How Long Have You Considered Yourself a Traditional Catholic?

[CWBetts]

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to attend a Tridentine Mass, just to experience it, but I also think it is unfair to blame Vatican II for the falling away in the 70’s and 80’s. Other faith traditions experienced the same kind of problem, but without an ecumenical council to throw the blame on. It was part of the times, and would have happened with or without Vatican II. My own priest said what Vatican II really did was strip away alot of baggage and made the Church more closely resemble the early Church. IOW, VAtican II wasnt a step forward, it was a step back.

 

[elts1956]

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to attend a Tridentine Mass, just to experience it, but I also think it is unfair to blame Vatican II for the falling away in the 70’s and 80’s. Other faith traditions experienced the same kind of problem, but without an ecumenical council to throw the blame on. It was part of the times, and would have happened with or without Vatican II. My own priest said what Vatican II really did was strip away alot of baggage and made the Church more closely resemble the early Church. IOW, VAtican II wasnt a step forward, it was a step back.

Hi. I have read a bit about Early Church History, ie. 2nd 3rd Century through The Early Church Fathers, the Mass of the Early Christians and some others. I think I will try to find the history of the liturgy and rituals of the church as it changed through the years from communal gatherings to the majestic and elegant trappings of the Latin Rite Mass. Should be interesting to see who pushed what and who wore what and why. I wonder what baggage was stripped away???

 

[elts1956]

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to attend a Tridentine Mass, just to experience it, but I also think it is unfair to blame Vatican II for the falling away in the 70’s and 80’s. Other faith traditions experienced the same kind of problem, but without an ecumenical council to throw the blame on. It was part of the times, and would have happened with or without Vatican II. My own priest said what Vatican II really did was strip away alot of baggage and made the Church more closely resemble the early Church. IOW, VAtican II wasnt a step forward, it was a step back.

I was born into the Catholic faith in 1942; I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic (e.g., the Tridentine Mass is my standard; not the Novus Ordo “performances” entertained since Vatican II). Consequently, I feel that, since 1942 onwards, I have been a traditional Catholic longer than has the Church…

Just GOTTA stand up for the NO a bit. Not all of them are “performances”, but very reverential, not like a TLM Mass, but very nice. Luckily our Parish Priest is not INTO performances, very conservative, and you should have seen our pastor before him. Everyone was afraid to say boo, but I loved him dearly.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Like it or not Vatican II opened the flood gates of change. How quickly did that change come!

I was a freshman in high school in September of 1965. The brothers still wore cassocks with a large rosary as a cincture and a fairly good sized pectoral cross. By September of 1967, they abandoned their cassocks and dressed in black slacks, a white shirt, and a black tie. In May of 1968, I sang in the choir for the class of 1968’s graduation. Traditional hymns and Latin. In September of 69 in came the guitars.

I have a 1965 Missal. It never got used. Every two weeks or so there was an announcement made from the pulpit. “Starting next month, we will no longer say the Kyrie in Greek. It will be in English” so that by 1967 the entire Mass was in English and it would be recognizable as Liturgical Prayer I today.

Unless you went through it, you have no frame of reference to understand just how earth shattering the change was and just how quickly it came. Or how heart breaking it was to see the communion rails taken out.

 

[CWBetts]

Like it or not Vatican II opened the flood gates of change. How quickly did that change come!

I was a freshman in high school in September of 1965. The brothers still wore cassocks with a large rosary as a cincture and a fairly good sized pectoral cross. By September of 1967, they abandoned their cassocks and dressed in black slacks, a white shirt, and a black tie. In May of 1968, I sang in the choir for the class of 1968’s graduation. Traditional hymns and Latin. In September of 69 in came the guitars.

I have a 1965 Missal. It never got used. Every two weeks or so there was an announcement made from the pulpit. “Starting next month, we will no longer say the Kyrie in Greek. It will be in English” so that by 1967 the entire Mass was in English and it would be recognizable as Liturgical Prayer I today.

Unless you went through it, you have no frame of reference to understand just how earth shattering the change was and just how quickly it came. Or how heart breaking it was to see the communion rails taken out.

Did I live through it no. I did do intensive research on Vatican II. It was my Senior Colloquium paper. The whole world was changing. Mai '68, the Prague Summer, Mexico City, the Democratic National Convention. It would be naiive to say that the Church would be unaffected by the maelstrom. And as a result, the Church became more akin to the New Testament Church. The changes you describe were all superficial. A typycal case of “Good old days Syndrome”

 

[brotherhrolf]

Did I live through it no. I did do intensive research on Vatican II. It was my Senior Colloquium paper. The whole world was changing. Mai '68, the Prague Summer, Mexico City, the Democratic National Convention. It would be naiive to say that the Church would be unaffected by the maelstrom. And as a result, the Church became more akin to the New Testament Church. The changes you describe were all superficial. A typycal case of “Good old days Syndrome”

The changes were not in any way, shape, or form superficial and I remember 1968 with a far greater clarity than you. Is that why the Holy Father issued the Motu Proprio? If the changes were so superficial, why issue it?

I have prayed and waited these long forty years while enduring liturgical dancers wafting bowls of incense and carrying gauzy banners as if it were Mardi Gras. That’s superficial? I think not.

I am more than willing to present my academic creditials and the fact that I enlisted and served my country when many of my contemporaries fled to Canada. To dismiss me and those of us who lived through the period as a case of “Good old days Syndrome” is simply disingenuous.

I did not live in some sort of ecclesial 'Happy Days". I went to high school with some “Fonzies” as well as some who were overjoyed with the changes. But there were just as many of us who submitted to the Magesterium and to dismiss us under the guise of superficiality strips us of our dignity. You have absolutely no idea of the effect because you were not alive. You may have done research but I remember the DNC live on TV. I remember the Tet Offensive live on TV. I remember all of those things because I paid attention and (gasp!) read the newspaper before I went to school each morning.

You say superficiality. I say presumption.

 

[CWBetts]

If the falling away and decline in vocations is all Vatican II’s fault, then explain the exact same problem anong Protestant denominations. You cant, and therfore Vatican II was not a cause, it was a coincidence.

 

[patrick457]

If the falling away and decline in vocations is all Vatican II’s fault, then explain the exact same problem anong Protestant denominations. You cant, and therfore Vatican II was not a cause, it was a coincidence.

Correct! Anyone who says Vatican II is to blame for ALL mishap needs to check up on their history.

Though, if I may ask, in what ways did the Church become more closer to the NT one?

 

[CWBetts]

For starters, reintitution of the catechal rites. Before VAtican II, if you wanted to convert, you would go talk to a priest, get baptized and confirmed, similar to the high pressure conversion ant many “Bible Believing” churches today. Vatican II changes led to the institution of RCIA, which has the intent, though it sometimes fails, at teaching prospective converts about the faith, so they have a better understanding of the faith before they are fully accepted into the Church. Another thing is that the Church rejoined the world it inhabits. in keeping with the Great Commission. Mass in the vernacular was another. There are some things, like Masses that seem more like rock concerts, that can be laid at the feet of Vatican II, but again this has to do more with individual Bishops and priests, that a endemic problem within the CHurch because of the council.

 

[patrick457]

I mostly agree with the other stuff, so I’ll go straight to the point:

Another thing is that the Church rejoined the world it inhabits. in keeping with the Great Commission.

Can you please clarify?

Mass in the vernacular was another.

Have you read Cardinal Arinze’s article I linked to before? Even if Vatican II allowed for the celebration of the Mass in vernacular, insisted on the place of Latin as the Church’s liturgical language.

6. The Vernacular: Introduction. Extension. Conditions.

The introduction of local languages into the sacred liturgy of the Latin Rite is a development that did not occur all of a sudden. After the partial experience gained over the preceding years in certain countries, already on December 5 and 6, 1962, after long and sometimes impassioned debates, the Second Vatican Fathers adopted the principle that the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of advantage to the people. In the following year the Council voted to apply this principle to the Mass, the ritual and the Liturgy of the Hours (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36, 54, 63a, 76, 78, 101).

Extensions of the use of the vernacular followed. But, as if the Council Fathers foresaw the likelihood that Latin might lose more and more ground, they insisted again and again that Latin be maintained.

As already quoted, article 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy began by enacting that “particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite.” Article 54 required that steps be taken “enabling the faithful to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.” In the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours “in accordance with the centuries old tradition of the Latin rite, clerics are to retain the Latin language” (SC, 101).

But even while establishing limits, the Council Fathers anticipated the possibility of a wider use of the vernacular. Article 54 indeed adds: '‘Wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed." Article 40 goes into directives on the role of Bishops’ Conferences and of the Apostolic See in such a delicate matter. The vernacular had been introduced. The rest is history. The developments were so fast that many clerics, religious and lay faithful today are not aware that the Second Vatican Council did not simply introduce the vernacular for all parts of the liturgy.

Requests and widenings of the use of the vernacular were not long in coming. At the urgent request of some Bishops’ Conferences, Pope Paul VI first allowed the Preface of the Mass to be said in the vernacular (cf. Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State, 27 April 1965), then the entire Canon and the prayers of ordination in 1967. Finally on June 14,1971, the Congregation for Divine Worship sent notice that Episcopal Conferences could allow the use of the vernacular in all the texts of the Mass, and each Ordinary could give the same permission for the choral or private celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours (on the whole development, see A. G. Martimort: The Dialoque between God and his People, in A. G. Martimort: The Church at Prayer, I, p. 166).

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy… (and which) is their right by reason of their Baptism” (SC, 14).

At the same time, it is not difficult to envisage how demanding and delicate the work of translation must be. Even more difficult is the question of adaptation and inculturation especially when we think of the sacredness of the sacramental rites, the centuries-old tradition of the Latin Rite, and the close link between faith and worship encapsuled in the old formula: lex orandi lex credendi.

There are some things, like Masses that seem more like rock concerts, that can be laid at the feet of Vatican II, but again this has to do more with individual Bishops and priests, that a endemic problem within the CHurch because of the council.

This I agree with. It would be unfair to lay it all on Vatican II’s feet; the social and political climate of the time are mainly the chief causes for the various hoopla. The time post-Vatican II should have been a day of sunshine for the history of the Church, but, in the words of Pope Paul VI, “instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty.” Who is to blame here? Paul VI says that it is the devil, trying to suffocate the council’s good fruits.

 

[CradleCath]

Like it or not Vatican II opened the flood gates of change. How quickly did that change come!

I was a freshman in high school in September of 1965. The brothers still wore cassocks with a large rosary as a cincture and a fairly good sized pectoral cross. By September of 1967, they abandoned their cassocks and dressed in black slacks, a white shirt, and a black tie. In May of 1968, I sang in the choir for the class of 1968’s graduation. Traditional hymns and Latin. In September of 69 in came the guitars.

 

[VivaPadrePio]

I always had a strong religious feeling as a child, though no one of my parents was particularly religious, rather the contrary.

I was communicated in 1975, and went to Mass feeling every Sunday like a little boy cuddled by the angels, it was delicious. The priest was in order, the Mass was reverent, though at the time I did not know the Tridentine, so I did not know what real reverence is.

Then the strumming of guitars and the stupid hippy chants began (I now understand the good priest must have done what was possible to keep them out until then), and I still remember the strong feeling of irreparable damage, of desecration, of my favourite toy being thrown to the ground and scattered in little pieces. I must have been 10, or 11. I am sure my feelings were the same of many other people of all ages.

Further things happened. The Vaticans was involved in grave scandals: money laundering in connection with illegal weapon dealing, this dominated the Italian news in the late seventies and early eighties. The Vatican reaction (denial and cover-up) was simply disgraceful.

Not sustained by encouragement within the family, I slowly, gradually drifted away from Mass. I still maintained a very strong religious feeling, but did not go to Mass anymore.

With the years, I grew to understand human frailty and slowly started to come to terms with the simple concept that just because an institution is what you consider most sacred, it does not mean that it will be most perfect.

Then some strange things happened. In discussion with friends and colleagues about various matters (say: same sex marriages, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, war etc.) I could not avoid thinking how “catholic” I was, even without necessarily wanting to defend a catholic point of view. They just were always there before me, they had already said everything in a much more clearer way than I could express, though that was certainly what I felt.

I started to deepen various aspects of Catholic doctrine, and starting to feel that I was coming home again.

I became forty and started feeling more and more attracted to the ritual again. The year before, a new Pope had been elected, who rapidly proved to be an excellent chap, and a very effective Pope.

Words were around again, which I thought were forgotten. Purity and beauty of the Liturgy were under the spotlight again. Catholicism was to become an exercise in devotion and in sacredness, rather than a noisy ecumenical “everything goes” media event like those Assisi happenings, or the rock concerts with a pope present, and the like.
Sacredness was back with a vengeance.

The pieces were starting to fall together: I had grown in life experience, and started to understand that the Church is the Church even if some officials were involved in money laundering, and even if what appeared to me as obvious mistakes at all levels were made.
I looked back and discovered that I did not stop to love my Fatherland just because horrible things were committed in her name, why should I not give the Church the same treatment, we’re all human.

The liturgical renovation helped me to approach the Mass again without that sense of desecration, of hippies in blue jeans strumming their blasted guitars in the most inappropriate of situations.

I gave it a try. It was a Latin Mass, something I had never attended to before but which I could easily follow having studied the language.
It was beautiful, full of heartfelt reverence.

Sacredness, which had in my eyes flown away from the window with those blasted guitars, had come back again. Again, I had a distinct feeling of being in the process of coming home.

It did not happen overnight, but my reservations and the habit of criticism accumulated with decades of exposure to a pretty anticlerical father began to be put in their proper dimension.

I started to attend mass more often, timidly at first, then more and more regularly. Still without taking communion, of course, praying the Lord at communion that He may guide me in the right direction.
He did.
I felt a desire growing, to feel that full identification with the “shop” which was so delicious when I was a child, and which then the guitars and the scandals had caused to cease.

During Lent of 2007 I felt ready.

I went to confession and I cried for the first time in seven and a half years; tears of joy, a vulcan of strenght and faith and shame erupting irresistibly.
It was liberating, and wonderful, and I felt stupid for approaching confession with terrifying fears of rejection and grave chastisement, when all I found was compassion and love.

I have been a weekly churchgoer since. Most times in Latin, both Novus Ordo (Latin) and Tridentine.

I do not consider the Novus Ordo invalid, but it would never cross my mind to consider the Novus Ordo in vernacular something even remotely as beautiful and edifying as the Tridentine.
Coca Cola and Barolo both can quench your thirst, but really, you don’t want to compare, do you?
This of course, when the NO is well made, this is not always the case, as some recent experience confirmed.

So this is my way of being “traditionalist”.
I honour tradition. I understand more and more its profound meaning. I want to grow in my appreciation of the beauty of Catholic tradition. I want to feel a living part of it, and to feel committed in his transmission to future generations.

Of course, I consider the Novus Ordo valid, as well as Vatican II.

But I think the Vatican II was a mistake; a mistake of discipline, not of doctrine; still, a mess.

A mess in the mentality with which it was started, and an even bigger mess in the countless degenerations which were perpetrated; culpably allowed by the Vatican hierarchy, in the name of “renovation”.

I am a traditionalist, in the sense that I honour, and value, tradition, that is traditio, what has been transmitted to us by our forefathers.

 

[VivaPadrePio]

I do not see any need for the Church to “modernise” itself.
None whatsoever.

It is not the Church which has to change itself according to how the world changes, it is the world which has to change itself according to how the Church does not. Refusal to understand this means empty pews, because people look for someone telling them which one the path is, and even if it is narrow and appears uncomfortable.

“Everything goes” mentality, they get it everywhere else already.

I have a strong feeling and hope that the damages made by Vatican II (both during it and after his conclusion) will, in the next decades, be largely repaired.

In my views, it is not about negating validity, or questioning the initial good intentions. It is about understanding that VII has, very simply, not worked and has, very simply, done a lot of damage.

Therefore, I will continue to occasionally attend to a vernacular mass, with the same devotion. But I will always look for a Latin mass and when I move outside London in the next week (which I am forced to do), I will continue to drive to Central London to attend to the Mass I love most.

This is, to me, being traditionalist. Not staging a revolt, but claiming for me, and for all of Catholicism, the countless blessings and the unspeakable grace and beauty of a Tradition I discover more and more, and love more and more.

And I truly hope that the past 40 years will be taken, in faith and humility, as a lesson in faith.
It has happened, so I assume it had to. I hope and believe that the Church will come out of this mess (she is already doing so, with great energy) stronger in her message, more ready to spread and undiluted message and to fight for it whatever the fight becomes necessary.

 

[elts1956]

If the falling away and decline in vocations is all Vatican II’s fault, then explain the exact same problem anong Protestant denominations. You cant, and therfore Vatican II was not a cause, it was a coincidence.

There has been much discussion about the “evils” of Vatican II. I am of the opinion along with others, that the council itself was not evil. It was a sincere attempt to clarify Church teaching and to make the liturgy more understandable. What I understand from gleanings of conversations is the dramatic changes came at the level of Bishops and other clergy who did not pay attention to the guidelines (don’t know what they were) that the council tried to maintain and did their own “thing”. Thus some dioceses had large scale abuse of the liturgy. Why these Bishops were not reprimanded for the liberalization of tradition, why the priests were not excommunicated unless they returned to the forms set out by the council, I don’t know. I have never understood why the Latin Rite Mass was so changed, why it couldn’t have been said in the vernacular, if language was the ionly impediment.

That Vatican II was not a cause, but a coincidence, I agree. Vatican II unfortunately was held at a time in history when society itself was changing. We had the Viet Nam War, the liberalization of society in many areas. This was not the most opportune time for the Church to try to change traditions. The behavior of some of the clergy during this time did not help maintain the reason Vatican II was held. Every truth was scattered by those who willfully wanted to do as they pleased. Freedom without those in leadership positiions taking responsibility has disastrous results.

 

[patrick457]

There has been much discussion about the “evils” of Vatican II. I am of the opinion along with others, that the council itself was not evil. It was a sincere attempt to clarify Church teaching and to make the liturgy more understandable. What I understand from gleanings of conversations is the dramatic changes came at the level of Bishops and other clergy who did not pay attention to the guidelines (don’t know what they were) that the council tried to maintain and did their own “thing”. Thus some dioceses had large scale abuse of the liturgy. Why these Bishops were not reprimanded for the liberalization of tradition, why the priests were not excommunicated unless they returned to the forms set out by the council, I don’t know. I have never understood why the Latin Rite Mass was so changed, why it couldn’t have been said in the vernacular, if language was the ionly impediment.

That Vatican II was not a cause, but a coincidence, I agree. Vatican II unfortunately was held at a time in history when society itself was changing. We had the Viet Nam War, the liberalization of society in many areas. This was not the most opportune time for the Church to try to change traditions. The behavior of some of the clergy during this time did not help maintain the reason Vatican II was held. Every truth was scattered by those who willfully wanted to do as they pleased. Freedom without those in leadership positiions taking responsibility has disastrous results.

Very well said.

 

[requiemaeturnum]

I do not see any need for the Church to “modernise” itself.
None whatsoever.

It is not the Church which has to change itself according to how the world changes, it is the world which has to change itself according to how the Church does not. Refusal to understand this means empty pews, because people look for someone telling them which one the path is, and even if it is narrow and appears uncomfortable.

“Everything goes” mentality, they get it everywhere else already.

I have a strong feeling and hope that the damages made by Vatican II (both during it and after his conclusion) will, in the next decades, be largely repaired.

In my views, it is not about negating validity, or questioning the initial good intentions. It is about understanding that VII has, very simply, not worked and has, very simply, done a lot of damage.

Therefore, I will continue to occasionally attend to a vernacular mass, with the same devotion. But I will always look for a Latin mass and when I move outside London in the next week (which I am forced to do), I will continue to drive to Central London to attend to the Mass I love most.

This is, to me, being traditionalist. Not staging a revolt, but claiming for me, and for all of Catholicism, the countless blessings and the unspeakable grace and beauty of a Tradition I discover more and more, and love more and more.

And I truly hope that the past 40 years will be taken, in faith and humility, as a lesson in faith.
It has happened, so I assume it had to. I hope and believe that the Church will come out of this mess (she is already doing so, with great energy) stronger in her message, more ready to spread and undiluted message and to fight for it whatever the fight becomes necessary.

Agreed.

To answer the question, I have always wanted to be traditional. But I had no idea where to look. I was not very excited about the Novus Ordo, I always complained when they played rock music,etc. So I drifted away into Mohammedanism. I came back, repented, and found a FSSP parish. Now, I am on the path to the priesthood through the SSPX (yes, you read correctly).

 

[patrick457]

A bit unrelated, but that reminds me. If we’re trying to strip all the medieval additions to the Roman liturgy and reconstruct it to a more earlier form, we should take off the Elevation of both the Sacred Species at the words of the Institution, the recitation of the Creed, the Offertory prayers (even the “Blessed are you, O Lord God of all creation” of the OF), and the Preparatory prayers (save for the Introit and Kyrie Eleison), have less use of incense, chant Old Roman Chant, and have subdeacons wear planetas (i.e. the ancestor of the chasuble), and priests using the Gloria in Excelsis only in Easter, with bishops using it at Sundays and feastdays…

 

[johnnydigit]

i’m a young adult cradle Catholic and was confirmed only about 4 years ago. as i got deeper and deeper into the faith, i learned the value of tradition. the more i learn, the more orthodox i become. the path of perfection includes perfect obedience to the Magisterium and Her teachings.

however, i want to remain compassionate, continually check my arrogance and ego, and understand that many people may not have the interior fire that drives me and keeps them from seeing the value in tradition.

 

[Jacafamala]

If the falling away and decline in vocations is all Vatican II’s fault, then explain the exact same problem anong Protestant denominations. You cant, and therfore Vatican II was not a cause, it was a coincidence.

I’d disagree with this theory. In the first place, you’re comparing apples (Catholicism) to oranges (Protestantism). VII didn’t affect the Protestants in any significant way. On the other hand, for Catholics, VII changed many things.

Edited: oh yeah, to answer your question, the more I study the Faith, the more traditional I become. Like over the course of 3 or 4 years I’ve become more traditional, maybe? I’ve been a serious Christian about 23 years.

 

[VivaPadrePio]

“If the falling away and decline in vocations is all Vatican II’s fault, then explain the exact same problem anong Protestant denominations. You cant, and therfore Vatican II was not a cause, it was a coincidence.”

I explain it this way: the more one goes away from orthodoxy and try to appease the audience and be “trendy” and “to go with the times”, the more one will experience a crisis in values, in vocations, in the number of followers.

This is true for everyone, the One Church as well every other religious community.

Anglicans and Methodists have transformed themselves in pathetic shops inviting people to “come in and relax” (note here the embarrassment about God), mainly talking about “social justice” (again: notice the unwilligness to talk about the main issue) and sanitizing concepts like hell, sin, devil, punishment.

The result is that their pews are empty.

It is not a coincidence. It is that the same actions always bring the same fruits, even if different organisation vary in the way and intensity they make mistakes.

Thank God, the Holy Ghost works within the church and slowly (for us impatient humans), but surely corrects her mistakes and excesses.
This is why the Holy Catholic Church reforms herself and with this great, great Pope starts a huge process of liturgical renewal (which is Church renewal, because the liturgy is the very core of the Church); whilst the poor deluded anglicans etc. go on with their priestesses and bishopesses, bless so-called homosexual couples, tolerate or (in the case of the episcopalians) even elect openly and active homosexual bishops, and do all sorts of monstrosities to try to “be relevant”, that is: follow the law of men instead of God’s law.

Notice, though, that even among Anglicans the more orthodox fractions (the so-called anglo-catholics on the one side, the evangelicals on the other) seem to do better that the trendies in many ways (churchgoers, and funds).

If you ask me, in the next decades we will see this process consolidate: orthodoxy will on the rise, and “trendiness” will drawn in a see of political correctness, condemning itself to a well deserved irrelevance whilst claiming to want to be “relevant”.