Are we that out of touch?

[brotherhrolf]

This is the Traditional Catholicsm forum I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic in that I am a cradle Catholic who was educated in Catholic schools from 1956 through 1969. I was perfectly happy being a Catholic when the Catholic world changed around 1967. I lived the transition from the TLM to the NO.

There is an idea on this forum that it was a “slam-dunk” change. That we never knew what we were saying in Latin and that we openly embraced the windows “being opened” to all of the changes which flooded our lives back then. I beg to disagree.

I am particularly disturbed by the patronizing attitude adopted by some posters who are converts who “pat me on the head” and say “there, there” and quote me concilliar documents as if I didn’t read them in high school back in the 60s; didn’t discuss them in Religion class; and didn’t see them ignored and violated.

I freely acknowledge that there were guys in my Catholic high school class who embraced the changes open armed. I also freely acknowledge that there were those of us who to this day were happy with the TLM, the devotions, etc. and simply submitted to the magesterium all these long 40 years.

I would respectfully ask that this thread be limited to Catholics who were alive before 1967. I would like to hear from my generation and the generation before me who are still alive. I would like for this discussion to provide all of you younger folks and converts some idea of just how “the folks in the pew” responded way back when as told by those of us who actually lived through the change.

It was inconceivable for us to challenge the magesterium. Inconceivable. It simply wasn’t done.

I’m guess I’m just tired of being treated like a dinosaur who is totally out of touch with reality. I shouldn’t be told how I should feel. I lived through it. I experienced it. Hear the words of those of us who lived through it and experienced it. Please.

 

[larousser]

This is the Traditional Catholicsm forum I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic in that I am a cradle Catholic who was educated in Catholic schools from 1956 through 1969.

This is a lousy definition of traditional Catholicism, and completely at variance from the standard usage. Under this definition any crade Catholic over 50 could be considered a ‘traditional Catholic’. It’s so general it makes the term completely redundant.

A traditional Catholic in my book simply denotes someone attached to the Traditional liturgy. Under your definition, even Hans Kung would be a traditional Catholic.

I am particularly disturbed by the patronizing attitude adopted by some posters who are converts who “pat me on the head” and say “there, there” and quote me concilliar documents as if I didn’t read them in high school back in the 60s; didn’t discuss them in Religion class; and didn’t see them ignored and violated.

I’m sorry you think so highly of yourself, but nobody needs your permission to quote Church documents. And as for this “as If I didn’t read them” nonsense; are we all supposed to have a preprogrammed knowledge as to what you read and didn’t read? I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what documents you read, and frankly I couldn’t care less. But if I ever feel that you need to be reminded of what the Church says, I’ll certainly not hesitate to do so.

And if you have a problem with certain posters you should address that to the moderators, or at least PM the offenders in private. Don’t bring your dirty laundry up for all and sundry to see.

I freely acknowledge that there were guys in my Catholic high school class who embraced the changes open armed. I also freely acknowledge that there were those of us who to this day were happy with the TLM, the devotions, etc. and simply submitted to the magesterium all these long 40 years.

Thanks, but I didn’t ask.

I would respectfully ask that this thread be limited to Catholics who were alive before 1967. I would like to hear from my generation and the generation before me who are still alive.

You should be addressing this to the moderators. I personally think that you just wanted to provoke people, or at least show off.

Either way, it would destroy this forum’s purpose. The forum was created to discuss the Traditional Liturgy and associated issues (eg the SSPX). If you want a forum dedicated simply to speaking to your ‘generation’ and how they experienced the liturgical reforms, you should start a thread specifically dedicated to that, or else petition for your own sub-forum.

I would like for this discussion to provide all of you younger folks and converts some idea of just how “the folks in the pew” responded way back when as told by those of us who actually lived through the change.

Thanks for your concern and your desire to educate is laudable, but most of us ‘young people’ are all too acquainted with people older than 40.

It was inconceivable for us to challenge the magesterium. Inconceivable. It simply wasn’t done.

Thanks, but again, I didn’t ask.

I’m guess I’m just tired of being treated like a dinosaur who is totally out of touch with reality.

If you don’t want to be treated as a dinosaur, a good start would not be moaning about perceived ills and petitioning for your own forum so you can speak to ‘your generation’.

I shouldn’t be told how I should feel. I lived through it. I experienced it. Hear the words of those of us who lived through it and experienced it. Please.

Thanks, but again, I simply did not ask. If you feel so highly about your opinions, I would recommend that you write an autobiography. Otherwise have a bit of manners.

 

[Roger1]

I think their is another thread that shows since the changes of the 60’s and early 70’s, we are on a significant downward trend in the US. I have been to the musical guitar Masses and traditional Masses with the Reverence and Piety of the early 60’s and before. The difference is incredible in terms of the Holy Spirit and Eucharistic experience. In fact you would almost have to see it to believe it.

 

[Tomster]

This is a lousy definition of traditional Catholicism, and completely at variance from the standard usage. Under this definition any crade Catholic over 50 could be considered a ‘traditional Catholic’. It’s so general it makes the term completely redundant.

A traditional Catholic in my book simply denotes someone attached to the Traditional liturgy. Under your definition, even Hans Kung would be a traditional Catholic.

I’m sorry you think so highly of yourself, but nobody needs your permission to quote Church documents. And as for this “as If I didn’t read them” nonsense; are we all supposed to a preprogrammed knowledge as to what you read and didn’t read? I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what documents you read, and frankly I couldn’t care less. But if I ever feel that you need to be reminded of what the Church says, I’ll certainly not hesitate to do so.

And if you have a problem with certain posters you should address that to the moderators, or at least PM the offenders in private. Don’t bring your dirty laundry up for all and sundry to see.

Thanks, but I didn’t ask.

You should be addressing this to the moderators. I personally think that you just wanted to provoke people, or at least show off.

Either way, it would destroy this forum’s purpose. The forum was created to discuss the Traditional Liturgy and associated issues (eg the SSPX). If you want a forum dedicated simply to speaking to your ‘generation’ and how they experienced the liturgical reforms, you should start a thread specifically dedicated to that, or else petition for your own sub-forum.

Thanks for your concern and your desire to educate is laudable, but most of us ‘young people’ are all too acquainted with people older than 40.

Thanks, but again, I didn’t ask.

If you don’t want to be treated as a dinosaur, a good start would not be moaning about perceived ills and petitioning for your own forum so you can speak to ‘your generation’.

Thanks, but again, I simply did not ask. If you feel so highly about your opinions, I would recommend that you write an autobiography. Otherwise have a bit of manners.

Shame on you. Let brother have his say. Wassa matta with you?

 

[Roger1]

This is a lousy definition of traditional Catholicism, and completely at variance from the standard usage. Under this definition any crade Catholic over 50 could be considered a ‘traditional Catholic’. It’s so general it makes the term completely redundant.

A traditional Catholic in my book simply denotes someone attached to the Traditional liturgy. Under your definition, even Hans Kung would be a traditional Catholic.

I’m sorry you think so highly of yourself, but nobody needs your permission to quote Church documents. And as for this “as If I didn’t read them” nonsense; are we all supposed to a preprogrammed knowledge as to what you read and didn’t read? I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what documents you read, and frankly I couldn’t care less. But if I ever feel that you need to be reminded of what the Church says, I’ll certainly not hesitate to do so.

And if you have a problem with certain posters you should address that to the moderators, or at least PM the offenders in private. Don’t bring your dirty laundry up for all and sundry to see.

Thanks, but I didn’t ask.

You should be addressing this to the moderators. I personally think that you just wanted to provoke people, or at least show off.

Either way, it would destroy this forum’s purpose. The forum was created to discuss the Traditional Liturgy and associated issues (eg the SSPX). If you want a forum dedicated simply to speaking to your ‘generation’ and how they experienced the liturgical reforms, you should start a thread specifically dedicated to that, or else petition for your own sub-forum.

Thanks for your concern and your desire to educate is laudable, but most of us ‘young people’ are all too acquainted with people older than 40.

Thanks, but again, I didn’t ask.

If you don’t want to be treated as a dinosaur, a good start would not be moaning about perceived ills and petitioning for your own forum so you can speak to ‘your generation’.

Thanks, but again, I simply did not ask. If you feel so highly about your opinions, I would recommend that you write an autobiography. Otherwise have a bit of manners.

Dude relax. I am in my early 30’s and am not offeded why should you be.

 

[mullenpm]

Wow, larousser, you are completely out of line — AND A NEW POSTER AT THAT.

I am 79 years old and I remember the Church before V2 and I agree with many things the OP stated. He has a right to call himself a Traditional Catholic, as I do even though I also have accepted the Pauline Mass.

But why should you be so outraged - Do you have any knowledge of the church in those days? Probably not.:nope:

 

[LucyLou]

I converted to the church in 1983, while in college, before there were reallly good RCIA classes, so my learning has been largely self-taught. But the more I learn about the Holiness of the Mass, the more I dislike the modern mass. I now attend a Latin NO on Sundays at a Dominican Parish.

I believe that if parishenors (sp?) were more educated about what is going on on the alter and what the Liturgy of thte Word was leading to, there would be a much larger demand for more holiness.

As the readings this past Sunday discussed, we are the sheep to be shepharded and if our Shephards aren’t doing thier job, we will go astray.

So while you “older” folks want to complain about the direction the church has gone, why not help the Shephards educate and teach the true faith and the true meaning of Vatican II. Saint Francis says to go out and preach, and only use words if necessary.

 

[Shin]

Please let us respect the thread opener, and let it be the kind of thread he desired, simple testimonies from people who were there and lived through it. This is called courtesy.

I find what he has to say enlightening and touching.

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay, first my bona fides - I was born in the last week of the fifties.

I remember the altar rail, the introduction of the EMHC, the tearing down of the altar railing, the youth Mass with everyone up on the altar. I played guitar at folk masses for many years. I had my long hair and attended (after Mass) some protestant services for a while.

At the time, I remember a lot of people being pleased that the Church was becoming more human. Mass became something that one could participate in. There were a lot of very “Catholic”, faithful families. There were a lot of kids.

My Catholic school was filled with faithful Catholics and the children of people who did not want to send their kids to public school after segregation. (Great combination, huh?)

I went to confession every two weeks as a child. We would either go in school or mom would load us into the station wagon on Saturday and away we would go.

On the other side, my parish had a priest who abused the altar boys. Two of the leading families in the parish created a huge scandal when the husband of one couple ran off with (and married) the wife of the other couple. One of the children involved eventually committed suicide.

My parents and inlaws talk about the superstition of Catholics pre-Vatican II, but, frankly, it seems like the Church got caught up in the sixties/seventies and the culture won, instead of the Church.

I started reading the Traditional forurm earlier this year, and disagreed with a lot of you and defended the current practices. I can’t do that anymore. I am not a traditionalist, more of an unhappy conservative.

 

[Patrick_Eastin]

Didn’t take long to demonstrate exactly what I meant, did it? I simply wanted to hear from people who are alive today and who were alive 40 years ago when we were all simply Catholics. I have nothing but admiration for you young people who have discovered that which was the “norm” when I grew up. I simply know that there are a who bunch of us alive today for whom the TLM was not extraordinary.

LucyLou? I did do exactly what you suggested. I left my geographic parish in 1983 and joined our cathedral parish. I drive 25 miles one way and have done so since that date. I’ve sung in the cathedral choir for over 20 years - three hours of practice a week. (It took a French cardinal departing from the script and giving the Apostolic Blessing in Latin at a 200th anniversary Mass to lift the ban so that the choir could sing in Latin). I’ve chaired the cathedral’s ministry to alienated and inactive Catholics and DW and I have taught First Communion and Confirmation classes. That is the environment in which both of my sons grew up.

Our bishop merely “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio in a one paragraph statement in the diocesan newspaper. It was followed in the next issue by a scathing editiorial from the diocesan chancellor about how “stupid” the MP was. My rector (who was ordained before Vatican II and who says the TLM privately) contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in forming a schola. I declined because I do not have the musical background to lead a schola. But I told him in no uncertain terms that I would join a schola or I would serve on the altar. Unfortunately, Father has decided to retire.

I posted this thread for the sole purpose of providing a means of demonstrating that forty years ago many of us simply submitted to the magesterium of HMC. Some of us embraced the changes after Vatican II and “took the ball and ran with it”. Others of us merely endured and have endured for the last forty years.

I am simply tired of being marginalized as one of “those people” as if HMC sprang “full grown from the brow of Zeus” in 1967. I was alive and in a Catholic high school in 1967 and I am not dead yet nor am I “out of touch”.

I again respectfully ask that this thread be allowed to exist to show the “mind” of us who were alive forty years ago.

 

[rpp]

This is a lousy definition of traditional Catholicism, and completely at variance from the standard usage. Under this definition any crade Catholic over 50 could be considered a ‘traditional Catholic’. It’s so general it makes the term completely redundant.

A traditional Catholic in my book simply denotes someone attached to the Traditional liturgy. Under your definition, even Hans Kung would be a traditional Catholic.

I’m sorry you think so highly of yourself, but nobody needs your permission to quote Church documents. And as for this “as If I didn’t read them” nonsense; are we all supposed to have a preprogrammed knowledge as to what you read and didn’t read? I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what documents you read, and frankly I couldn’t care less. But if I ever feel that you need to be reminded of what the Church says, I’ll certainly not hesitate to do so.

And if you have a problem with certain posters you should address that to the moderators, or at least PM the offenders in private. Don’t bring your dirty laundry up for all and sundry to see.

Thanks, but I didn’t ask.

You should be addressing this to the moderators. I personally think that you just wanted to provoke people, or at least show off.

Either way, it would destroy this forum’s purpose. The forum was created to discuss the Traditional Liturgy and associated issues (eg the SSPX). If you want a forum dedicated simply to speaking to your ‘generation’ and how they experienced the liturgical reforms, you should start a thread specifically dedicated to that, or else petition for your own sub-forum.

Thanks for your concern and your desire to educate is laudable, but most of us ‘young people’ are all too acquainted with people older than 40.

Thanks, but again, I didn’t ask.

If you don’t want to be treated as a dinosaur, a good start would not be moaning about perceived ills and petitioning for your own forum so you can speak to ‘your generation’.

Thanks, but again, I simply did not ask. If you feel so highly about your opinions, I would recommend that you write an autobiography. Otherwise have a bit of manners.

Referring the text in bold, perhaps you should take your own advice.

Personal attacks, such as this, are against forum rules. This post has been reported to the moderators.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Didn’t take long to demonstrate exactly what I meant, did it? I simply wanted to hear from people who are alive today and who were alive 40 years ago when we were all simply Catholics. I have nothing but admiration for you young people who have discovered that which was the “norm” when I grew up. I simply know that there are a whole bunch of us alive today for whom the TLM was not extraordinary.

LucyLou? I did do exactly what you suggested. I left my geographic parish in 1983 and joined our cathedral parish. I drive 25 miles one way and have done so since that date. I’ve sung in the cathedral choir for over 20 years - three hours of practice a week. (It took a French cardinal departing from the script and giving the Apostolic Blessing in Latin at a 200th anniversary Mass to lift the ban so that the choir could sing in Latin). I’ve chaired the cathedral’s ministry to alienated and inactive Catholics and DW and I have taught First Communion and Confirmation classes. That is the environment in which both of my sons grew up.

Our bishop merely “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio in a one paragraph statement in the diocesan newspaper. It was followed in the next issue by a scathing editiorial from the diocesan chancellor about how “stupid” the MP was. My rector (who was ordained before Vatican II and who says the TLM privately) contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in forming a schola. I declined because I do not have the musical background to lead a schola. But I told him in no uncertain terms that I would join a schola or I would serve on the altar. Unfortunately, Father has decided to retire.

I posted this thread for the sole purpose of providing a means of demonstrating that forty years ago many of us simply submitted to the magesterium of HMC. Some of us embraced the changes after Vatican II and “took the ball and ran with it”. Others of us merely endured and have endured for the last forty years.

I am simply tired of being marginalized as one of “those people” as if HMC sprang “full grown from the brow of Zeus” in 1967. I was alive and in a Catholic high school in 1967 and I am not dead yet nor am I “out of touch”.

I again respectfully ask that this thread be allowed to exist to show the “mind” of us who were alive forty years ago.

 

[Freshman88]

This is completely uncalled for.

I’m sorry you think so highly of yourself

Perhaps it would be better to adopt a charitable tone.

I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what documents you read, and frankly I couldn’t care less

Simply rude and offensive.

Don’t bring your dirty laundry up for all and sundry to see.

He’s entitled to discuss his frustrations. If you don’t want to particpate, then simply don’t. There was no need for this rude outburst. Even if you were somehow offended, this is no way to engage in a civil discussion.

Thanks, but I didn’t ask.

Since when was he addressing your questions? Wasn’t it you who was just accusing someone of thinking so highly of themselves?

You should be addressing this to the moderators. I personally think that you just wanted to provoke people, or at least show off.

I disagree, it appears that he is frustrated with a few issues and wanted to open a discussion about it.

Either way, it would destroy this forum’s purpose. The forum was created to discuss the Traditional Liturgy and associated issues (eg the SSPX). If you want a forum dedicated simply to speaking to your ‘generation’ and how they experienced the liturgical reforms, you should start a thread specifically dedicated to that, or else petition for your own sub-forum.

I disagree again, this thread certainly has a place in this forum. The OP is discussing a misconception of his generation related to both Vatican II and traditional Catholicism. When discussing Vatican II, the social climate and demographics of the time are never overlooked.

Thanks for your concern and your desire to educate is laudable, but most of us ‘young people’ are all too acquainted with people older than 40.

As a young person (21), I welcome his posts.

Thanks, but again, I didn’t ask.

You’re right you didn’t ask, but at the same time he wasn’t addressing your questions.

If you don’t want to be treated as a dinosaur, a good start would not be moaning about perceived ills and petitioning for your own forum so you can speak to ‘your generation’.

Moaning? Perceived ills? There’s simply no need for this kind of tone. Whats going on? Are you having a bad day?

Thanks, but again, I simply did not ask. If you feel so highly about your opinions, I would recommend that you write an autobiography. ** Otherwise have a bit of manners. **

I agree that manners are needed, especially towards our elders.

 

[CradleCath]

This is a lousy definition of traditional Catholicism, and completely at variance from the standard usage. Under this definition any crade Catholic over 50 could be considered a ‘traditional Catholic’. It’s so general it makes the term completely redundant.

A traditional Catholic in my book simply denotes someone attached to the Traditional liturgy. Under your definition, even Hans Kung would be a traditional Catholic.

WOW!! Brotherholf, it didn’t take long for the liberal hatred to break through. Second post & they’re off & running.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Great point, Paulin about segregation. The Archdiocese of New Orleans integrated its schools in 1963. I saw Abp. Rummel excommunicate (on live glorious black and white TV) three people (one of whom was a civil parish (county) president) bell, book and candle. The Brothers of the Sacred Heart had already integrated their schools allowing creoles de coleur to enter.

I ache for HMC with the pedophilia scandal. The bottom line is that I served as an altar boy and was never molested - never even a single hint of impropriety.

Superstition? You mean like draping the mirrors in my grandmother’s house in black crepe in 1965 and stopping the clocks at the moment she died and going into formal mourning (no TV or radio for a month)? Yep. Did that too. But as an anthropologist, I would point out to you that such things were Irish folk tradition just as there were French, Italian, German folk traditions in New Orleans as well as our own common Catholic traditions such as Corpus Christi processions (reintroduced into New Orleans two years ago).

Do you see what I am trying to do? Hype, hyperbole, myth about being Catholic before Vatican II.

 

[larousser]

Dude relax..

Roger is right, I do need to relax (terrible day!). I just read my post again and its horribly churlish and acerbic, and I unreservedly apologize.

 

[ncjohn]

As you know, brother, your experience of that time frame and mine were very different. As background for those not familiar, there are only a couple months difference in age between the two of us.

My experiences of the pre-Vatican II Church were miserable. So miserable that when I went off to college it began what became an almost total separation from the Church until my mid-forties, though I did attend an occasional Mass during the rest of those years and was married at Mass.

When I did return, it was because I found in the parish where I went a group of people of incredible holiness, living the gospel in joy. I found a priest who made the gospel relevant to everyday life and showed a completely different vision of God from the “gotcha God” who was waiting for me to make a mistake to send me to hell.

Over several years I had a full conversion experience and simply fell into the arms of the merciful God I had heard about who loves each of us infinitely. No, I’m not one who ignores sin or thinks that evil isn’t real, but I have found God to indeed be the essence of love. Rather than living in fear for my mistakes, I live in gratitude and a desire to please Him *in spite *of my mistakes.

It was in studying Vatican II documents and finding a liturgy that was alive and in which I personally participate that I found my home. I have no problem with those who respond more to the TLM, however bad my own experience might have been. I simply recognize that our different personalities and temperments resonate differently: some to silent prayer while others are more active; some preferring a language of mystery while others prefer a more directly understandable one; some preferring the symbols, signs and statuary of a more ornate nature while others prefer the simple. Following a Franciscan spirituality, I find myself far too distracted by very ornate settings and feel uncomfortable in most cathedrals though I find them beautiful from an aesthetic standpoint.

So in the end, I’m kind of a third category to brother’s two of embracing and disdaining the changes that came out of V2. I simply dropped out. When I returned things had relatively stabilized, at least where I am. I never much cared for the “folk” choirs and bad guitar music, though our current parish has classicly-trained guitarists who put a completely different flavor on the music when they play.

While I’ve certainly seen some irregularities in my travels, I’ve never experienced the kinds of true abuses that some describe. I saw far, far more abuse in the pre-Vatican II Masses I attended and served at than anything I have seen in the Pauline Mass. I personally perceive much more reverence, joy and active devotion now than I ever saw pre-V2, though of course I don’t pretend to be able to know what anyone’s interior disposition was then or is now. I do expect that that is also true of the TLM now though because those who attend it do so because it is specifically where they want to be.

I have little doubt though that if the TLM was the only game in town again that the pew potatoes at the current Pauline Masses would similarly be pew potatoes in the TLM. And those “horrible” priests that currently aren’t qualified to do the TLM, or don’t have an interest in doing it, would probably not make it the kind of place it is right now where the priests doing it really want to do it. So overall, I tend to think that the current position of having both available is probably the right one.

Peace,

 

[brotherhrolf]

Howdy there John! I was hoping that you would chime in.

Perfectly valid points with which I have no problem. As John said we are of an age together. We both have the been there, done that award.

Our experiences were different. That’s what I’m trying to do with this thread. John knows that I am attuned to the past. Chant, sacred motets, Latin…I was perfectly happy in 1967. Smells and bells as we used to say.

John talks about it and it was true. I spent a lot of time in silent prayer during lunch time when I was in high school. I was a member of the Confraternity of the Sacred Heart and I still have my book of meditations Mental Prayer.

I wish I could agree with John about abuses after Vatican II but unfortunately in my experience I’ve seen far more after Vatican II. I, too, dropped out of HMC in the 70s until I was asked to join the cathedral choir and I was allowed to join the cathedral parish in 1983.

I disagree with John on several issues but I don’t bear him any ill will.

Thank you, John, for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m simply trying to show our mindsets in '67,

 

[mary_bobo]

This is the Traditional Catholicsm forum I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic in that I am a cradle Catholic who was educated in Catholic schools from 1956 through 1969. I was perfectly happy being a Catholic when the Catholic world changed around 1967. I lived the transition from the TLM to the NO.

There is an idea on this forum that it was a “slam-dunk” change. That we never knew what we were saying in Latin and that we openly embraced the windows “being opened” to all of the changes which flooded our lives back then. I beg to disagree.

I am particularly disturbed by the patronizing attitude adopted by some posters who are converts who “pat me on the head” and say “there, there” and quote me concilliar documents as if I didn’t read them in high school back in the 60s; didn’t discuss them in Religion class; and didn’t see them ignored and violated.

I freely acknowledge that there were guys in my Catholic high school class who embraced the changes open armed. I also freely acknowledge that there were those of us who to this day were happy with the TLM, the devotions, etc. and simply submitted to the magesterium all these long 40 years.

I would respectfully ask that this thread be limited to Catholics who were alive before 1967. I would like to hear from my generation and the generation before me who are still alive. I would like for this discussion to provide all of you younger folks and converts some idea of just how “the folks in the pew” responded way back when as told by those of us who actually lived through the change.

It was inconceivable for us to challenge the magesterium. Inconceivable. It simply wasn’t done.

I’m guess I’m just tired of being treated like a dinosaur who is totally out of touch with reality. I shouldn’t be told how I should feel. I lived through it. I experienced it. Hear the words of those of us who lived through it and experienced it. Please.

Brotherhrolf, I was around then, and while I now attend a NO mass, I frequently go to a church about 25 miles away that has a TLM every Sunday. And the difference is profound. At the NO church, there is talking and visiting right up until the time the priest comes down the aisle for Mass. I usually get there early so that I can say a rosary before Mass starts and it is often very difficult to concentrate with all the commotion.

I thank my lucky stars that I was educated in Catholic schools with the Sisters of Mercy, the Dominicans and the Sisters of Notre Dame. From them I got a real foundation in my religion and I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I feel sorry for the Catholics of today who have not had the experiences of growing up like that. There does not seem to be the reverence that I knew in my youth. And there is not the understanding of the tenets of the Church as we learned them. Perhaps the Baltimore Catechism is trite today, but it sure grounded us well.

I remember the wonderful Irish wakes that took place in my family and the closeness of the church family when a loved one died. I would not change those either. Back in those days there was right and wrong and we knew the difference. These days it appears that if can justify just about anything you want to do, it is not sinful. I just don’t get it.

When people criticize or make fun of me as being a traditionalist, I gladly assume that title and feel sorry that they do not have the background that I was privileged to experience.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Thank you, Mary. I was taught by the Sisters of Mercy and the Brothers of the Sacred Heart. I wouldn’t trade my Catholic education for anything. I spent some time with the Benedictines as well. Sorry, John I didn’t get any exposure to the Franciscans but I am glad that we are talking about what it was like to grow up Catholic before Vatican II.

Mary, yep. We didn’t open our mouths once we entered into church. Years ago, back in the 80s my cathedral parish had placards placed at the doors:

But the LORD is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth! Habakkuk 2:20. Can’t discuss my local geographic church. I’m not making this up. The greeters in the narthex were discussing the efficacy of Preparation H.

For my brother John, the interior life holds sway and that is fine. I don’t need to be at a cathedral parish. My interior life would wither on the vine, shrivel up, and disintegrate compared to what I had prior to 1967 were I to go to my geographic parish. There are a few devout reverent parishes here. I don’t need to go to the cathedral. It’s where God called me and called me He did.

John, I appreciate your faith journey. I’m simply trying to point out to all that the faith journeys of our generation were vastly different. In truth, the longer I post on this forum the more powerfully I am drawn to the faith of my childhood. I don’t want to be marginalized to a Low Mass at our local indult parish, however. I grew up with a Missa Cantata (I was evidently quite fortunate).