Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[PilgrimToChrist]

(cont.)
Pope St. Pius X:

That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ…

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

The dramatic change to the Mass, the Calendar and the Lectionary was not a surprise. We had already been warned. Gutting and ravaging the churches just made it all the more obvious to people.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Several people have touched on most of this, but I want to say:
It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and not be fully faithful to the Magisterium of the Church (which did not end in 1955 or 1962 or whatever).

If you are referring to sedevacantists, sure. But it is also important to specify what it means to be “fully faithful to the Magisterium”.

It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and reject Vatican II in word or in practice.

Define what it means to reject (or accept) Vatican II “in word or in practice”. Please specify which doctrines expressed by Vatican II you refer are referring to.

It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and reject the Ordinary Form of the Mass as invalid or illicit or objectively dramatically inferior.

Is there a difference between “objectively inferior” and “objectively dramatically inferior”. Although the intrinsic value is the same (Christ offered to the Trinity), since man can add nothing to that; the extrinsic value of the New Mass is, I believe, objectively inferior to the Traditional Mass. Some of this is obvious to many people if you simply compare the prayers of each Rite and how they understand and approach God and each other. But for more information see, “The Merit of a Mass”, Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP.

It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and support following suspended clergy.

I attend a Fraternity parish, however I do not fault those who followed the SSPX because it is and was the largest refuge of Traditionalists. There are other groups, however, who have their own “independent” lines (e.g. Thuc, Old Catholic) and are not representative of the Catholic Church. One issue is that of “una cum” within the “Te igitur” which sedevacantists leave out (it’s silent so it’s not noticeable) because it references union with the pope. Since jurisdiction flows from the pope to the bishops to the priests, the headless model of the sedes is necessarily broken.

Of course, you can be a Traditional Catholic and strongly prefer the Extraordinary Form.

“Prefer” can also mean “believe to be objectively superior”. It’s not just about liking the beauty of a High Mass.

You can be a Traditional Catholic and reject the “spirit of Vatican II” (as any faithful Catholic should).

That nebulous evil…

You can be a Traditional Catholic and strongly dislike the style of many modern OF Masses and many modern changes and liturgical practices in the way the Mass is commonly celebrated today.

But what about the New Mass practiced in its ideal, that is in its most traditional form? I used to regularly attend the New Mass in Latin, so it is said that way occasionally. It can also be celebrated facing God, on a traditional high altar with six (or seven) candles and beautifully intoned with a wonderful organ and choir. But no matter how many flourishes are added, the structure, the base, still is lacking compared to the Traditional Mass. A tradition which is 1500 years old and has been developed by and nourished the lived of thousands of saints and was well-beloved, can simply not be a beaten by a liturgy developed in a committee overnight, nor is there evidence that this new Rite simply be reformed.

 

[seanflynn]

This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof.

This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof.

This quote is very interesting, as different emphases support the anti- and pro- traditionalsist stances, respectively.

 

[Onegin]

It’s a myth that you can be a Traditional Catholic and support following suspended clergy.

What can you be, then? A non-traditional Catholic? A plain Catholic? A “small ‘t’” traditional Catholic? A small “c” catholic?

Please explain as I’m not sure I can successfully hold my breath for very long … and Sunday is just around the corner! Where I might erroneously proceed in my errant ways of believing myself to be a Traditional Catholic. Help!

/sarcasm.

 

[CradleCath]

No, I’m Catholic.

The Novus Ordo is valid, but validity is not all that matters.

Now, here I agree with you SpiritusSanctus. The QUIETNESS of the TLM. is something that my soul has been thirsting for, since around 1975. (I was still trying to love the Novus Ordo until that year. After that I guess I just endured.)

When I walk into a Catholic Church that prays the TLM. , I can once again feel the hushed atmosphere, I look ahead & there’s the Sanctuary light, the Altar prepared for the Latin Mass & peace, absolute quiet peace. The peace that passeth all understanding.

No laity bustling about the Sancturary except for the Altar boys who are lighting the candles quietly & reverently. No EXTRAordinary Eucharistic ministers vying for the best seat so that they can have an “up-front” position when they go to the "safe place’ that the Sanctuary is supposed to be…no one giving you an elbow in the side, because you are trying to concentrate on the 3-ring circus that is intended to be a Mass, & forget to shake someone’s hand.

Then, of course, there is the Sacrificial Rite of the Mass. The humble prayers that both plead with God for His Mercy & offer Him praise for the unbelieveable…the gift of His Son as our Savior. The prayers that announce the names of many of our earlier Saints & emphasize the fact that WE are part of the Communion of Saints. This matters most of all. The Mass is about Calvary, not the Last Supper. Anyone who doubts that should read “Calvary & the Mass” by Archbishop Sheen.

The prayers at the foot of the Altar, during which the priest asks for worthiness to pray the Mass & we pray that we are made worthy to take part in the greatest Sacrifice ever made.

The last gospel, the Leonine prayers after, no one hurrying out of their pews before they thank God for the miracle that has just occured.

The old Mass reminds me of what they used to say about the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: “It’s a machine **built by geniuses **so it can be operated safely by idiots”. Haven’t heard that saying in 40 years.

 

[John_Grudzien]

Now, here I agree with you SpiritusSanctus. The QUIETNESS of the TLM. is something that my soul has been thirsting for, since around 1975. (I was still trying to love the Novus Ordo until that year. After that I guess I just endured.)

When I walk into a Catholic Church that prays the TLM. , I can once again feel the hushed atmosphere, I look ahead & there’s the Sanctuary light, the Altar prepared for the Latin Mass & peace, absolute quiet peace. The peace that passeth all understanding.

No laity bustling about the Sancturary except for the Altar boys who are lighting the candles quietly & reverently. No EXTRAordinary Eucharistic ministers vying for the best seat so that they can have an “up-front” position when they go to the "safe place’ that the Sanctuary is supposed to be…no one giving you an elbow in the side, because you are trying to concentrate on the 3-ring circus that is intended to be a Mass, & forget to shake someone’s hand.

Then, of course, there is the Sacrificial Rite of the Mass. The humble prayers that both plead with God for His Mercy & offer Him praise for the unbelieveable…the gift of His Son as our Savior. The prayers that announce the names of many of our earlier Saints & emphasize the fact that WE are part of the Communion of Saints. This matters most of all. The Mass is about Calvary, not the Last Supper. Anyone who doubts that should read “Calvary & the Mass” by Archbishop Sheen.

The prayers at the foot of the Altar, during which the priest asks for worthiness to pray the Mass & we pray that we are made worthy to take part in the greatest Sacrifice ever made.

The last gospel, the Leonine prayers after, no one hurrying out of their pews before they thank God for the miracle that has just occured.

The old Mass reminds me of what they used to say about the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: “It’s a machine **built by geniuses **so it can be operated safely by idiots”. Haven’t heard that saying in 40 years.

WHat can I say that you said so eloquently? I do so ardently miss the feeling of being in Our Lord’s House that I used to get. I generally try to get to Church 45 min to a half hour before so I can spend some “quiet time” with Him. I don’t know why I even bother. I learn more about what’s going on in the neighborhood and parish politics than what He wants me to do for him.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

This quote is very interesting, as different emphases support the anti- and pro- traditionalsist stances, respectively.

Mediator Dei:

This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof.

Actually this is not “anti-traditionalist”, since you have to understand the encyclical from the perspective when it was written, not from today. The liturgists who developed the NO and the GIRM are following a mixture of both. They introduced many novelties but a lot of practices were based on what they claimed was “ancient Church practice”. For example, Communion in the hand, Communion under both species, the altar facing the people (though this is an pure innovation, they claim without evidence that it was the way the early Church did it), the Mass as a communal meal around a table emphasized more than a sacrifice on an altar, RCIA, removal of Gallican elements in the Roman liturgy, a simplistic architecture and decorations, anti-clericalism, etc. All this supposedly hearkens back to ancient practices of the Church, which are supposedly better than more recent developments.

The New Mass (and GIRM) is based on a mixture of innovation and a false understanding of history.

 

[pnewton]

Myths about traditional catholics: How about they can’t post here without getting banned?

CradleCatholic and I have been doing this for a while back and forth. My advice is to quit for a while if it gets intense and try to interject humor whenever the opportunity presents itself. If we are to spend eternity together, we might as well start learning how to get along now and reduce our time in Purgatory (where Mass is always in Latin).

 

[Bbigam]

If you are referring to sedevacantists, sure. But it is also important to specify what it means to be “fully faithful to the Magisterium”.

In part, some of the other things that I listed below. I think it means that we accept the legitimate authority of the Pope and the Holy See, even when we don’t happen to like what they have decided. The Holy Father has real authority, and not just when he makes an infallible pronouncement.

Define what it means to reject (or accept) Vatican II “in word or in practice”. Please specify which doctrines expressed by Vatican II you refer are referring to.

I’m not talking about specific doctrines, I’m talking about the whole council - at least, all the formal documents that came from the council. Sure, no new dogma was proclaimed; sure, maybe it was a “pastoral” council, whatever that means. But I’ve heard people say the council was invalid; not true. I’ve heard people say it’s valid but since it didn’t proclaim dogma, we can, in essence, safely ignore it; not true. Dogmatic or not, it is a Council of the Church and thus authoritative.

Is there a difference between “objectively inferior” and “objectively dramatically inferior”. Although the intrinsic value is the same (Christ offered to the Trinity), since man can add nothing to that; the extrinsic value of the New Mass is, I believe, objectively inferior to the Traditional Mass. Some of this is obvious to many people if you simply compare the prayers of each Rite and how they understand and approach God and each other. But for more information see, “The Merit of a Mass”, Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP.

I’m ok with people saying the words, signs, and symbols of the Extraordinary Form are better. It’s not okay to act as if the Ordinary Form is pretty much worthless and to be utterly avoided and abolished. I’m not saying you say that, but some do or at least seem to.

I attend a Fraternity parish, however I do not fault those who followed the SSPX because it is and was the largest refuge of Traditionalists. There are other groups, however, who have their own “independent” lines (e.g. Thuc, Old Catholic) and are not representative of the Catholic Church. One issue is that of “una cum” within the “Te igitur” which sedevacantists leave out (it’s silent so it’s not noticeable) because it references union with the pope. Since jurisdiction flows from the pope to the bishops to the priests, the headless model of the sedes is necessarily broken.

The SSPX, though, is not Traditional because they are in objective open disobedience to the Holy Father, by rejecting Vatican II and the Ordinary Form and continuing to celebrate the Sacraments despite being suspended. FSSP I have great respect for and they are real Traditionalists, in full union with the Holy Father and licitly celebrating the traditional rites of the sacraments.

“Prefer” can also mean “believe to be objectively superior”. It’s not just about liking the beauty of a High Mass.

Okay, sure. I know it’s not just about aesthetic beauty (or shouldn’t be, anyway).

But what about the New Mass practiced in its ideal, that is in its most traditional form? I used to regularly attend the New Mass in Latin, so it is said that way occasionally. It can also be celebrated facing God, on a traditional high altar with six (or seven) candles and beautifully intoned with a wonderful organ and choir. But no matter how many flourishes are added, the structure, the base, still is lacking compared to the Traditional Mass. A tradition which is 1500 years old and has been developed by and nourished the lived of thousands of saints and was well-beloved, can simply not be a beaten by a liturgy developed in a committee overnight, nor is there evidence that this new Rite simply be reformed.

I’ll allow, certainly, that changes were made that went farther than they should have. And yes, the changes to some parts were quite substantial. It’s still the same basic liturgy, though. And it’s still the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Out of curiosity, do you think they shouldn’t have made any changes, or just that they went way too far?

 

[Bbigam]

Actually this is not “anti-traditionalist”, since you have to understand the encyclical from the perspective when it was written, not from today. The liturgists who developed the NO and the GIRM are following a mixture of both. They introduced many novelties but a lot of practices were based on what they claimed was “ancient Church practice”. For example, Communion in the hand, Communion under both species, the altar facing the people (though this is an pure innovation, they claim without evidence that it was the way the early Church did it), the Mass as a communal meal around a table emphasized more than a sacrifice on an altar, RCIA, removal of Gallican elements in the Roman liturgy, a simplistic architecture and decorations, anti-clericalism, etc. All this supposedly hearkens back to ancient practices of the Church, which are supposedly better than more recent developments.

The New Mass (and GIRM) is based on a mixture of innovation and a false understanding of history.

You are mixing together things that actually came with the new Mass and GIRM, things that came later, and things that were never mandated but just some people decided to do. Much of what you list is not part of the Ordinary Form and current GIRM proper.

RCIA? Really?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The old Mass reminds me of what they used to say about the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: “It’s a machine **built by geniuses **so it can be operated safely by idiots”. Haven’t heard that saying in 40 years.

I have you beat then, my priest used that saying in a class on the (traditional) Mass last month

I like what Cardinal Ratzinger said, specifically referring to the Mass celebrated versus populum, which has become the norm (“the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal”, as he puts it):
Cardinal Ratzinger:

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest – the “presider”, as they now prefer to call him – becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make their own contribution”. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern”. The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. It its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.

This is true of celebration versus populum in the New Mass but it is also true of the whole mindset of the New Mass – it’s about being “creative”, about “personal experience”, about “making a contribution”, in everything is constantly being brought back to human beings as the focus of the Mass and this is also characteristic of the prayers which exist and the elimination of others, and the GIRM. It’s the product not of the patrimony of the Church but an invention of the “Me Generation”.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

RCIA? Really?

RCIA is supposedly a throwback to the ancient catechumen classes of the early Church. It did not exist before Vatican II. The RCIA program was only created in 1972 and made mandatory in 1988 and is also not used in traditionalist parishes. Between the catechumen classes in the early Church (cf. homiles of St. Augustine, St. Cyril, St. John Chrysostom, etc. to catechumens) and the invention of RCIA in recent years, instructions for unbaptized and converts was done individually by the priest. The separation of the (traditional) Mass into “Mass of the Catechumens” and “Mass of the Faithful” is a vestige of a much earlier time because the unbaptized are no longer dismissed (in the West) before the Offertory.

The idea behind the development of the New Mass was that some things are “accretions” that must be scraped away to reveal the more primitive form of the Mass, supposedly similar to what the early Church might have done. So the Mass, the whole Rite actually, was rewritten according to what these liturgists thought the mindset and practice of the early Church was. Thus we have a mixture of novelty and misguided antiquarianism that Pope Pius XII was specifically warning us about.

The Traditional Rite is not looking towards the past only, certainly not based on ideas of scholars and self-appointed liturgists, it is the continuity of the teaching and practice of the Church, an organic growth. Indeed, it is those celebrations of the New Mass which try to be so “modern” which are outdated. Just go into a church looks “very '70s”, they tried so hard to make it “modern” that it is outdated even before it is finished. The more people try to make the Mass “relevant”, the more irrelevant it becomes because the Traditional Mass speaks to the heart of what it means to be human. The more people try to make the Mass “interesting” and “creative”, the more boring and banal it becomes. It is the Traditional Mass which is timeless.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

You are mixing together things that actually came with the new Mass and GIRM, things that came later, and things that were never mandated but just some people decided to do. Much of what you list is not part of the Ordinary Form and current GIRM proper.

Communion in the hand

This is an indult, a concession to some people who were doing this before it was legal. The United States and many other countries are an exception ot the rule forbidding it. The GIRM specifically states that it is up to the decision of the communicant whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue.
GIRM:

The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.

GIRM:

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing.

Communion under both species,

Which is also an indult and must be allowed by the bishop.
Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See…

GIRM:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
…
The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.

the altar facing the people

GIRM:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

the Mass as a communal meal around a table emphasized more than a sacrifice on an altar

This is a change in emphasis, thus there is no direct quote I can use.

RCIA

See above post.

removal of Gallican elements in the Roman liturgy

This was an emphasis of the creation of the New Mass, that is why so many “flourishes” in the prayers are missing in the New Mass and everything is much more “simplified”.

a simplistic architecture and decorations

Trend, this started before Vatican II, it just has taken over. Again, destruction of monuments – destroy one and others topple soon thereafter.

anti-clericalism

See above post regarding “creativity” at Mass. Cardinal Ratzinger says that celebration versus populum (as the GIRM says is “desirable wherever possible”) created an “unprecedented clericalism” but then goes on to say how that because priests start doing things they are not supposed to be doing, the laity steps up and helps the priest do these new things. Many NO parishes have liturgical directors with their own committees. Thus it is both an “unprecedented clereicalism” and “anti-clericalism” because the focus of the role of the priest has changed.

If you are looking for a formal mention, see if the institution of EMHCs. In terms of prayers, the union of the priest’s and the faithful’s Confiteor into a common one and the 1970 ICEL wording “our” in the Orate Fratres (the Latin still says “meum ac vestrum” and will be fixed finally in the new translation)…

 

[Seamus_L]

Another myth is that we spend a large part of our time attacking the Novus Ordo mass. We do have a very distinct preference for the TLM (I very rarely attend the NO) and are always telling others of it’s availability. I have friends who attend the NO mass when the TLM is available in there area, and I do not think less of them for it.

 

[Bbigam]

RCIA is supposedly a throwback to the ancient catechumen classes of the early Church. It did not exist before Vatican II…

Okay, but I don’t see what’s wrong with it. My RCIA was great and I learned so much about the Church. I should note that we spent a whole evening on contraception and why it’s wrong and what marriage really is and all.

The Traditional Rite is not looking towards the past only, certainly not based on ideas of scholars and self-appointed liturgists, it is the continuity of the teaching and practice of the Church, an organic growth. Indeed, it is those celebrations of the New Mass which try to be so “modern” which are outdated. Just go into a church looks “very '70s”, they tried so hard to make it “modern” that it is outdated even before it is finished. The more people try to make the Mass “relevant”, the more irrelevant it becomes because the Traditional Mass speaks to the heart of what it means to be human. The more people try to make the Mass “interesting” and “creative”, the more boring and banal it becomes. It is the Traditional Mass which is timeless.

I agree with most of what you say - but the Holy Sacrifice is timeless even if poorly celebrated, in whatever form or rite it may be. Certainly the externals matter and the more “progressive” parishes are stuck in the 70s and the externals are indeed boring and banal, but it’s still the Holy Sacrifice.

This is an indult, a concession to some people who were doing this before it was legal. The United States and many other countries are an exception ot the rule forbidding it. The GIRM specifically states that it is up to the decision of the communicant whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue…

This was an emphasis of the creation of the New Mass, that is why so many “flourishes” in the prayers are missing in the New Mass and everything is much more “simplified”.

Trend, this started before Vatican II, it just has taken over. Again, destruction of monuments – destroy one and others topple soon thereafter.

If you are looking for a formal mention, see if the institution of EMHCs. In terms of prayers, the union of the priest’s and the faithful’s Confiteor into a common one and the 1970 ICEL wording “our” in the Orate Fratres (the Latin still says “meum ac vestrum” and will be fixed finally in the new translation)…

You’ve done your homework well! I have to wonder (I don’t know the answer) how much of this is in the universal GIRM and how much is from the US adaptations to the GIRM.
It makes me sad when I walk into what was once a beautiful old church that has had the high altar torn out and was “simplified.” Mine is thankfully not at all like that! It’s also annoying to walk into a modern church that seems to be striving to look as non-Catholic as possible.

I like what Cardinal Ratzinger said, specifically referring to the Mass celebrated versus populum, which has become the norm (“the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal”, as he puts it):

This is true of celebration versus populum in the New Mass but it is also true of the whole mindset of the New Mass – it’s about being “creative”, about “personal experience”, about “making a contribution”, in everything is constantly being brought back to human beings as the focus of the Mass and this is also characteristic of the prayers which exist and the elimination of others, and the GIRM. It’s the product not of the patrimony of the Church but an invention of the “Me Generation”.

Excellent quote! I haven’t read the Spirit of the Liturgy yet but I own it.

 

[floresco]

Okay, but I don’t see what’s wrong with it. My RCIA was great and I learned so much about the Church. I should note that we spent a whole evening on contraception and why it’s wrong and what marriage really is and all.

I learned in RCIA that contraception was a matter of conscience. I also learned that the Rosary was for a time when people were illiterate and could not read the Psalter and therefore no longer an appropriate devotion. I was not taught how to receive the Sacrament of Confession since this parish favoured communal penance services. There was a cohabitating couple among the catechumens. One of the leaders commented on how good it was that the program was meeting them where they were instead of telling them they were doing something wrong.

They did teach some things that were correct. Because it was a large class, it was designed for the majority and these were mostly things I already knew. For example, we had a class on God is the Creator. It did not deal with my individual needs and questions.

 

[tnystrom]

I converted two years ago because I wanted to be Catholic. I understood that the Catholic Church was THE Church that Jesus founded. I understood because of that I must follow the dictates of the Church.
I thought Vatican II was in the tradition of the Councils of the Church (i.e., Council of Nicea 325AD). I guess I am naive, but I thought the changes not misunderstandings or misuse, or any other mis-, should be followed.
I also thought the Mass was originally changed to Latin from Greek so the ordinary people could understand. So a change from Latin to any vernacular (in our case, English) would make sense.
Just my thoughts.

 

[pnewton]

Excellent quote! I haven’t read the Spirit of the Liturgy yet but I own it.

I particularly like the introduction. The liturgy is compared to a fresco overlaid with whitewash. The changes in the liturgy is comparable to the removal of the whitewash and revealing the color beneath. This both reveals the beauty beneath, but also makes it vunerable to decay.

 

[Bbigam]

I learned in RCIA that contraception was a matter of conscience. I also learned that the Rosary was for a time when people were illiterate and could not read the Psalter and therefore no longer an appropriate devotion. I was not taught how to receive the Sacrament of Confession since this parish favoured communal penance services. There was a cohabitating couple among the catechumens. One of the leaders commented on how good it was that the program was meeting them where they were instead of telling them they were doing something wrong.

They did teach some things that were correct. Because it was a large class, it was designed for the majority and these were mostly things I already knew. For example, we had a class on God is the Creator. It did not deal with my individual needs and questions.

That’s awful, but it’s not a problem with RCIA, it’s a problem with the catechists and maybe the priest in your parish. There are very faithful RCIA programs and nothing inherent to the RCIA model that makes it unfaithful. It’s meant to teach people the fullness of the faith and to have a public aspect with the faithful participating through prayer and the rites. It’s pointless if the fullness of the faith is not taught.

People in RCIA need to be taught that contraception is sin, period. They need to be taught how and why to confess, and the traditional devotions. I would say a parish should welcome a cohabiting couple to sit in on the classes, but certainly not to participate in the rites and sacraments while living a life of sin and scandal - and they need to know that and why.

 

[floresco]

That’s awful, but it’s not a problem with RCIA, it’s a problem with the catechists and maybe the priest in your parish. There are very faithful RCIA programs and nothing inherent to the RCIA model that makes it unfaithful.

It is true that many of the problems I described are not inherent to the RCIA model. However, being done in a group rather than individually, is inherent to the model. I went through a program designed for “average converts” that did not address my interests and needs.