Latin language in every circumstance. The Greek liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom is considered traditional, as would be the old Anglican Missal (a beautiful translation of the Tridentine rite) if it were approved.
I remember talking to a sedevacantist priest years ago. He said he wouldn't like the Old Mass in English, but he'd acknowledge it as valid.
And isn't the Anglican Missal already approved?
A2. A dead language is the best liturgical language because it is a safeguard for orthodoxy. The Byzantines use "dead" languages (i.e., Church Slavonic) for the same reason. Theological definitions do not change or evolve; words and phrases are less likely to be given heterodox meanings.
Modernists can twist any language, be it English, German, Latin, Slavonic, or Klingon.
A3. Latin, of course, is the language of the Catholic Church and a sign of her unity.
True -- for the Roman Church. Greek is found in all the Rites of the Church, and is used extensively at a Traditional Papal Mass (one wonders if this man is clued in on that fact).
A4. Ecclesiastical Latin is objectively more beautiful than living languages, and beauty is something the Church should return to God in her corporate worship.
I agree with beauty being an essential part of worship, that that Latin is a part of that beauty; but how is Ecclesiastical Latin objectively more beautiful? Please define how this might be so.
Q2. Do traditionalists have to be geo-centrists?
A. Most certainly not, although it is permissible speculation.
And as long as it isn't presented as dogma.......
Q3. Do traditionalists have to believe in a literal six-day creation and a young earth?
A. No, but all Catholics must believe the following: 1) Adam and Eve were real historical people; 2) Adam and Eve were the first created man and woman; 3) Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the entire human race; 4) Eve was created from the physical side of Adam; 4) the canonical Scriptures are inerrant in all their parts, including history; 5) the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 are historical and factual, not merely mythological. Anyone who wants to reconcile these points with theistic evolution and an old earth has my sympathies.
Well, the whole 4004 BC thing was reckoned by a Protestant; the Orthodox estimate the yeat of Creation at around 6000 BC, if I'm not mistaken. I also recall that some early Church writers did comment that the "days" of Genesis did not necessarily mean 24-hour periods. This could leave a possibility of a billions-year-old Earth.
Skipping over questions on Judaism.....not an indication of approval or disapproval.....
Q7. ...why do traditionalist ladies wear long skirts and cover their heads in church?
A. Christian women of every generation and every sect have always done the same until the late 20th century. With respect to head coverings, Saint Paul commanded that women cover their heads in church and based his command upon the order of creation. Headcoverings are a sign of deference to the Divine order in general, and to male headship in particular. As for wearing long skirts and dresses, see Giuseppe Cardinal Siri's "Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn By Women" for a good Catholic explanation. With that said, most indult communities have a very high tolerance for ladies who are not quite there yet so long as they dress modestly.
I was in a discussion about this on the old Trad-X list (moderated by Mr. Alexander). Women's slacks are usually cut differently from men's trousers, making them distinct. They can also be made not to follow the female form too closely.
As it is, several women who attend Milwaukee's Indult Mass wear slacks. Modesty is not an issue with them.
Q8. Do traditionalists have to be monarchists?
A. No, traditionalists may prefer a variety of political systems so long as these uphold the Catholic moral order. However, no Catholic can be an anti-monarchist.
That's right, because I ought to be Emperor of the United States! Call me Norton II !!!!
Seriously, while I'm not a Charles Coulombe-style monarchist, I have no problems with a proper constitutional monarchy. Absolute monarchs of the Louis XIV sort give me problems, of course.....
In complete agreement with Jeff's answer to question # 9......
Q10. Must all traditionalists have large families?
A. Traditionalist couples welcome large families, but like all married Catholics, they may use NFP to space or limit pregnancies for grave reasons.
I've detected some difference of opinion on NFP among traditionalists. Some are fine with it; others think it is as bad as condoms or IUD's. While I've seen an article by a sedevacantist priest defending it, I'm unaware of any other publications or sites in which Traditionalists has discussed and debated the matter amongst themselves. If there are any such sites, please let me know.
Blog Stuff
I've added the names of the blog team (linked to their own sites) on the left-hand side, but, for some reason, only my name is visible. However, if you pass the cursor over the field just beneath "The Bloggers", the other names will show up.
I mistakenly entered Mark Sullivan's name for Mark Cameron's (two great bloggers with the same first name -- easy to get them confused with each other!). I have fixed the template, but it hasn't "taken" as of this time.
Also invisible, and waiting to be corrected, is the blog email. The Team is currently mulling the pros and cons of having a comments box, so I created this address for comments, feedback, etc. All email falls under the Welborn Protocol -- unless you specifically want it kept confidential, it's fair game for publication on this blog.
Looking forward to your comments and feedback.....
Monday, January 06, 2003
Question of the Day: What makes a Traditional Catholic Traditional?
At least twice a week, I will contribute a question or set of questions for our blog team to discuss.
We have Kirk Kramer's definition, as presented by Jeff Culbreath. Now then, within the framework of that particular definition (and within the Indult,of course), what makes a Traditional Catholic traditional, aside from a preference for the older usages of the Mass and sacraments? What varieties of belief (political and social as well as theological), practice, and preference may be found within the Traditional Movement -- for example, is it possible to have a Catholic Worker-type active in an Indult Community?
Looking forward to the discussion.......
"A young man from a small town, with a very large imagination..."
Mr Pawlak has decided to invite me to join the CUV Team. Leaving aside whatever would posess him, to enable the likes of me to join such an august body of intellect, it seems only fair to introduce myself.
My full name is David Lawrence Alexander. I am a 48-year-old graphic designer working for the Federal government. I live alone in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from what is politely referred to as "the Nation's capital." I have a teenaged son, Paul, from a previous marriage. He lives with his mother, farther out in the hopelessly middle-class Virginia suburb known as Fairfax County.
My roots in the southwest quadrant of Ohio date back five generations, to the mid-19th century. The majority of my ancestors came from the Alsace-Lorraine region of what was sometimes Germany, but what is now France.
I was born in Cleveland, Ohio, just three days after Christmas, and the worst time of the year to have a birthday. My parents have always sent me a card, if no one else did, and if only out of guilt.
When I was still in the cradle, we moved to a village just east of Cincinnati (and closer to our "kin and ken") known as Milford, where I lived until I moved to DC in 1980. The oldest of four -- boy, girl, boy, girl, in that order -- I attended Catholic grade school and high school. From there, I earned a Bachelor of Science in Design from the University of Cincinnati. After two years of various studio assignments, I got the big break from my rich uncle. (Sam. Maybe you know him.) I have been on his payroll every since.
I am the only member of my immediate family to have left the Cincinnati area. I sign all my letters home, "Your long lost son..."
Along the way, I learned to play both the guitar and the banjo (the latter in the old-time mountain style; I don't do bluegrass), and can fake my way through several other instruments laying around the house. I've also been known to sing. In addition, I have been an avid folkdancer for nearly a quarter century. My latest passion is zydeco, which is the music and dance of the Creole people of southwest Louisiana.
At 11, I became an altar boy; at 17, an Eagle Scout; at 35, a purple belt in karate. I still claim all three titles.
Finally, I read too much for my own good, which was enough to make me think I should never have an unpublished thought. So in the summer of 2002, I began my own weblog entitled man with black hat ("The daily musings of faith and culture, of fun and games, of life and love, of a song and dance man, who is keeping his day job.")
My writings on Catholicism tend to specialize in matters of sacred worship (including ceremonial and musical issues), social justice, faith and culture, and various "slices of life."
(Apologies to John Prine, from whose lyrics the title of this entry originates.)
Sunday, January 05, 2003
And Then There Were Three.....
Time constraints have prevented Michelle from contributing. However, she will be visiting frequently.
Also, contrary to his fears, I'm not going to rescind Jeff's invite. I was worried I'd mix up my blogs myself!
