Is there anything you DO like?

[Annc]

I think wasn’t clear there. I lot of stories I hear from Traditionalists and Non-Trads is that in the old days all Catholics did was stick to there own kind and go to Mass, there jobs, Catholic hangouts and say a lot of prayers.

All missionary work, ministries and so on was done by the Priesthood and Religious.

You know, it gets really tiresome to hear so much criticism of the “old days”. (this isn’t aimed at any particular poster).

There is good and bad in every generation. My mother was extremely well catechised, devoted herself to her family and her evangelization was the example she gave by the way she lived her life. That was their way of life, the way they were taught.

Each generation has its place in history and that can explain a lot. My mother grew up in the 30’s and 40’s. My grandfather worked 2 jobs, owned a home and they didn’t go hungry during the depression. They fed the neighborhood kids. The neighbors however referred to my grandmother “as dirty Irish” and NINA (no Irish need apply) was still hanging in the air. Would you be doing missionary or evangilization work in this environment? People forgot that it was not that long ago that Catholics were hated in this country and still are by some people. They did what they had to do work hard and keep the faith.

The world has changed a lot and we do need to be more “active” in our evangelization. But that is our place in history our mission from God.

Back to the topic, the NO tends to be abused, thus leaves a lot to be desired. I am not a traditionalist and have not suffered through years of contempt but I can tell you that the contempt I have experienced for wanting more reverence in the NO is quite enough. I think traditionalists tend to be harsh because the abuses are not just “preferences” but can be seen as sacrilegious and blasephemous. The abuses themselves cause suffering for those who know better. It is like watching a loved one be hurt and you can’t do anything about it.

God bless.

 

[ASD]

A great deal. It’s the Mass most often celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI; Mass in vernacular which is so much easier to follow; concelebration; penitential rite with entire congregation actively involved; more and expanded Bible readings; homily in place of sermon; sign of peace; communion from chalice and more.

No doubt many, many Catholics would say the same. But, OP directed question to trads. Using my powerful induction machine, Navarre, I had reached a different conclusion about you. Am I wrong?

 

[ASD]

Ultimately, personal preference for either mass is essentially subjective, although some claim absolute truth in matters of the mass- always based on their own personal preference.

I think many trads would disagree. In fact, a pretty good shorthand definition of a liturgical traditionalist: Somebody who thinks it’s not a matter of personal preference.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[ASD]

yep thats it… it scared the bajeezers out of me… my catholic faith for probably the first time became very real

It’s so true. Honestly, I feel like I didn’t know what it means to be Catholic until I discovered TLM/EF.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Joannm]

No, you would not have to wait for the rubrics to be changed. But if you tried what you say, according to the disciplines in place in 1962 you would be summoned to the bishop to explain your actions and most probably suspended.

That sort of thing wasn’t tolerated then, nor, (IMHO) should it be tolerated now.

How would anyone know if a priest changed anything…the assembly did not hear any of the words. They just looked at his actions and followed along in their missal. He could have been saying anything and no one would notice.

 

[JRKH]

How would anyone know if a priest changed anything…the assembly did not hear any of the words. They just looked at his actions and followed along in their missal. He could have been saying anything and no one would notice.

In the sense of the prayers you are correct. With some priests it would be difficult to know if the priest was saying:
Accipit, et manducate ex hoc omnes.
or
yabba-dabba-do.
(just kidding guys )

However, the congregation, in prayeing along in their missals would be saying the correct words.

Also there are a number of abuses in the Masses that do not relate to the prayers said. Omitted or poorly executed gestures and inappropriate vessels come to mind. It is important to remember that the mass is so central to the faith that it is carefully laid out, even to the material used for the altar covering.

Peace
James

 

[Ridgerunner]

I grew up with the TLM and I think it’s wonderful.

I also grew up a hillbilly, though, and I was around protestants a whole lot more than I was around Catholics; particularly fundamentalist protestants. I used to hide and watch their revivals a bit and, while I thought a lot of that was silly, I also thought some people really needed what was happening there; though I also thought (and still think) they would be better off if they were Catholic. For a long time, the only music on the radio was bluegrass and protestant hymns. When we got tv, I used to watch Red Foley sing the old hymns on the “Ozark Jubilee”. Now and then, even Perry Como sang one.

So, okay. While music is not really part of the liturgy, I like singing the old protestant hymns. They’re easy for male voices, have an actual melody and have well-crafted lyrics, for the most part. Besides, I know them. (No, I don’t care for the 1970s and 1980s “Catholic” folks songs)

In my parish, a lady convert, daughter of a Southern Baptist preacher, plays the hammered dulcimer during one of the Masses, and I like that a great deal; particularly at Communion. I knew her father well. He was as hard core fundamentalist as you could ask for. I think about her conversion, and I think about hearing the people sing hymns in the old strawberry patches where I used to pick when I was a kid, and listening to her play during Communion gives me a sense of a symmetry that I really can’t well explain.

I also like the “kiss of peace”. The only person I actually kiss is my wife, and I actually feel (as does she) that it’s kind of a “forgiving moment”. You know, people do a lot of things to each other during the week, largely by inadvertence or simple thoughtlessness, and it sort of “clears things up” before communion.

I like shaking other peoples’ hands. Now and then I’ll be near somebody with whom I have had conflicts and shaking their hand is sort of a recognition that there are things more important than those conflicts. We’re not supposed to be the way we often are “out in the world” and that handshake brings it home. On the other hand, I really can’t stand handholding at the “Our Father”, and I simply won’t do it. Holding hands with a man or with somebody else’s wife is just not part of my culture, anyway, and I can’t abide doing it.

Maybe some of my feelings about the N.O. are due to the large number of converts in my parish. I knew most of them as protestants for years, and to see them at Mass is something that really impresses me. If the Mass being in English has the slightest thing to do with their finding conversion easier, then I’m fine with it.

Guess maybe I’m a bit lax, but then, I was raised in the hills, after all.

 

[Navarre]

No doubt many, many Catholics would say the same. But, OP directed question to trads. Using my powerful induction machine, Navarre, I had reached a different conclusion about you. Am I wrong?

I would best describe myself as an orthodox Catholic Christian with a love for both Western and Eastern Liturgies. I prefer very reverent and solemn liturgies as the Church instructs.

Not sure what a “trad” is. I’ve never seen it accurately defined.

 

[malphono]

How would anyone know if a priest changed anything…the assembly did not hear any of the words. They just looked at his actions and followed along in their missal. He could have been saying anything and no one would notice.

Had I been serving, I would probably have noticed. And I have a sneaking suspicion that there are others in this thread who would have done the same.

Anyway, what you say isn’t quite accurate. Although the Canon in the EF is, for the most part, said quietly, the rest is, again for the most part, said aloud.

BTW, there is a question I have to ask: what exactly is the implication in the quoted statement? For some reason, it seems to me to be a bit nefarious, but maybe I’m reading something into it that was not intended.

 

[cathguy]

I understand this but I know at one time it was common to receive under both during the old Mass. It’s a practice I’m glad to see brought back.

But rest assured I do not NEED it.

However I have wondered why do we have booth if only the Eucharistic wafer is needed.

Thinks I did not know this.

I do agree trying to get fellow Catholics in my area excited to do anything about spreading the gospel is next to impossible. I often meet the “Hey just doesn’t get it” lecture about how I don’t understand the “fullness of being a missionary” and how it is more than “going out and doing public acts” instead I should “take the little way of a few well said Hail Marys” rather than all these works to bring people in that I am so big on.



I still sat give me ten people that really want convert this town to the One True Faith and with the Holy Spirit we can do it!

Amen!

I think wasn’t clear there. I lot of stories I hear from Traditionalists and Non-Trads is that in the old days all Catholics did was stick to there own kind and go to Mass, there jobs, Catholic hangouts and say a lot of prayers.

All missionary work, ministries and so on was done by the Priesthood and Religious.

Or to put it another way the Church is a ship. The Pope is Captain the Priesthood are the Officers the religious are the crew we are passengers.

Then new way I have been told is “The Church is a ship. The Pope is Captain the Priesthood are the Officers the religious are warrant officers we are the rank and file crew.”

However I could have been misinformed.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Brother, you and I are on the same page! You rock.

The only place I disagree with you is here: I think it is clear that traditional Catholic praxis encourages militancy.

Let me tell you a story. I went to the local library last year and in a dusty corner I found a book that was really old. The book was entitled “You Can Change the World” by Fr. Keller.

I read it and was amazed! This book was a Catholic best seller BEFORE the council. After the council it quickly became passe.

I suggest you find a used a used copy of the old edition (they have “updated” it, and I can’t imagine the update will be good). I need to tell you, The Christophers and Fr. Keller were an elite spiritual combat squad against the errors of Communism and Modernism. Now? Not so much.

I just think that the idea that the laity did nothing before the Council and afterwards the emphasis became correct is simplistic, and given the data I have seen, probably untrue.

However, this is a minor disagreement between us. God bless!

 

[cathguy]

I would best describe myself as an orthodox Catholic Christian with a love for both Western and Eastern Liturgies. I prefer very reverent and solemn liturgies as the Church instructs.

Not sure what a “trad” is. I’ve never seen it accurately defined.

That is a LOADED question. That one has gone around this forum a few times before. Try looking up older threads.

In short: In my opinion (there are those who will disagree) a Traditional Catholic is one who a) believes everything the Church teaches, b) understands that there is a deep connection between orthopraxy and orthodoxy and therefore c) concludes that many of the reforms of Vatican II were at best misguided, and at worst constitute a betrayal of the Church’s mission.

This is NOT to say that Vatican II is heretical in ANY way. I am a loyal and faithful Catholic. It IS to say that the documents are vague, came about at a very unfortunate point in history, and failed to produce their intended effect…

To clarify my point above consider an analogy. General Burnside wanted to do a good job at Fredericksberg. He did not want to butcher his army by taking too long to cross the river. He did not want to massacre his troops by ordering them to assault the Confederates behind the sunken road. His plans were not “heretical” in a military sense.

However, he failed, and he failed badly. Lee whooped him so bad that the blood of attacking union troops soaked the ground, and the Lee’s Army came away scott free.

It is okay to say Vat. II failed, and admit that its authors were good Catholics doing their best; just like Burnside thought he was acting correctly.

History outs our mistakes better than anything else. Satan’s army has enjoyed victories at the expense of the Church unimaginable before the Council. That is a fact. Traditionalists make this argument, and many have made it well. Some do so faithfully and do a service to the Church (Michael Davies). Some do so perhaps to the point of disobedience (dare I say Lefevbre?) But Traditionalists certainly have a point. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Rabbititus]

You know, it gets really tiresome to hear so much criticism of the “old days”. (this isn’t aimed at any particular poster).

I agree. There’s good and bad in every era, and to constantly rail against the pre-Vatican II church I think is especially bad. It sends a message to people in my generation (mid 20’s) that the faith we are supposed to love was rather awful prior to 1970 or so - that it harmed the lives of those it touched more than it helped them, what with its uncaring conformity and demand that people shut up and put money in the collection plate. Why bother with such a church if all that is true?

It dawned on me one day that this view of the pre-conciliar church tarnished the memory of the many devoted and active Catholics who lived prior to the council. My great grandparents, for instance, had their names in the lobby of the church they and other immigrants helped build so that their children would have a good place to learn about the faith and receive the sacraments. My grandfather woke up extra early every Sunday to help with book-keeping at his church despite working six days a week. Their lives were lived entirely before the council took place. The other day I watched a documentary about how the members of an old Polish immigrant parish dug the foundation of their new church by hand. If people were so beaten into submission by the “old” church, then why did they accomplish so much? Why did they seem to care so much? Why did they build so many beautiful churches, schools, hospitals, and orphanages? The church must have had some relevancy to them.

 

[Frosty]

I agree. There’s good and bad in every era, and to constantly rail against the pre-Vatican II church I think is especially bad. It sends a message to people in my generation (mid 20’s) that the faith we are supposed to love was rather awful prior to 1970 or so - that it harmed the lives of those it touched more than it helped them, what with its uncaring conformity and demand that people shut up and put money in the collection plate. Why bother with such a church if all that is true?

It dawned on me one day that this view of the pre-conciliar church tarnished the memory of the many devoted and active Catholics who lived prior to the council. My great grandparents, for instance, had their names in the lobby of the church they and other immigrants helped build so that their children would have a good place to learn about the faith and receive the sacraments. My grandfather woke up extra early every Sunday to help with book-keeping at his church despite working six days a week. Their lives were lived entirely before the council took place. The other day I watched a documentary about how the members of an old Polish immigrant parish dug the foundation of their new church by hand. If people were so beaten into submission by the “old” church, then why did they accomplish so much? Why did they seem to care so much? Why did they build so many beautiful churches, schools, hospitals, and orphanages? The church must have had some relevancy to them.

In my opinion, most of what is perceived as criticism of the Church pre VII is a reaction to those who insist that “in the good old days” everything was just fine and dandy. All Catholics practiced and believed full-heartedly with all the Church had to say; in short, problems just didn’t exist. All the problems today started after/were caused by Vatican II. Sort of like the idea that all families 50 years ago were like that in the old TV show “Father Knows Best”.
Many of those people who others claim as railing against the pre Vatican II Church are simply trying to put matters into perspective and dispel some of the myths that seem to be found so often on forums such as this. Of course, there are those that may have a different agenda for doing so, just as there are those who have their own agenda for tearing down the Catholic Church of today.
Our faith as Catholics isn’t awful at any time in history. Being honest that problems have existed throughout the history of the Catholic Church is not tarnishing the memory of those who went before us. Rather, I think, it gives more honour to those who stuck by their faith through thick and thin, in good time and in bad.

 

[cathguy]

In my opinion, most of what is perceived as criticism of the Church pre VII is a reaction to those who insist that “in the good old days” everything was just fine and dandy. All Catholics practiced and believed full-heartedly with all the Church had to say; in short, problems just didn’t exist. All the problems today started after/were caused by Vatican II. Sort of like the idea that all families 50 years ago were like that in the old TV show “Father Knows Best”.
Many of those people who others claim as railing against the pre Vatican II Church are simply trying to put matters into perspective and dispel some of the myths that seem to be found so often on forums such as this. Of course, there are those that may have a different agenda for doing so, just as there are those who have their own agenda for tearing down the Catholic Church of today.
Our faith as Catholics isn’t awful at any time in history. Being honest that problems have existed throughout the history of the Catholic Church is not tarnishing the memory of those who went before us. Rather, I think, it gives more honour to those who stuck by their faith through thick and thin, in good time and in bad.

Before the council: Churches offered Confession several times during the work week and on weekends. Lines were more often than not long.

After the council: Confession became passe.

Before the council: Communion lines were short as many opted not to receive on Sunday because they may have been unable to get to confession or broke the fast.

After the council: Everyone receives no matter what

Before the council: Catholics had (these are proven statistics) large families and an INCREDIBLY low divorce rate.

After the council: After the council, the divorce rate immediately sky rockets and dissent from Humanae Vitae becomes heroic.

Before the council: Seminaries were full.

After the council: Seminaries and orders emptied. This wasn’t a long process caused by changes in society. In many cases they emptied almost over night.

And the Council isn’t at fault? Common!

 

[ASD]

malphono;4739196:

No, you would not have to wait for the rubrics to be changed. But if you tried what you say, according to the disciplines in place in 1962 you would be summoned to the bishop to explain your actions and most probably suspended.

That sort of thing wasn’t tolerated then, nor, (IMHO) should it be tolerated now.

How would anyone know if a priest changed anything…the assembly did not hear any of the words. They just looked at his actions and followed along in their missal. He could have been saying anything and no one would notice.

At the TLM/EF Parish where we assist at Mass every Sunday, there about 6 other people in the sanctuary with the Priest celebrant. At least one of them is a so-called Master of Ceremonies. I don’t know where you go to Mass, but let me tell you: Our MC would notice. In fact, most of the boys over 8 yoa would notice, too.

But, to tell you the truth, it’s not really relevant. TLM/EF folk aren’t worried about it. That’s just a fact. Now, I wonder why that is?

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Frosty]

Before the council: Churches offered Confession several times during the work week and on weekends. Lines were more often than not long.

Perhaps in some parishes that was the case. It most certainly was not in all of them. The parish I grew up in only offered Confession on Saturday afternoon from 3pm to 5pm and on First Friday afternoons. The same was true of almost all the parishes in my Archdiocese. Depending on the time of the year, the lines were long, but not all the time.

After the council: Confession became passe.

This is not true.

Before the council: Communion lines were short as many opted not to receive on Sunday because they may have been unable to get to confession or broke the fast.

After the council: Everyone receives no matter what

Really? And you have empirical evidence for this? Or just your own preconceived idea!

Before the council: Catholics had (these are proven statistics) large families and an INCREDIBLY low divorce rate.

I do agree about the divorce rates. Not all Catholics had large families by a long shot. I suppose it depends on what you consider a large family. There were 6 kids in my family but most of the families I knew averaged two or three. Yes, there were some with 9 or 10 or even more, but very few in my town.

After the council: After the council, the divorce rate immediately sky rockets and dissent from Humanae Vitae becomes heroic.

**I don’t understand how you can blame the divorce rate on Vatican II **

Before the council: Seminaries were full.

After the council: Seminaries and orders emptied. This wasn’t a long process caused by changes in society. In many cases they emptied almost over night.

Not all seminaries were full either. This is a fallacy. Before the Council even began, the seminary where young men went from my Archdiocese had already shrunk by almost half from 10 years previously. During the 1950’s, each year at least 5 or 6 priests were ordained for our Archdiocese. By the end of that decade it had dropped to 2 or 3. In 1964 there was only one.

And the Council isn’t at fault? Common!

Maybe we can start blaming Vatican ll for the Edsel or pantyhose too?

 

[cathguy]

Maybe we can start blaming Vatican ll for the Edsel or pantyhose too?

Neat little comment.

That said: do you have an argument to contradict the empirical data of Church statistics post the Council?

 

[ASD]

I think it is clear that traditional Catholic praxis encourages militancy.

Yea. Like the opposite of post-conciliar ecumenism.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Rabbititus]

In my opinion, most of what is perceived as criticism of the Church pre VII is a reaction to those who insist that “in the good old days” everything was just fine and dandy. All Catholics practiced and believed full-heartedly with all the Church had to say; in short, problems just didn’t exist. All the problems today started after/were caused by Vatican II. Sort of like the idea that all families 50 years ago were like that in the old TV show “Father Knows Best”.
Many of those people who others claim as railing against the pre Vatican II Church are simply trying to put matters into perspective and dispel some of the myths that seem to be found so often on forums such as this. Of course, there are those that may have a different agenda for doing so, just as there are those who have their own agenda for tearing down the Catholic Church of today.
Our faith as Catholics isn’t awful at any time in history. Being honest that problems have existed throughout the history of the Catholic Church is not tarnishing the memory of those who went before us. Rather, I think, it gives more honour to those who stuck by their faith through thick and thin, in good time and in bad.

But a lot of the particularly nasty things seem to date to just after the changes, seemingly as a way to get people to go along with them, not as a reaction to the idea that things were perfect prior to them. If anything, the idea that things were perfect is a reaction to all the cliches about how nobody understood the mass. Also, magnifying how horrible life was before Vatican II does nothing to put things into perspective. As I said before, I’m in my 20’s and didn’t live prior to the council, but the picture often painted of life back then makes the church seem purposefully controlling and malicious so as to create an ignorant and superstitious laity who would fearfully pony up money to stay out of Hell. That picture doesn’t put things in perspective at all about how life was back then. (BTW, I’m not speaking of people at this board specifically as painting such a glib picture, I’m talking about things I learned in school and read in books and magazines).

One can criticize the pre Vatican II period, and rightly so in many respects, but it does no good to act as if Vatican II fixed everything, or even vastly improved everything. It seems as though all the same problems exist, as well as many new ones. Also, there is nothing wrong with looking back at the past and maybe finding that some things actually were better, while other things were not.

 

[Frosty]

But a lot of the particularly nasty things seem to date to just after the changes, seemingly as a way to get people to go along with them, not as a reaction to the idea that things were perfect prior to them. If anything, the idea that things were perfect is a reaction to all the cliches about how nobody understood the mass. Also, magnifying how horrible life was before Vatican II does nothing to put things into perspective. As I said before, I’m in my 20’s and didn’t live prior to the council, but the picture often painted of life back then makes the church seem purposefully controlling and malicious so as to create an ignorant and superstitious laity who would fearfully pony up money to stay out of Hell. That picture doesn’t put things in perspective at all about how life was back then.

One can criticize the pre Vatican II period, and rightly so in many respects, but it does no good to act as if Vatican II fixed everything, or even vastly improved everything. It seems as though all the same problems exist, as well as many new ones. Also, there is nothing wrong with looking back at the past and maybe finding that some things actually were better, while other things were not.

I agree that the magnification of how one perceived problems in the pre Vatican days is not helpful. The same as it is not helpful to blame everything that is problematic in the Church today on Vatican ll. Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency to over-generalizations on both sides. There are those who will put forth their own experiences as the norm instead of just simply saying that what they state are just that . . . their own experiences. Then we have those who blindly parrot every mis-leading or sometimes outright fabrications that they read either on the Internet or from dissident authors [again on both sides of the road] and constantly claim their statements as the truth. Even after they have been shown the truth. It is really frustrating and destructive.
Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s, I did not see the Church as malicious or overly controlling. However, I did know some of my acquaintances who did. Personally, my pre-adult years were lived almost in a Catholic cocoon. I had 3 uncles, 1 great-uncle and 4 cousins who were priests. Four great-aunts and two aunts who were nuns. One of whom was the principal of my elementary school., Both my parents and grandparents were extremely devout and very active in all aspects of our parish as were all my other relatives. Our house was always full of priests, who were either relatives or friends of my father. Everything we did basically revolved around the Church. Many of my friends grew up in that same sort of environment as well. But, even more didn’t.
There seems to be a great tendency to downplay the effects that the rapid changes of the decades immediately after WWll had on people. Try imagining a gang of little kids in 1952 who’s idea of a big day was when the ice-man came with a block of ice for the ice chest because electric refrigerators were rare. Or when one first got a TV, there was only one station available; or telephones with party lines I mean that your phone line was shared by several people not conference calling!]. I know that these are small things but when changes came they came rapidly. The first space shot by the Russians in 1959 was an absolutely enormous event that most people would never have imagined could happen and presaged the technological revolution that followed.
In my parents generation, having a university degree was the exception and there were still many who did not even finish high school. It was common for people to live and die in the same town or city that their ancestors had lived in for generations. That made for a real sense of community. All of a sudden, more young people had the opportunity to attend university and left home where they encountered a different world than what they knew. Many young people were angry at what they saw as the rigidity not only of the Catholic Church but all authority as well. The world of the late sixties and early 70’s was a hot bed of pent up anger for all sorts of reasons. Not for everyone of course but certainly for millions.
Of course Vatican ll did not fix everything in the Church and in my opinion, the Council Fathers were not fully prepared for the great upheaval in society that took place afterwards. In particular, the repudiation of authority. Church authorities have a good deal of responsibility for the many problems still facing us. Many of the heirachy neglected their duty to fully inform the faithful of the Council’s documents and allowed themselves to get with the spirit of the age. But the laity are not totally blameless either.
Sorry, I’m rambling and likely not making a lot of sense to you in what I am trying to say. Yes, there was great good in the “old days” but there is also great good now if only everyone would open their eyes, get rid of pre-conceived or ill-informed ideas and actually look about them. Look at all the Perpetual Adoration Chapels springing up all over; Rosaries said by groups as an everyday occurrances before of after Daily Mass; the thousands of people who have taken to praying the Liturgy of the Hours, which, pre Vll was pretty much reserved for the clergy and Religious Orders; all the retreats regularly scheduled by either individual parishes or Dioceses; Bible study groups and so on. These are marvelous things that are happening. Perhaps we can "blame’ them on Vatican ll as well?