How Long Have You Considered Yourself a Traditional Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asperges_Me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By definition, can one consider to be “a Traditional Catholic” if he has never attended a Latin mass?
I have been Catholic all my life and I am much older than Vatican II. I grew up with the Latin Mass, and survived Vatican II with the Grace of God. It wasn’t easy, and I could not have made it on my own. God knew my frustration and struggles, and through his Blessed Mother led me and my family to a wonderful, traditional Dominican parish that had a very solid, traditional Catholic school staffed by the wonderful Nashville Dominican sisters. I will be forever grateful to Our Blessed Mother for this Grace.

As a side note, because of being led to this fantastic parish, God blessed us with a son who became a Catholic priest. Our son told us that, if we had not moved to this parish and he had not attended this school, he does not believe he would had recognized his calling.

From my experience alone, I can honestly say that it is not the Latin Mass that determines whether a parish—or an individual—is “traditional.” Rather, it is whether the individual or the parish is obedient to the Holy Father and to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. So many “liberal” priests and bishops seem to have appointed themselves as “pope,” while many who consider the “Latin Mass” the only authentic Mass and themselves the only “traditional” Catholics are judgmental and rigid and some are even disobedient to Rome.

Praise God for our wonderful faith! 👍
 
I voted 0-3, because while I am indeed moving in the Traditional direction, I’m possibly not fully there yet.

I was born in '65, so by the time I was fully cognizant of what was going on around me, the Pauline Mass – in English – had fully taken hold. I remember the altar at the church I went to had an abstract geometric design, and the Crucifix over the altar, IIRC, was somewhat abstract – actually rather primitive.

I went to Catholic schools, all taught by laypeople. I remember religion classes, and prayers before school, but that’s about it – other than First Confession/Communion (Grade I) and Confirmation (Grade VI); our training for these Sacraments seemed to me more about where to stand and what to say, rather than any of the theology behind them.

In Grade VII I went to school with the Irish Christian Brothers (Br Edmund Rice’s order). On the one hand it seemed more Catholic, and on the other hand less so. The school was over 100 years old, there were pictures all over the place of bishops Mullock, Holland, Fleming and other historical prelates who led Catholic Newfoundlanders once the Anglicans allowed Catholic worship there. There was a chapel in the school which I believe hadn’t been “updated” since the school was built, the Brothers roamed the halls in cassocks, and corporal punishment was frequent and often arbitrary. Unfortunately, the school seemed to place emphasis on sports, academics, and faith, in that order (if faith was there at all). This was also at the time of the Mt Cashel scandal, and a number of the Brothers ended up in court – and subsequently in prison – for abuse.

Grade X-XI saw me in a Jesuit school. While the school seemed more “Vatican II” than the Brothers’ school did, I remember there was a bigger focus on prayer and spirituality. I remember far more frequent prayers (Not just Paternoster/Ave/Gloria, but Angelus, Magnificat, or feastday-centered prayers), prayer assemblies, and frequent masses at the attached Church. And less beatings.

I really fell away when I hit university – I was 16 and the Church was replaced as an interest by beer and women. Over the next 20 years or so I kind of hung on the periphery, floating in and out, as far as things like Church attendance were concerned. Also, my views were definitely liberal on the one hand but oddly bigoted (anti-Protestant) on the other.

It’s only since coming to these forums, engaging in many conversations (and the odd temper-tantrum) that I have begun to settle back into the Church. My view on Church law and rubrics is gradually drifting further and further to the conservative side with regard to such things as the rubrics of Mass, the Catechism, etc. I realize now that some of the things I had seen in Mass are considered abuses (priest sitting in the congregation, changing the words of prayers, skipping whole parts of the Mass – including the Gospel). Yet despite the fact that the Pauline Mass seems more vulnerable to abuse (whether that’s due to the Mass itself, which I don’t believe, or due to the actions and mindsets of the priests who came out at the same time, which I do), I have also been to Masses where the atmosphere was solemn and reverent, the priest never once deviated from the Missal, and there was always the distinct air of sanctity about the priest, his office, and his preaching. I recently attended a Novus Ordo Mass – in Latin – sung by the Oratorians of St Philip Neri, and I felt the exact same things there.

I don’t believe, as some Traditionalists have opined, that you can’t be friends with a priest, or call them by their first name if they invite you to (with the title “Father”, of course). While I can accept EENS, I do not hold to the Feeneyite position – especially since not even the Church will say who is in Hell; I believe the Lord will save whom He will, our interpretations of “submission to the Roman Pontiff” notwithstanding.

My beliefs are evolving as I grow older and learn more and more about my Church. I do not know if I will ever become a Douay-Rheims-totin’ Latin-speakin’ Baltemore-Catechismin’ Gregorian-chantin’ Fifteen-Mystery-Rosary-slingin’ Traditionalist Mick, but who knows?

John
 
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.
Hello jacafamala, I disagree. As I posted earlier in this thread, Vatican II itself was not at fault. From what I have read, the results of having renedgade priests, bishops etc. in the years after Vatican II was not the intention of those involved in the Council itself. What happened was a misunderstanding, deliberate? or not, that led some of the leaders of the Church down a very icy path.

To add to the confusion there was a clash of cultures at the same time. Perhaps this also contributed to the “misunderstandings” that occured, the abuses in the liturgy, dissension among the Bishops, Cardinals etc. Vatican II unfortunately was held at the same time as the culture of “free anything” developed. People felt they were free to question anything and listen to no one. The Pied Piper called and the children of the Church followed. Perhaps this was also because we had been indoctrinated with the “never question the Church philosophy”. Before Vatican II there was never communication or dialogue between the hierarchy of the church and the laity. So being used to be ing led by the nose, very few in the laity questioned what was happening. This definitely was a tragedy, but I think Vatican II was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was and is a case of good intentions gone astray. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back toward the Traditional Catholic Culture. It seems to me we have less impact on the world because we have to a great degree lost this very special culture.
 
Baptized in '56, lapsed sometime between '70 and '81. returned around '82. There were a lot of changes by the time I returned. It was not my place to question any of it. I was just overjoyed to be back.
 
Baptized in '56, lapsed sometime between '70 and '81. returned around '82. There were a lot of changes by the time I returned. It was not my place to question any of it. I was just overjoyed to be back.
Welcome home!

Though I went through many frustrating years after Vatican II, leaving was NEVER an option. Whenever I entertained the thought, there was always a “little voice” telling me that “Jesus promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.” There were also times I imagined hearing Peter’s response to Christ when Jesus asked the apostles if they, too, would leave Him. Peter replied “Where would we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
 
Welcome home!
Thanks, it’s been almost 30 years since my ‘return’ so it now feels like I never left.

But for the first year or so, after being away for about 10 years, I had to become re-acclimated to a lot of changes from V-II. I did attend mass during Christmas and Easter while I was ‘away’ so things were not totally new, A few things were a bit of a surprise, but I don’t even recall what those were.

The irony is that my kids are now going though a similar phase, and I don’t have a clue as how to get them back to the Church. They range from borderline lapsed Catholic, to barely deist, to total atheist socialist. I pray for them all the time, and every once in a while I question their beliefs to see if some gentle prodding might help. It doesn’t help that my dear wife is non-Catholic and pro-choice liberal.
 
I’ve considered myself a Traditional Catholic for about 3 years. We have a great priest who has opened our eyes and hearts to the Truth and I love it 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top