Difficulty with certain Catholics

[Contra_Mundum_1]

As a Catholic who grew up with the TLM before Vatican II, I can assure you, the reverence wasn’t there in the final days before the NO became the ordinary. People went to the priest who said the Mass the fastest and kept his homily short. For the post part, Catholics in parishes participated very little other than just sit, stand and kneel when they were suppose to, meanwhile they were either day-dreaming or praying their own prayers. A few followed the missal and read the words they barely understood.

It would be even worse if the TLM became the ordinary today, for back in the 50’s and early 60’s, people still had a sense of respect to keep quite in Mass, movie theaters and town hall meetings. No so today.

This was a very interesting post. I underlined a sentence above because it really stood out to me. I am convinced that it was the collapse in the wider society in the west that dragged the church down with it. I was born in the 1970s in Eastern Europe so I have not experienced these things you mention. (The church there had very different problems and fought for survival.) But I know enough about recent history and how the culture changed. If the whole point of the V2 was to figure out how to engage with that new culture, then I’m not sure it did a great job. Church attendance went down, catechesis was bad, and the church was not spared the lowering of the standards in many areas. I’m not talking about the mass here but about people’s attitudes to God and faith, to their behaviour, etc. I think that the most tragic thing was that the church did not manage to stand up to the secular trends of the 1960s, but ended up caught up in the spirit of the times. We are still suffering from that today, although I believe that things have started to slowly improve. Maybe the EF mass will remain in the background because people are just not ready for that kind of thing, and may not be for a very long time.

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks for your perspective and sharing your experience, Jim. It is very true that, while most trads lament the fact that they do not have a generous offering of their liturgy, in my own diocese, our bishop finally set up a mass for them in a parish about 35 miles away. The bishop asked all parishes to advertise the mass in their bulletins, and they do so regularly, even now.

The first celebration that was held had an attendance of 400 people, which was scant for a diocese this large. Not even 1% attended. If you noticed the post by Silver Thread in the TC forum, it is now down to between 35 to 60. Doesn’t this indicate a valid reason for the bishop not to authorize additional EF liturgies? The S.P. called for a “stable group.” They cannot even meet the conditions to qualify for it.

I do see it becoming more and more scarce. In Pittsburgh, there are only two parishes that have the EF. Everyone knows how large Pittsburgh is. Doesn’t that paint a sad picture?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Well, if you referring to me, I too grew up with the TLM before Vatican II. I attended many, and would not want to go back.

I know you are old Jim

I understand that many people who grew up with it prefer the NO. But there are many Catholics who genuinely don’t have a clue about the old mass but have an opinion about it and about what it supposedly represents. I went through RCIA 20 years ago and I remember well the attitude we were taught to assume about the old mass. The practicing Catholics that I know who are my age or converts have been taught the same thing. I have had many conversations about this and it is always more or less the same: I hear an objection born not out of knowledge and experience, but out of prejudice. And I think that is wrong.
I do what I can to spread the word about the old rite to the Catholics I know because I care about this issue. Some people are hooked when they experience it, some are intrigued, and many others couldn’t care less.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Contra Mundum

I understand that many people who grew up with it prefer the NO. But there are many Catholics who genuinely don’t have a clue about the old mass but have an opinion about it and about what it supposedly represents.

It’s not up to you or anyone else to make sure that these Catholics who have no clue about the TLM, need to be shown.

It’s not necessary for their faith. In fact, a misunderstanding of the TLM could be damaging to a person’s faith, and I’ve seen it as the uniqueness of the TLM wears off.

Faith is from Jesus Christ, religion is our response to that faith.

If your faith is attached to the asceticism of the rite and love of doctrines, it could be an ego-identity issue, rather than faith in Jesus Christ that moves you.

Jesus is present in the Eucharists, whether in the NO or the EF. That realization alone should be the motivator for attending Mass, nothing else. You shouldn’t have to travel 2 hours away, driving past your own home parish and others along the way, to satisfy your desire to attend, which is for yourself, a unique liturgy.

Jim

 

[Kevin12]

Kevin,

lex orandi, lex credendi. The mass is central to our faith. It matters how we celebrate it. This is not a question about purity and aesthetics, but about things that are essential to our faith. Unfortunately, people often see the traditionalist view as one of empty, superficial aesthetics of an elitist group that has a thing for Latin.

If you are open to reading about why this matters, I suggest a wonderful book by Ratzinger called Spirit of the Liturgy. I found it very inspiring and informative.** It explains, among other things, how church architecture, music and gestures used during mass have a deep theological meaning, and that we shouldn’t mess with them because the meaning then gets obscured**. This book should be read by all Catholics because it is not about pinning the EF against the OF, but about understanding why these things matter, and in doing so it helps us understand the mass better in its complexity (both EF and NO).

I don’t know if the document you are speaking of says that, but regardless, the Church has “messed with” the Mass because it believes there was cause to do so. Of course, no one said these things don’t matter - but you should also recognize that in the pre-Vatican II era, many if not most Catholics simply went through the motions of the Mass and prayed the rosary because they had no clue what was going on.

I also strongly disagree with the things you say about the Church being swept up by the spirit of secularism. The declines in Church attendance were experienced after the 60’s not only by Catholics but all non-Evangelical mainline Protestants as well. Without Vatican II it would have been much more precipitous. In any case, I have seen that most trads get their statistics on the Church’s decline from biased, non-scientific studies and books, so I am content to ignore the issue as little firm data has been produced on either side.

I think most of the things you say about the NO are wrong and come from your own bias, and I’m sure you think the same about me. I don’t think there is any meaning in continuing this conversation. It is simply a temptation toward uncharity and pride, and I would rather let it drop.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

It’s not up to you or anyone else to make sure that these Catholics who have no clue about the TLM, need to be shown.

It’s not necessary for their faith.

I’m not at all disagreeing with the rest of your comment. Not at all. But I have to disagree with the above. We are called to share our faith, right? Both to believers and those who are not. Sometimes is it about little things, telling our fellow Catholics about a new devotion we discovered, or a book that we have read. I do it all the time. I do it because it could bring something to the person, it could maybe enrich their faith life. My Catholic friends do the same and I have learned about a number of devotions because they have told me about them. Some have been wonderful, and others have left me indifferent. I assume it is the same with the things I recommend to others. Just because someone might not be interested in X, that is no reason for me not to mention it to someone else.

But these things are not necessary for our faith, strictly speaking. I don’t* have *to pray the rosary. I don’t have to ask the saints for their intersession. So many things that we do fall into this category. So when I talk to other Catholics about the TLM I see it in the same way: maybe it will enrich their spiritual life. Maybe it will bring something beautiful to their life. I am so excited about it I want the whole world to be excited about it. You may think this is silly, but maybe you are really excited about something in your life and want to share that too.

That is why I don’t understand this attitude, that it is not up to me to tell people. I disagree.

And I guess this is where the discussion stops as far as I’m concerned because it has become quite hostile. I’m sorry if what I had to say was completely useless to you and others.

 

[Sirach2]

Contra Mundum:

So when I talk to other Catholics about the TLM I see it in the same way: maybe it will enrich their spiritual life. Maybe it will bring something beautiful to their life. I am so excited about it I want the whole world to be excited about it. You may think this is silly, but maybe you are really excited about something in your life and want to share that too.

That is why I don’t understand this attitude, that it is not up to me to tell people. I disagree.

I’ll wager that whenever trads attempt to promote others to the TLM, it is done with a lot of embellishment and flair while at the same time pointing out the infinite number of faults with the OF. I’m sure you’ve heard/seen it all. If you don’t indulge in a single slur while trying to spread your enthusiasm for the EF, then you are different than most trads.

How many times have you seen on the web or heard in your circle of friends, a push for people to attend the Maronite rite? Or any of the other 22 rites in the RCC? Any? No, this is not done. I’m pretty certain these folks believe their rite is beautiful also, but they don’t use derogatory slurs at anyone else’s rite, nor have I ever seen a push for others to “come and see” their rite. This is where I draw the line with trads.

As Jim said, it is all about our faith relationship with Christ - not about the esoteric disciplines within a liturgy. If you were as excited about the Eucharist, it would be apparent quickly. But I’m hearing that your excitement is directed toward the manner/form of celebrating the liturgy with all of its mysterious smells and bells, not the Holy Sacrifice itself, which is perfect in every rite and needs no trumping up as being superior to another rite.

 

[Sirach2]

I did a double-take when I heard the gospel at today’s mass.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
You traverse sea and land to make one convert,
and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna
twice as much as yourselves.”

Father mentioned the hidden motives behind this gospel that Jesus was addressing, similar to what we have been saying throughout this thread. If one is abhorrent about the OF and determines in their heart to do all in their power to convert others away from this sacred liturgy, saying that the EF is more pleasing to God, etc., then I think this gospel is speaking loud and clear.

Let’s pray their motive, which is often hidden from their own eyes, be converted to a worthy acceptance of all Catholic liturgies, for it is Jesus Himself who is honored and worshipped within each of them.

 

[Gliggle]

It’s funny, yesterday and today I also heard the gospel in the light of this thread.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
You cleanse the outside of cup and dish,
but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup,
so that the outside also may be clean.”

Contra Mundum and Sirach, it seems to me that both of you have made good points in this thread and yet you are both a little hot-headed. Try to think more kindly of each-other if you can.

 

[illinidiva]

Thanks for this thread… For the longest time, I didn’t even realize that there were people agitating for the return of 1950s Catholicism; I didn’t until Benedict inadvertently pardoned that Holocaust denier guy. And I didn’t realize there were such forums and blogs until the great lady-footwashing incident. One of the stories I read about that linked to a website and the content of it really disturbed me. It is sad that at least some of these people are in communion with Rome and that they so profoundly miss the Catholic message. Also, the Fatima thing is incredibly odd; I’m not sure why traditionalists are so fixated on that Marian shrine vs. say Lourdes.

I am a bit confused about why so much time was spent with SSPX over the last eight years. While the Church is open to all, I’m not sure why so much effort was spent on one small, troublesome, far right sect. They remind me of Mormon polygamists just based on the way that the women dress, and I’m not sure that it is a good strategy for the Church’s future to be associated with people who are so reactionary and anti-Semitic. I think that spending efforts on more nominal Catholics or “recovering Catholics” would have born more fruit.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

CPMR