I'm trying to be a Traditionalist.

No, I am not one of those Catholics who push for the Tridentine Mass to be the only form of worship officially recognised by the Church. It doesn't upset me when I enter a Church and see that the Altar Rails are absent, and I do not get irked when I see Catholics receiving the Eucharist with their hands. In fact, I'm all for allowing the Liturgy to be celebrated in our own languages, and I'd personally advocate for the Mass to be celebrated Versus Populum, rather than Ad Orientem. 

I know that some might be starting to think I'm deluded. Or perhaps you might think that I just lied with the title of this musing, where I claimed to be a traditionalist, but in the very first paragraph of this blog, I expressed my views to be more in line with that of the mordenists. How are any of these things traditional? 

In the 1960's, with the completion of the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II, the Church saw a variety of changes to the Liturgy. Many Catholics were upset with the changes brought about by the council. In fact, many priests left the priesthood as they could not condone the changes. To a good number of Catholics, Vatican II was simply the Church's liberal reaction to a changing world. They felt that the changes to the Liturgy had caused the Church to lose her sense of reverence for the sacred. 

Today, many Catholics who were not even born during the time of Vatican II are also advocating for the return of the Tridentine Mass. To them, the Church has abandoned her unchanging traditions, and she has simply conformed to the ways of the secular world. Many Catholics also feel the need to restore the holiness in the Liturgy, something which seems to have been lost over the decades. 

I know that this musing is not going to sit well with many. I'm quite sure that when I post this in social media, I'm going to receive a lot of backlash. If if not that, I'm certain that this is going to cause a stir. However, I feel that there's a need for all of us to know the truths of Vatican II, even if we do not like it, or if we struggle to agree with it. We are in no position to reject a council. Like all my musings, I assure you my dear reader, that I do not write this piece with the intention to cause a stir or to offend anybody, but merely to shed some light on what the Church actually intended for with the Second Vatican Council. What I write is based solely on what I have been taught, and I stand corrected if what comes from today's musing is not in line with the teachings of Mother Church. 

At the heart of Vatican II was the intent of bringing the unchanging tradition of the Church up to date (Aggiornamento), and the intent for the Church to go back to the original sources (Ressourcement). During the council, there were ancient documents which had been rediscovered. If we read the documents of Vatican II with an open mind, we'd see that as much as a few traditions were "done away" with, for lack of a better term, many other traditions were restored. The Norvus Ordo looks a lot more like the Early Church than many of us think it does. 

One of the traditions that Vatican II has restored is the tradition of praying the Mass in the vernacular. For centuries, the Mass has been celebrated in Latin. In fact, the Tridentine Mass is also known as the Latin Mass. For many people, the reason why the Mass was only celebrated in Latin was to make the Mass universal. However, when we look into the history of the Church, we'd see that the reason why the Mass was prayed in Latin is because when it was first fashioned, it was the native language of the people in that era. It was only after centuries that Latin became associated with being the official language of the Church, even though it was not the intent. There was the long standing tradition of praying in one's own language, which was restored with the Norvus Ordo. However, the use of Latin was never done away with. In fact, the Church encourages the use of Latin in the Norvus Ordo Liturgy, so long as it allows for active and conscious participation. 

Another tradition that was restored (although not a direct result of Vatican II) was the tradition of a free-standing altar. For many centuries, it was the practice for the Priest to celebrate the Mass while facing towards the Liturgical East, in other words, Ad Orientem. However, in the Early Church, there was the tradition of a free-standing altar. The presider would stand behind the Altar in the style of a host at a meal. As we can see from the Norvus Ordo, this is the tradition that has been restored. However, it is still in line with the teachings of the council for the Mass to be celebrated Ad Orientem. 

There are other traditions which were restored with the Council which I will not elaborate too much on, as this is already turning out to be a rather long musing. These traditions include the Sign of Peace, the Centralised role of the Bishop during the Eucharist and the Eucharist being celebrated as a meal (especially in places specifically in the Jewish tradition of memorial). Outside of the Liturgy, there was the restoration of the Catechumenate and the Permanent Diaconate as well. 

I sincerely hope that nobody reading this musing would see this as an attempt to write off the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass is beautiful, and as Pope Benedict has rightly pointed out, it cannot be that what has been sacred for centuries is now irrelevant. However, while it's perfectly fine to prefer the Tridentine Mass over the Norvus Ordo, it's quite another to say that the Norvus Ordo lacks reverence, or that it is not rooted in tradition. On the contrary, it's very traditional. It looks a lot more like the Early Church than we think it does. 

Now, having said all that, I do agree that in this day and age, there are priests who take the allowance for pastoral adaptations out of context, and allow for liturgical abuse to take place. However, if we look at the council documents, it's no fault of the council. The Norvus Ordo has a structure, and if this structure is followed, the Norvus Ordo can be celebrated reverently and with great dignity. 

And as much as we can argue that Vatican II is not dogma, it is apostolic teaching, which has been verified by the Magesterium. To reject Vatican II is as good as rejecting the Magesterium. But as we can see from the documents of Vatican II, many traditions have been restored with the council, which is rooted in both tradition, and scripture. What we follow today is not just traditions that go back 1500 years, but beyond that. The Church has existed for more than those 1500 years. What we have today looks a lot like the Early Church. 

And even if we struggle to agree with the teachings of Vatican II, at end of the day, we are all traditionalists when we choose to love our neighbour rather than pushing our own agendas. This is what the Church has taught for thousands of years.