Allergic to tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s fine to have a preference. I have preferences too.
It’s the people who take it beyond a preference and make it a “should” or “should not” or a “better for all” (not just “better for me”) who are an issue.
 
There are three reasons:
  1. Diabolical Disorientation: The Church, and the world, are in the midst of great crisis. The Church is going through the most severe apostasy in her history. The world is under the power of the Evil One and has rejected truth and sound morality.
  2. Pride: Those who promoted the revolution in the wake of Vatican II believed they knew better than everybody else. They tried to re-create everything from scratch. Everything had to be reformed and changed. Their reforms have failed and their pride won’t let them admit it.
  3. Ignorance: Several generations have grown up without sound catechesis, liturgy and piety. The Catholic world has lost its sensus fidelium. They don’t know what has been lost. They have been deprived of doctrine, liturgy, devotions and spirituality. They literally can’t speak Catholic language: they don’t know Latin and it’s related culture.
I think this is way overthinking the situation. People like what they like. And they dislike what they dislike. That is how they make their choices.
 
I think this is way overthinking the situation. People like what they like. And they dislike what they dislike. That is how they make their choices
My post is about the general crisis in the Church and the world.
 
Speaking in very broad terms that obviously don’t apply to everyone, yes, as a generation the boomers were one of the most destructive to America as a whole.

As teenagers they created huge societal upheaval with cultural and sexual revolutions, voted in huge welfare spending, etc. and then as adults voted in huge tax cuts for themselves, more spendig for retirement benefits and got us tangled in gulf war 1, Iraq, and Afghanistan, all the while borrowing billions and spending trillions.
That is quite a negative view. I suppose we could view all generations negativity. I would suggest you may want to consider some good things about the generation. If you can’t think of any, some research may be in order.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
People do get riled when they feel judged. As someone who went to a TLM and was not allowed in because I was a woman in (dress) pants
If it was a Latin mass said by a priest not fully in tune with the Catholic Church, the SSPX or whomever certainly has a right to set whatever dress code they like.

But I would have complained on this for a regular diocesan mass or at least asked for an explanation. I’ve never heard of different dress codes for masses in different languages
It was a TLM low mass at a Diocesan parish. My area is very liberal and therefore fosters very dangerous insular communities fighting against that liberalism.
 
They are brainwashed modernists. It’s hard to change them.
Why would anybody feel like they needed to change someone who has a more modern view of the church? Especially if nothing they are doing violates the rules of the church? This is troubling.
 
40.png
dallas_r:
They are brainwashed modernists. It’s hard to change them.
Why would anybody feel like they needed to change someone who has a more modern view of the church? Especially if nothing they are doing violates the rules of the church? This is troubling.
It depends on what is meant by “modern”. There is a heresy called “modernism”, for example, that is condemned by the church.
 
Last edited:
I think this is way overthinking the situation. People like what they like. And they dislike what they dislike. That is how they make their choices.
THIS!

I KNOW Latin. I studied Latin. I can read Latin fairly efficiently, and know enough that it improves my vocabulary and people think I have medical training because I can decipher scientific words. I can pray all my basic prayers (Our Father, Hail Mary, Apostles Creed etc) in Latin. I’ve been to TLM Low Mass on many occasions.

I don’t like praying in Latin. I don’t like TLM. I like to worship in my native tongue. I like to pray in English. I actually prefer Mass in ASL given the option.

For me, I am 100% fully aware of Latin. I am aware of the culture. And, quite frankly, I want none of it.

The priest who taught me Latin–a good and devout older man who took time after Mass to teach a class curious teens preferred to say Mass in English even though he was completely trained, efficient and comfortable with TLM (both low and high). He was fluent enough to speak Latin as if he grew up speaking it…yet he still prefered English, he still liked versus populum, he liked giving Communion in the hand (seat of Jesus) because of the way he could lock eyes with a person and a few more things that are found in the OF. He was in his 60’s when I was a young teen, (in the late 90’s) so he grew up with TLM.

Lack of knowledge of culture may contribute, but even deep knowledge of culture dosn’t mean that people will choose it. A few of my classmates fell in love with the TLM but most of us just learned to like latin and aced the vocab part of the SAT’s.
 
another incendiary post based on the extremely unlikely.
Who’s being incendiary and what is extremely unlikely?

Do you need some Benadryl, or should I have my epi-pen at the ready?
 
Last edited:
Saxum is right, however, in that a lot of post-Vatican II Catholics tried to impose their version of “what they like” upon others. I lived through it and it was just as annoying as when traditional Catholics do the same.

For years it was not the done thing to have Rosaries or Marian devotions. Those were old fashioned and only done by old ladies. You were supposed to read scripture, get involved with charismatic prayer, and do a lot of social justice work. If you weren’t marching around protesting nukes, you weren’t a good Catholic. It was a pain in the neck living through that era.
 
Of course they did some good things as a whole. But that doesn’t change anything I said.
 
You certainly have that right!
I can more readily understand the feelings of those who were imposed on (and who are dealing with feelings of bitterness and hurt–not the same thing but sometimes having the same reactions) and who have had so little opportunity to be treated in a Christian way because of their Vatican approved preferences were deemed ‘unacceptable’ by those who did indeed impose THEIR will, and often over things that were emphatically not Vatican approved, to boot.

If you’ve spent 40 plus years being told, with sneers, jeers, disgust, mockery etc. that you --not just your preferences, but you YOURSELF, were 'not a real Catholic", were backward, lost, intransigent, hateful, judgmental, deluded, and that in order to be not even accepted but ‘tolerated’ (and still mocked over and over for how long it took you to ‘join the 21st century at every turn), and then finally you could point to the Motu Proprio, and you had voices of respected cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians etc who were backing you up by saying, “Yes, your preferences are not wrong” so that you finally feel, “Yes, the Church never kicked me, it was just the times and some individuals but now praise God, we can start to ‘get along’”. . .and then STILL at every turn, after a few people start to ask, “But why did this ever happen” or dare to say, "I’ve become aware of tradition but some of my friends at Mass are STILL telling me this stuff was thrown out and that Pope Francis is saying it was all wrong and we only are tolerated now because Pope Benedict was ‘weak’ and wanted to let the old people have the old ways before they died, but the whole point is that tradition, the EF, etc should be gotten rid of because it’s wrong blah blah, why are people still hostile when we thought this was finally put to rest’. . .

Sooner or later, mostly sooner, come the charges.
It’s all the ‘rad-trads’ fault.
And sooner or later, anything before ‘modern times’ becomes 'useless, a crutch, holier-than-thou, excessive, takes away from Jesus"
and EVERY person who even expresses a liking for tradition is assumed to be ‘rad-trad’ and can be once again mocked, jeered at, insulted, scorned, etc.

Strawmen leap up and there are so many that one cannot even begin to address them. Try, and you’ll be accused of so many different things your head will spin. All the old canards about the pray-pay-obey; the excessive amount of attention paid to Mary, the charge that we knew NOTHING because the Mass wasn’t in OUR language, the charge that all the focus is on outward things that are non essential, that we never had a relationship with God, that we dismissed ‘the marginalized’, that we’re Pharisees, that we hate women, the poor, other Christians, that we’re anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, that WE are the ones trying to enforce our evil ways on everybody else, etc. etc. etc.
 
part 2
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Only now it’s the people who have become entrenched in a 40-year old way of thinking and doing who don’t want to allow ‘anything but the status quo’ to exist, where the people who like tradition weren’t even given a say about keeping their status quo and their Christian practices and services and having the Vatican 2 way ‘as well’.

I just find it strange. I mean, most people today cherish all kinds of traditions, whether it’s wedding rings (pagan antiquity), white wedding gowns (Victorian Europe), the customs of their ancestors, as well as newer traditions that will come about as we have new experiences, and nobody demands that even though some people dislike the idea of wedding rings, that the entire wedding ring industry should be destroyed, or that 'nobody else should wear wedding rings because I dislike them." Even though many women today don’t wear white wedding gowns, nobody demands that the custom be entirely dropped.

So why is it that only among a fairly vocal majority of modern U.S. Catholics is there such a dislike of tradition to the point that these people don’t want to even have the EF (and you know that posters on here including clergy have expressed their dislike and wish for its permanent removal), find the idea of women with a headcovering ALWAYS makes them feel the woman ‘does it for show’ (again, more than one poster has stated this), and we have had so few ‘rad-trads’ acting like the OF is a demonic ploy, and that if ONE person posts this, a hundred ‘trads’ will immediately chime in rejecting that idea?
 
before Vatican II life tended not be so full of stress and the entire fasting could be somehow easier.
Where did you get the idea that before V2 that life wasn’t stressful? I guess you never heard of the Cold War, and WWII, just a huge amount of stress.

The only thing is, that 40 years or so ago, there were a lot more open churches, and most Catholics didn’t have to drive very far, many could walk
 
Those I know also say that they might fast but mass was really early in their parish. If I decided to fast like that, it would be at least a 30 minute drive to attend mass in the morning. Otherwise I’d have to wait until after noon.
Fasting from midnight before did tend to roust people out of bed early and get them to the early-morning Mass. But nowadays when you might have Mass at 11 am on Sunday or even be going at 5 pm, 6 pm or even 9 pm (I go to a 9 pm often) on Sunday, it doesn’t work so well. Also, there is the Saturday vigil Mass which generally happens at 4 pm or later on Saturday, and people are not going to be able to start fasting Friday midnight and go without eating clear up to 4 or 5 pm when they generally have activities such as chores, errands, time with family, playing sports, etc. on Saturday.

Also, the driving to church thing. Back in the pre-Vatican II days in USA, there was more likely to be a Catholic church within a short walk from your house. There are neighborhoods in Philadelphia where there were 2 Catholic Churches just a few blocks apart. Nowadays, with everybody living in the suburbs and the trend towards having a few very large churches instead of a whole lot of little ones within a short distance, you would be expecting people to go without eating and then drive themselves and others between 5 and 30 miles to Mass in a lot of cases. Not a good idea.
 
Fasting from midnight before did tend to roust people out of bed early and get them to the early-morning Mass. But nowadays when you might have Mass at 11 am on Sunday or even be going at 5 pm, 6 pm or even 9 pm (I go to a 9 pm often) on Sunday, it doesn’t work so well.
That’s the problem with fasting from midnight. It wasn’t so bad when my Mom was a child, and they had the first Mass at 5 or 6 a.m. Many of us could survive that. But 10 a.m.? 11 a.m.? Not happening.
 
back then folks didn’t have TV (or internet) so they didn’t waste any significant (or compulsive) time on entertainment.
In the USA, they had radio and listened to radio shows the way people now watch TV or stream stuff on the Internet. Also, reading the newspaper, including the comic section, was a big part of people’s evening; usually there was more than one newspaper, such as a national one and a local one, and there was a lot more to read in it. As for the era before that when people did all the manual labor you speak of, I don’t think it was less stressful, just a different type of stress.

I do agree with you that as life has gotten more complicated and more is expected of us (for example, in terms of everyone now being pretty much expected to not only finish high school but go on to college, whereas in the old days many people didn’t even go to high school much less graduate) it creates some level of stress, but it’s more of a mental stress whereas in the olden days it was likely more physical stress; walking everywhere, maybe literally not having food to eat or warm clothing to wear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top