I don't know what has happened to me

[HashemEchad]

I just finished letting off a MAJOR vent against the modernizations of the RCC in another thread, and I’m worried I may have really upset some modern Catholics by it. I don’t know why I feel so strongly about this, I’m not even Catholic!

I tend to be a very big supporter of traditionalism in all religions, esp. my own, but it truly breaks my heart to see how Catholicism has been changed since V2.

My mom;s family is Catholic, and I remember how my great-aunt (a nun) cried to me back in the 1970s (because no one else in her church seemed to care), because of all the changes they made. She said it really shattered her spirit, to see the church she’d always known and loved turned into some sort of hippie-fest.

What I don’t get is, why do I feel so strongly about this? Is it because I detest the modernizations in any religion because its a symbol of how our entire society has gone downhill? It even ticks me off that women don’t wear hats to church anymore, and I don;t even go to church! I guess maybe I’m a sentimentalist, or maybe I just like traditional roles and traditionalism in general.

I was literally out of breath after writing my rant, and I have to wonder: maybe I was a Catholic in a past life who witnessed the changes of V2? Sounds crazy, but my religion does believe in reincarnation. Maybe I take this so personally because of my aunt, who cried to me, poured out her soul so tragically, to her Jewish niece because she felt those in her own religion didn’t care?

Or maybe because half my family is Catholic, and they all left the church because of V2…and so the only exposure I’ve had to RCism is via them and their memories?

Or because I love old movies like Going My Way and the Bells of St Mary’s?

I’m just trying to figure out WHY this irritates me so much.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I just finished letting off a MAJOR vent against the modernizations of the RCC in another thread, and I’m worried I may have really upset some modern Catholics by it. I don’t know why I feel so strongly about this, I’m not even Catholic!

I tend to be a very big supporter of traditionalism in all religions, esp. my own, but it truly breaks my heart to see how Catholicism has been changed since V2.

My mom;s family is Catholic, and I remember how my great-aunt (a nun) cried to me back in the 1970s (because no one else in her church seemed to care), because of all the changes they made. She said it really shattered her spirit, to see the church she’d always known and loved turned into some sort of hippie-fest.

What I don’t get is, why do I feel so strongly about this? Is it because I detest the modernizations in any religion because its a symbol of how our entire society has gone downhill? It even ticks me off that women don’t wear hats to church anymore, and I don;t even go to church! I guess maybe I’m a sentimentalist, or maybe I just like traditional roles and traditionalism in general.

I was literally out of breath after writing my rant, and I have to wonder: maybe I was a Catholic in a past life who witnessed the changes of V2? Sounds crazy, but my religion does believe in reincarnation. Maybe I take this so personally because of my aunt, who cried to me, poured out her soul so tragically, to her Jewish niece because she felt those in her own religion didn’t care?

Or maybe because half my family is Catholic, and they all left the church because of V2…and so the only exposure I’ve had to RCism is via them and their memories?

Or because I love old movies like Going My Way and the Bells of St Mary’s?

I’m just trying to figure out WHY this irritates me so much.

Don’t feel bad about your rant. Everybody rants online at some point.

What’s happened is a tragedy. Sadly, there are modernist factions in all religions. I’m sure a lot of Orthodox Jews who actually follow the Torah as the word of God have to deal with a lot of criticism from the other branches, but I’m no authority on that.

On a more positive note, when segments of a religion make that religion irrelevant, well, they die off.

Sociologically speaking, “liberal” religious trends are due for a lonq-awaited expiration.

 

[HashemEchad]

Don’t feel bad about your rant. Everybody rants online at some point.

What’s happened is a tragedy. Sadly, there are modernist factions in all religions. I’m sure a lot of Orthodox Jews who actually follow the Torah as the word of God have to deal with a lot of criticism from the other branches, but I’m no authority on that.

On a more positive note, when segments of a religion make that religion irrelevant, well, they die off.

Sociologically speaking, “liberal” religious trends are due for a lonq-awaited expiration.

I hope and pray that what you said will happen…in all religious faiths that suffer from such modernizations and silliness.

 

[Island_Oak]

Perhaps you are lacking for substance and meaning in your life and are desperately clinging to form–any form?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I just finished letting off a MAJOR vent against the modernizations of the RCC in another thread, and I’m worried I may have really upset some modern Catholics by it. I don’t know why I feel so strongly about this, I’m not even Catholic!

I tend to be a very big supporter of traditionalism in all religions, esp. my own, but it truly breaks my heart to see how Catholicism has been changed since V2.

My mom;s family is Catholic, and I remember how my great-aunt (a nun) cried to me back in the 1970s (because no one else in her church seemed to care), because of all the changes they made. She said it really shattered her spirit, to see the church she’d always known and loved turned into some sort of hippie-fest.

What I don’t get is, why do I feel so strongly about this? Is it because I detest the modernizations in any religion because its a symbol of how our entire society has gone downhill? It even ticks me off that women don’t wear hats to church anymore, and I don;t even go to church! I guess maybe I’m a sentimentalist, or maybe I just like traditional roles and traditionalism in general.

I was literally out of breath after writing my rant, and I have to wonder: maybe I was a Catholic in a past life who witnessed the changes of V2? Sounds crazy, but my religion does believe in reincarnation. Maybe I take this so personally because of my aunt, who cried to me, poured out her soul so tragically, to her Jewish niece because she felt those in her own religion didn’t care?

Or maybe because half my family is Catholic, and they all left the church because of V2…and so the only exposure I’ve had to RCism is via them and their memories?

Or because I love old movies like Going My Way and the Bells of St Mary’s?

I’m just trying to figure out WHY this irritates me so much.

The old ways represent more comfort for you, for whatever reasons.

The pain you saw in those who actually left what they didn’t know very well at the time, namely the Church, because if they HAD known what the Church really was it would have been as impossible for them to leave it as it would be for them to “leave” their own skin and bones.

Nobody’s going to argue with you that the abuses that the generally bad leadership after the V2 clarifications were instituted allowed were VERY bad for the Catholic population.

If you actually read the V2 documents you’ll notice that they don’t necessitate the chaos that happened. They only allowed them to occur because the Bishops were even more stupid and/or gutless than anyone thought possible.

But, why are you so upset about the seeming demotion of traditionalness within the Church? Because THE CHURCH should be, and is really, the single most stable anchor in the universe, and the apparent “free floating” of her, would make ANYONE nervous and upset!

The point is, though, that the Church can’t really be less than what she is, which IS in fact utterly stable in her doctrine and dogma and truth, while her discipline can sometimes get out of whack due to what God allows even for those in leadership of the Church herself.

But we’re protected from the truth of the Church being sullied, which is why no one who really KNOWS what the Church is would leave her, regardless of error in her discipline.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I make no bones about how I was raised. I was raised to love history and to cherish our ethnic heritage - and I am every bit as distressed to see our collective heritage as human beings destroyed simply because we have to be “modern”.

I guess I was cut out to be an anthropology major because I don’t see God’s hand as being limited to Roman Catholicism. All across the globe we are witnessing the complete and total demise of traditional cultures. And I can hear the outcry against me arising…

What a different world we might have if Francis Xavier and Matteo Ricci were able to adapt the Mass to oriental culture? On the other hand, we have to admit that the changes in the Mass in western culture over the last 40 years have not a thing to do with ethnicity, history, or heritage…

I understand your point

 

[PrayforMallory]

The old ways represent more comfort for you, for whatever reasons.

The pain you saw in those who actually left what they didn’t know very well at the time, namely the Church, because if they HAD known what the Church really was it would have been as impossible for them to leave it as it would be for them to “leave” their own skin and bones.

Nobody’s going to argue with you that the abuses that the generally bad leadership after the V2 clarifications were instituted allowed were VERY bad for the Catholic population.

If you actually read the V2 documents you’ll notice that they don’t necessitate the chaos that happened. They only allowed them to occur because the Bishops were even more stupid and/or gutless than anyone thought possible.

But, why are you so upset about the seeming demotion of traditionalness within the Church? Because THE CHURCH should be, and is really, the single most stable anchor in the universe, and the apparent “free floating” of her, would make ANYONE nervous and upset!

The point is, though, that the Church can’t really be less than what she is, which IS in fact utterly stable in her doctrine and dogma and truth, while her discipline can sometimes get out of whack due to what God allows even for those in leadership of the Church herself.

But we’re protected from the truth of the Church being sullied, which is why no one who really KNOWS what the Church is would leave her, regardless of error in her discipline.

People are impressionable. While, yes, intellectually, people who know what the Church really is would be able to weather the storm, a lot of people were scandalized by the abuses, which pretty much become the norm in the 80’s.

The Vat II documents are a problem though. It’s not the ideas. It’s the way they are phrased. They are really wishy-washy and overly diplomatic. They don’t present the ideas clearly. It’s as though they didn’t want to contradict tradition, but also wanted there to be room for unorthodox positions.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Perhaps you are lacking for substance and meaning in your life and are desperately clinging to form–any form?

When it comes to liturgy and tradition, form and substance are inseperable, if “Lex Orandi. Lex Credendi” has any meaning at all.

 

[muffinmojo]

I sympathize with you as a protestant convert to Catholicism; I was looking for stability and the assurance that any Catholic church I went in to would be traditional and orthodox, and ended up finding that it was just as bad as the episcopal church I had attended for about a year.

Since when does Judaism teach reincarnation…?

 

[joeybaggz]

On a bit different note, change is always frightening, especially to anyone who has lived with something familiar and comfortable for a long period of time.

I hate computers. I’d give anything to go back to $.99 cent/gal gas, electric typewriters, no internet retailing, etc. etc. I know many people who would love to go back to the 50’s. In some ways that’s good. But would you really want to live with 50’s medicine, transportation, communication, all the things that have been improved?

In some ways, all of us have a “Linus and his blanket” mind set at times. As far as the church is concerned, Vatican II changed nothing of real importance. From a Catholic standpoint, not one major/important doctrine or dogma was changed. Practices, yes, but not the heart of the Church.

And some of the resistance to the changes is just plain selfish and counterproductive. Changing from Latin to the Vernacular in the mass has opened the doors to many new members, especially in continents like Africa. Latin was tough for me, for native Africans, if the mass was still in Latin, there’d probably be 40 catholics in Africa, not 400,000,000. Just one example.

Like you, I hate change in some ways. I don’t like to have my boat rocked, but a boat tied up in a dock that never moves, eventually rots and sinks.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I make no bones about how I was raised. I was raised to love history and to cherish our ethnic heritage - and I am every bit as distressed to see our collective heritage as human beings destroyed simply because we have to be “modern”.

I guess I was cut out to be an anthropology major because I don’t see God’s hand as being limited to Roman Catholicism. All across the globe we are witnessing the complete and total demise of traditional cultures. And I can hear the outcry against me arising…

What a different world we might have if Francis Xavier and Matteo Ricci were able to adapt the Mass to oriental culture? On the other hand, we have to admit that the changes in the Mass in western culture over the last 40 years have not a thing to do with ethnicity, history, or heritage…

I understand your point

As a former anthropologist, my advice to you is to be wary of social science in general. That doesn’t mean avoid it, but it’s important to resist modernity, especially in fields that take subjective information and viewpoints and attempt to dress them up as science. Anthropology, moreso than any other discipline, runs the risk of becoming something Pope Benedict has condemned, i.e. “making a relative thing absolute.”

But, I also want to say I agree with your point. I think Liturgical dancing is a good example of what you stated. In Africa, liturgical dancing promotes piety, is done tastefully, and encourages contemplation of the transcendant. I seriously doubt that liturgical dancing has the same connotations in our culture. Most parishes and groups that allow it here also seem to promote unorthodox positions.

Enjoy anthropology. There’s a lot to learn in that discipline. Be careful though, some anthropologists promote ideas that are completely bonkers.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I sympathize with you as a protestant convert to Catholicism; I was looking for stability and the assurance that any Catholic church I went in to would be traditional and orthodox, and ended up finding that it was just as bad as the episcopal church I had attended for about a year.

Since when does Judaism teach reincarnation…?

Same thing here. It was internal chaos for me until I found the TLM.

 

[PrayforMallory]

On a bit different note, change is always frightening, especially to anyone who has lived with something familiar and comfortable for a long period of time.

I hate computers. I’d give anything to go back to $.99 cent/gal gas, electric typewriters, no internet retailing, etc. etc. I know many people who would love to go back to the 50’s. In some ways that’s good. But would you really want to live with 50’s medicine, transportation, communication, all the things that have been improved?

In some ways, all of us have a “Linus and his blanket mind set” at times. As far as the church is concerned, Vatican II changed nothing of real importance. From a Catholic standpoint, not one major/important doctrine or dogma was changed. Practices, yes, but not the heart of the Church.

And some of the resistance to the changes is just plain selfish and counterproductive. Changing from Latin to the Vernacular in the mass has opened the doors to many new members, especially in continents like Africa. Latin was tough for me, for native Africans, if the mass was still in Latin, there’d probably be 40 catholics in Africa, not 400,000,000. Just one example.

Like you, I hate change in some ways. I don’t like to have my boat rocked, but a boat tied up in a dock that never moves, eventually rots and sinks.

There are Latin Masses in Africa. Cardinal Arinze is an African prelate, and he advocates the frequent use of Latin. I see your point, though. The vernacular has its own advantages as well. Both could compliment the other, if you know, people actually gave that idea a chance.

Unfortunately, in a lot of instances Latin is like Math. If you have a ****** teacher, it can be impossible to learn. If you have a good teacher, it can become second nature.

 

[brotherhrolf]

As a former anthropologist, my advice to you is to be wary of social science in general. That doesn’t mean avoid it, but it’s important to resist modernity, especially in fields that take subjective information and viewpoints and attempt to dress them up as science. Anthropology, moreso than any other discipline, runs the risk of becoming something Pope Benedict has condemned, i.e. “making a relative thing absolute.”

But, I also want to say I agree with your point. I think Liturgical dancing is a good example of what you stated. In Africa, liturgical dancing promotes piety, is done tastefully, and encourages contemplation of the transcendant. I seriously doubt that liturgical dancing has the same connotations in our culture. Most parishes and groups that allow it here also seem to promote unorthodox positions.

Enjoy anthropology. There’s a lot to learn in that discipline. Be careful though, some anthropologists promote ideas that are completely bonkers.

Thank you! Indeed, there is. I grew up before Vatican II and got my BA in Anthropology in 76 and my MA in 78. (I had a 3 1/2 year excursion with Uncle Sam in his Navy which delayed my graduation). I don’t need a 1962 St. Joseph Missal to participate in any TLM - it’s hard-wired into me by virtue of all those six AM Masses I served.

I am more than aware of what those in our discipline have fomented. I may have graduated in '78 but I do try to keep current in the literature. The bottom line is that across the world, humankind, in general has shucked its heritage in favor of whatever is “most modern”.

Remember the phrase “psychic unity of man”? Don’t want to go Levi-Straussian on you and mayhap such is a now an ancient term…however, humankind’s spiritual basis is rooted in ritual. All of us are impacted by that which has gone before.

Indeed, it is this very absence of “that which has gone before” which is what HashemEchad is posting. We attended a “bris” (sp?) for one one my wife’s colleague’s grandsons. So, as an anthropologist and a Catholic, I am not supposed to see the connection with Our Lord? I’m not supposed to recognize how God is addressed because the ceremony is Jewish?

I am, as my friend, a well-known Scottish bard, says, a mongrel American. Indeed I am. I am Irish, Scot, Breton Celt, French, English and German. And I work to make sure that my sons know their heritage.

All of us - all of us, are diminished when any human tradition is obliterated in favor of modernism. And, I just listened to myself, and I can hear the spears coming over the fence line…obviously I am not speaking about cannibalism, human sacrifice, or anything else your purient minds can come up with… Sigh.

 

[nannygirl]

Same thing here. It was internal chaos for me until I found the TLM.

Same here. I was so relieved to find the TLM.

 

[HashemEchad]

My great aunt wound up joining the SSPX and attending their Masses (this was in the days before the regular RCC “allowed” the TLM, and I think back then they actually forbade it!)

I feel great sympathy and understanding for anyone, in any religion, whose religion has been taken over by modernists hellbent on changing everything.

I might not agree with what the RCC teaches, but it was one beautiful religion, and much of what is Western European culture derives from institutions created by that church (Gregorian chant, much classical music, Renaissance art, etc)

To ME, as a non-Christian, the modern RCC looks like a protestantized church. I’ve been to a few modern Masses (funerals, weddings, etc) and it really comes across to me that way. If people are happy with it, fine, who am I to say? But I really think your church threw out the greatest gems you had, externally. Many non-Catholics miss it, esp. those of us who are students of the Latin language, classical music, Shakespeare and fine art.

I agree with those who think I saw the traditional RCC as a rock of stability in a crazy world. Its true, I did. I see all traditional religions that way. This world is downright insane, what with women having abortions and calling it “reproductive rights”; couples living in sin and calling it “cohabitation”…doesn’t anyone feel SHAME anymore? I heard a woman on a judge show yesterday talk nonchalantly about having had an abortion, for crying out loud! In my day no woman would admit to something like that, even in private, the stigma was too great.

I remember as a kid, my mom not letting me play with a girl down the street because, “she comes from a broken home” (in those days, children from broken homes were felt to be bad influences.) Can you imagine hearing someone saying that today?

I’m just really fed up with what society has become. Right is called wrong, and wrong is called right. People practicing sodomy are called “alternative lifestyles”.

 

[HashemEchad]

Almost forgot: someone asked “since when” did Judaism believe in reincarnation…not to take this off topic, but Orthodox Judaism definitely does believe in gilgul (reincarnation)…we believe that God allows certain souls to return to earth to accomplish mitzvot (good deeds) they did not get to accomplish in their previous transmigration.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Almost forgot: someone asked “since when” did Judaism believe in reincarnation…not to take this off topic, but Orthodox Judaism definitely does believe in gilgul (reincarnation)…we believe that God allows certain souls to return to earth to accomplish mitzvot (good deeds) they did not get to accomplish in their previous transmigration.

The whole “gilgul” (and “gilgulim”) thing sounds like a heretical jewish sub-sect (kabalah?) belief which had syncretized some “convenient” beliefs from the mysterious “east” (hinduism/etc).

Aren’t heresies fun!

 

[HashemEchad]

The whole “gilgul” (and “gilgulim”) thing sounds like a heretical jewish sub-sect (kabalah?) belief which had syncretized some “convenient” beliefs from the mysterious “east” (hinduism/etc).

Aren’t heresies fun!

Its an established part of normative Orthodox Judaism. Maybe its a “heresy” to Christians, but it isn’t to religious Jews. In fact, references are made to transmigrations of souls in the Orthodox Jewish prayerbook which we use three times a day.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Its an established part of normative Orthodox Judaism. Maybe its a “heresy” to Christians, but it isn’t to religious Jews. In fact, references are made to transmigrations of souls in the Orthodox Jewish prayerbook which we use three times a day.

I would describe this concept, as well as kabalah in general, as very definately a post-2nd-Temple counter-Christian “answer” to the attractiveness of the Christian afterlife, which draws most strongly for it’s inspiration from a syncretism of “eastern” (Indian/Vedic?) reincarnation.

But, that’s neither here not there.