Is this definition of Traditional Catholics correct?

[gracepoole]

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of “traditionalist Catholic”:

Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65).[1] They are most commonly associated with an attachment to the Mass liturgy in general use in that time period (often called the Tridentine Mass, the Traditional Mass, the Latin Mass, or extraordinary form of the Mass), but their theological and practical concerns are broader in scope.

Traditionalist Catholics are distinct from other Catholics who have a broadly “traditional” or conservative outlook.

I admit that I find the term “traditional” to be confusing as related to Catholicism – it seems to be defined and used in a myriad of ways. Wikipedia is distinguishing between “Traditionalist” and “traditional,” which I think is even *more *confusing. Is this just me? Are there other competing definitions of either term that you prefer?

 

[holyfamily1]

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of “traditionalist Catholic”:

I admit that I find the term “traditional” to be confusing as related to Catholicism – it seems to be defined and used in a myriad of ways. Wikipedia is distinguishing between “Traditionalist” and “traditional,” which I think is even *more *confusing. Is this just me? Are there other competing definitions of either term that you prefer?

I would say that this definition is correct. I personally believe we are in a liturgical shipwreck right now in the Church.

 

[JerryZ]

For the life of me I really cannot begin to understand this compulsion people have to put labels to everything and everyone.
We only neet to try to be as Jesus commanded. One as He is with the Father.

That means UNITED.

Does using labels achieve that goal. I would posit that it does NOT.
Jesus obbeyed His Father will to the end, it is true that we have a stiff neck and are unwilling to imitate Him.

Peace

 

[edwest2]

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of “traditionalist Catholic”:

I admit that I find the term “traditional” to be confusing as related to Catholicism – it seems to be defined and used in a myriad of ways. Wikipedia is distinguishing between “Traditionalist” and “traditional,” which I think is even *more *confusing. Is this just me? Are there other competing definitions of either term that you prefer?

Wikipedia is way off base, and illogical. What’s to stop anyone from private devotion? I think here, it is used largely as a negative term, and to inspire negative thoughts in others.

As Pope Benedict wrote:

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

“Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite.”

Again, the definition used here is meant to cloud the above or deny that the OF and EF exist side by side and we are to obey Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[josh987654321]

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of “traditionalist Catholic”:

I admit that I find the term “traditional” to be confusing as related to Catholicism – it seems to be defined and used in a myriad of ways. Wikipedia is distinguishing between “Traditionalist” and “traditional,” which I think is even *more *confusing. Is this just me? Are there other competing definitions of either term that you prefer?

I simply refer to myself as ‘Catholic’ as part of the Universal Church, I didn’t even know there were so many variations until I joined these forums, but I still see them all as simply ‘Catholic’

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Abu]

It is important not to confuse a traditional Catholic who recognises the value of the Tridentine Mass and the Ordo Missae Mass with a “traditionalist” who is as described below by James Likoudis in his book review.

The Great FacadeVatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, a book review by James Likoudis from which we find the “traditionalist” position: “A traditionalist is someone who believes that the postconciliar novelties especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism ought to be abandoned.”

The negative aspects of the “liturgical revolution” have clearly provoked the ire of the volume’s authors to engage in relentless tirades against the Council and its Popes for allegedly betraying Catholic Tradition and Practice. There is, however, one important value to be found in The Great Facade for all to see and ponder. It candidly states the “traditionalist” position: “A traditionalist is someone who believes that the postconciliar novelties especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism ought to be abandoned…”

The central traditionalist criticism of Vatican II is that it fundamentally changed the Church’s orientation in a direction that tended to undermine her divine mission. Such dissent is unpardonable.

 

[pnewton]

I guess the definition is as good as any, and as limited as any. That is the thing with labels. They have their uses, but those uses are very limited as people pretty much always defy such classification systems.

 

[Portrait]

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of “traditionalist Catholic”:

I admit that I find the term “traditional” to be confusing as related to Catholicism – it seems to be defined and used in a myriad of ways. Wikipedia is distinguishing between “Traditionalist” and “traditional,” which I think is even *more *confusing. Is this just me? Are there other competing definitions of either term that you prefer?

Dear gracepoole,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

That description is accurate as far as it goes, but as you say the term ‘traditional’ (or ‘traditionalist’) can be used in numerous ways, even, I am sorry to say, as an *ad hominem *, as when a man wishes to appeal to the emotions rather than reasoned argument. Thus, for example, a Catholic who is speaking of the indisputable worldliness within the contemporary Western Church and reminds his brethren of their call to personal sanctity and separation (CCC, paras 2013-15), would elicit a frosty reaction and probably find himself branded a radical ‘traditionalist’ type. Indeed, they might go even further than this and charge him with ‘overscrupulosity’ or of trying to steer his fellow Catholics in a narrow Puritan direction. My point is, dear friend, that the words ‘traditional’/‘traditionalist’ can be, and infrequently are, used as a weapon against those with whom profoundly disagree, with aim of closing them down or making them feel ashamed of their deeply held convictions.

Moreover, to take some further examples, dear friend, even to suggest that there is a manifestly grave internal crisis currently afflicting Holy Mother Church, is to lay oneself open to harsh accusations of being a fanatical traditionalist or of being in sympathy with some schismatic grouping. Again, speaking negatively, but respectfully, about World Youth Day can also bring down upon a man the same sort of opprobrious response, as can perfectly legitimate criticism of a saccharine pseudo-doctrine of brotherly love, ersatz social justice or a spurious dialogue with Protestants. In all these cases he will likely find his character savagely attacked and his motives uncharitably impugned, treated with disdain and being dismissed as a ‘radical traditionalist’, disloyal to the Magisterium, notwithstanding that this is completely untrue. The term ‘traditionalist’ being used simply to discredit him and anything he has to say, in other words it is a classic case of an ad hominem attack.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

Very well said, as usual, and much appreciated. Aside from your well chosen words and examples, there is another facet worth looking at. The anonymous internet where, almost regardless of subject, insults are encouraged, along with anger and passive-aggressive behavior or just mischief. In some cases, it appears that the thought process is bypassed and some use pure emotion while typing, even though a few manage to choose their words carefully. I and others should be on our guard against getting caught up with the crowd and following their bad to very bad example. Civility and a basic level of decorum would make me interested to stay at some forums but the lack thereof makes me wonder what is going through the minds of some people. To call ourselves civilized or intellectual requires civility toward each other.

It appears obvious to me that some have been taught to believe, or wrongly believe, that Catholics in the pews can be divided up into various political groups/classes/labels. I think some have no other way of looking at the Church since the whole world is politics to them. There is no evidence in the Bible or Church teaching, that aside from schismatic or heretical groups appearing, we require no other words than Roman Catholic to describe ourselves. Yet, as I’m sure you know, dear brother, there are those who seek to separate us into parts so that a house divided is created.

Traditionalist has no valid meaning, aside from its negative use. But, as the quote from Pope Benedict tells us, there were those who sincerely loved the Extraordinary Form and Pope John Paul II was responsive to their sincere desire to worship in that way. The Ordinary Form, as Pope Benedict writes, was subject to distortion and abuse, since, in a fiction created in the minds of some, it somehow “allowed” for “creativity.” My God. I feel sorry for those who went through that.

We are the Body of Christ, not liberal, traditionalist or whatever. We can point to the lack of desire among Catholics today to follow some very basic Church teaching, and suggest remedies and post about them here. One other fallacy that leads to labels like Traditionalist is that the Church needs to or should or is, without knowing it, it seems, keeping up with the times. That some kind of evolution is pushing all of humanity toward some kind of progress or enlightenment that just “happens.” It’s the 21st Century! Yes, and so what? Eternal truths are… eternal.

So this desire for novelty or the clearly defined urge for Modernism allows for a state of mind where everything, including the Church, needs to be repackaged or be redefined with new labels in the minds of those who want or need it, and in so doing, creating an unnecessary muddle - which those seeking, new to the faith or those established, do not need.

Peace and God Bless,

Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

The definition of “Traditionalist” that I apply to myself is more along the lines of: “Look at all this cool stuff! We should USE it, don’t let it gather dust and be forgotten!”

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

Very well said, as usual, and much appreciated. Aside from your well chosen words and examples, there is another facet worth looking at. The anonymous internet where, almost regardless of subject, insults are encouraged, along with anger and passive-aggressive behavior or just mischief. In some cases, it appears that the thought process is bypassed and some use pure emotion while typing, even though a few manage to choose their words carefully. I and others should be on our guard against getting caught up with the crowd and following their bad to very bad example. Civility and a basic level of decorum would make me interested to stay at some forums but the lack thereof makes me wonder what is going through the minds of some people. To call ourselves civilized or intellectual requires civility toward each other.

It appears obvious to me that some have been taught to believe, or wrongly believe, that Catholics in the pews can be divided up into various political groups/classes/labels. I think some have no other way of looking at the Church since the whole world is politics to them. There is no evidence in the Bible or Church teaching, that aside from schismatic or heretical groups appearing, we require no other words than Roman Catholic to describe ourselves. Yet, as I’m sure you know, dear brother, there are those who seek to separate us into parts so that a house divided is created.

Traditionalist has no valid meaning, aside from its negative use. But, as the quote from Pope Benedict tells us, there were those who sincerely loved the Extraordinary Form and Pope John Paul II was responsive to their sincere desire to worship in that way. The Ordinary Form, as Pope Benedict writes, was subject to distortion and abuse, since, in a fiction created in the minds of some, it somehow “allowed” for “creativity.” My God. I feel sorry for those who went through that.

We are the Body of Christ, not liberal, traditionalist or whatever. We can point to the lack of desire among Catholics today to follow some very basic Church teaching, and suggest remedies and post about them here. One other fallacy that leads to labels like Traditionalist is that the Church needs to or should or is, without knowing it, it seems, keeping up with the times. That some kind of evolution is pushing all of humanity toward some kind of progress or enlightenment that just “happens.” It’s the 21st Century! Yes, and so what? Eternal truths are… eternal.

So this desire for novelty or the clearly defined urge for Modernism allows for a state of mind where everything, including the Church, needs to be repackaged or be redefined with new labels in the minds of those who want or need it, and in so doing, creating an unnecessary muddle - which those seeking, new to the faith or those established, do not need.

Peace and God Bless,

Ed

Dear Ed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for that and I concur with all of your remarks, especially that last bolded paragraph.

Without doubt, dear brother, the Catholic Church everywhere in the English-speaking world is now very different from the Church of the 1950’s and it must be acknowledged that much of the change that we have witnessed has not necessarily been change for the better. The bigger changes, of course, came from external pressures, for example, the pill and the consequent permissive revolution of which we often speak, the coarsening of standards in the new media and misguided and hostile legislation (e.g. decriminalization of homosexual vice). However, many Catholic communities have been guilty also of self-harm by assimilating the spirit of the age so as to appear ‘cool’ and trendy. There has been a morbid obsession with being world affirming and soft-peddling the arduous demands ofour most holy religion, in case we convey the impression of being too harsh and austere. However, as our Lord said, “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life”. The godly pursuit of holiness always involves ascesis, renunciation and mortification and there is no room for a shameful worldly conformity in authentic Catholicism (cf. Rom. 12: 2; Jam. 1: 27)

When the reforms of Vatican II were imposed, unexpected consequences followed, especially when leaders were naïve and overly optimistic, underestimating the virulence of hostile forces and overestimating Catholic vitality and influence. The Church was quite rightly concerned with the loss of the youth, but, alas, there has not been intensive catechesis of the young as in former times, with the result that many now content themselves with a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, even whilst identifying as ‘conservative’. Lacking a properly formed conscience, itself the product of sound catechesis, many Catholic youth are making catastrophic errors of prudential judgment on a whole range of issues. Who, dear brother, can honestly deny that much of the blame for all this can be traced to illegitimate appeals to the so called ‘spirit of Vatican II’?

God bless and may you have a relaxing and enjoyable weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[edwest2]

The definition of “Traditionalist” that I apply to myself is more along the lines of: “Look at all this cool stuff! We should USE it, don’t let it gather dust and be forgotten!”

That’s interesting, but at one point, Pope Benedict wore both old and new vestments to show the clear continuity of the Mass in both its valid forms. Even as regards Church architecture, the Church is looking for what inspires reverence and what draws us into the mystery which is God and the turning point, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the Eucharist which embodies it literally. All of the outward signs and rubrics are to draw us into worship that is reverent and should lift our hearts and minds to praise and worship. We are flesh and spirit as well. We can only see as through a glass darkly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Debora123]

Dear Ed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for that and I concur with all of your remarks, especially that last bolded paragraph.

Without doubt, dear brother, the Catholic Church everywhere in the English-speaking world is now very different from the Church of the 1950’s and it must be acknowledged that much of the change that we have witnessed has not necessarily been change for the better. The bigger changes, of course, came from external pressures, for example, the pill and the consequent permissive revolution of which we often speak, the coarsening of standards in the new media and misguided and hostile legislation (e.g. decriminalization of homosexual vice). However, many Catholic communities have been guilty also of self-harm by assimilating the spirit of the age so as to appear ‘cool’ and trendy. There has been a morbid obsession with being world affirming and soft-peddling the arduous demands ofour most holy religion, in case we convey the impression of being too harsh and austere. However, as our Lord said, “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life”. The godly pursuit of holiness always involves ascesis, renunciation and mortification and there is no room for a shameful worldly conformity in authentic Catholicism (cf. Rom. 12: 2; Jam. 1: 27)

When the reforms of Vatican II were imposed, unexpected consequences followed, especially when leaders were naïve and overly optimistic, underestimating the virulence of hostile forces and overestimating Catholic vitality and influence. The Church was quite rightly concerned with the loss of the youth, but, alas, there has not been intensive catechesis of the young as in former times, with the result that many now content themselves with a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, even whilst identifying as ‘conservative’. Lacking a properly formed conscience, itself the product of sound catechesis, many Catholic youth are making catastrophic errors of prudential judgment on a whole range of issues. Who, dear brother, can honestly deny that much of the blame for all this can be traced to illegitimate appeals to the so called ‘spirit of Vatican II’?

God bless and may you have a relaxing and enjoyable weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

I have a couple quick question for Portrait.

Portrait, are you saying then that you do not agree with Vatican II?

Also, how do you feel about Pope John Paul II, and Pope Francis?

 

[edwest2]

Dear Ed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for that and I concur with all of your remarks, especially that last bolded paragraph.

Without doubt, dear brother, the Catholic Church everywhere in the English-speaking world is now very different from the Church of the 1950’s and it must be acknowledged that much of the change that we have witnessed has not necessarily been change for the better. The bigger changes, of course, came from external pressures, for example, the pill and the consequent permissive revolution of which we often speak, the coarsening of standards in the new media and misguided and hostile legislation (e.g. decriminalization of homosexual vice). However, many Catholic communities have been guilty also of self-harm by assimilating the spirit of the age so as to appear ‘cool’ and trendy. There has been a morbid obsession with being world affirming and soft-peddling the arduous demands ofour most holy religion, in case we convey the impression of being too harsh and austere. However, as our Lord said, “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life”. The godly pursuit of holiness always involves ascesis, renunciation and mortification and there is no room for a shameful worldly conformity in authentic Catholicism (cf. Rom. 12: 2; Jam. 1: 27)

When the reforms of Vatican II were imposed, unexpected consequences followed, especially when leaders were naïve and overly optimistic, underestimating the virulence of hostile forces and overestimating Catholic vitality and influence. The Church was quite rightly concerned with the loss of the youth, but, alas, there has not been intensive catechesis of the young as in former times, with the result that many now content themselves with a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, even whilst identifying as ‘conservative’. Lacking a properly formed conscience, itself the product of sound catechesis, many Catholic youth are making catastrophic errors of prudential judgment on a whole range of issues. Who, dear brother, can honestly deny that much of the blame for all this can be traced to illegitimate appeals to the so called ‘spirit of Vatican II’?

God bless and may you have a relaxing and enjoyable weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

Dear Portrait,

As I lived through the late 1950s and 1960s, the world around me was very Christian and Christmas was celebrated with warmth, joy and family. I had no reason to believe my government or the media did not recognize and respect the value of our Judeo-Christian heritage. It was polite and all were required to call your elders Mister and Missus. My close friend was poor but love and joy poured out of his home as it did from many others. We did not lock our doors at night. My summers away from school often included going to farms to pick strawberries or orchards to pick cherries. Our television was a welcome guest in our home. Our neighbors would make the effort to decorate their homes around Christmas.

There was a gentleness that I had no reason to believe would not last forever. I recall a specific instance where I was in a local store and my mother met an old friend. The obvious affection they displayed toward each other made me think: “It’s going to be great being an adult.” Boys I knew played some sport or built plastic model kits or collected coins or even rocks. It was not uncommon to hear the sound of a hammer as people replaced a few rotted boards on their back steps or see people on ladders painting their homes. Yes, there was crime. Yes, there were a few bad apples. But us kids were told to be polite and let them be. We were warned to not associate with the bad kids who were known to steal things and do other illegal things like smoke at a young age.

I recount all this to tell everyone reading that Catholics filled their Churches, God was on my mind every day and we had good parenting, and for those who didn’t, even non-related persons could say things like, “Would like me to tell your mother what you just did?”

The Easter service at dawn saw a packed Church. All the boys carried a potted lily and there was a procession with our pastor walking under a canopy as altar boys with censers waved them all along the way.

It was a given that there was no sexual intercourse before marriage and young men and women were both on the same page. And even though we all did not go to the same Church, we all had values in common. Now, think about living in such a situation in 1963. Even at a young age, I knew this worked. And I had no reason - no reason - to believe that forces were being formed to attack the Church from within and without. I remember our playground at our Catholic school and the children running to the priest when he came out to hug him and say hello. It would not be going too far to say it was a bit of heaven on earth. There was a Nativity in front of the local City Hall.

But my dreams of an eternal future like this were not meant to last. By the end of Vatican II, small groups would be established to upend a functional, polite and civil culture. We liked nice things but we had the keys to personal restraint and we were content with what we had. A concept that would be buried in short order. By 1968, the wolves arrived. Most called themselves Hippies and they were intent on creating a new sexual world order. Looking at it then, we thought of them as an anomaly, a loud sub-culture that represented a handful of people. However, Pope Paul VI saw the outlines of what was coming. He issued Humanae Vitae, which told us artificial contraception was wrong and what would happen if his words were not heeded. Then, an event that was unprecedented in the history of the Church occurred. Catholic theologians took out a full page ad in the New York Times to tell us the Pope was wrong!

continued…

 

[edwest2]

1969 The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws was formed. Enemy number one? The Catholic Church. They initiated a full-scale disinformation campaign to gain public sympathy through the media.

1970s To create visible signs and to multiply temptations, porn bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs opened everywhere. Who financed this? Why was it legal? The pornographers had lawyers who claimed they had the First Amendment right to do this. Porn in the First Amendment?

Movies began to focus on the evil, like Rosemary’s Baby which is about a Catholic Woman who is impregnated by the devil. Which is an apt metaphor for all that followed. TV gradually began to add sexual and risque content. Who was allowing this?

1973 Not only does the US Supreme Court, not the people, legalize the slaughter of babies in the womb, the American Psychiatric Association, under pressure from radical gay activists, removed homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by vote. Forget the years of published research and studies. Just forget it. With this official approval in hand, they could now go to the courts and overturn sodomy laws.

The Hippies began coming into our neighborhoods and preached the spirit of Anti-Christ. No religion, except those from the East. Don’t trust anyone over 30! Don’t honor your mother and father, use illegal drugs and alcohol, and have sex with anyone. I didn’t take it seriously. They verbally abused Catholics, calling us “sexually repressed” or “You Catholics think sex is dirty.” They said Freedom but all they wanted was slavery. They claimed the past was dead, to be replaced by a Woodstock Nation which was a lie. But then, as now, by hook or crook, they needed laws to build the world they wanted. And they invited us to live as their tribe did, and openly proclaimed their hatred for conformity while living in their own very defined, ultra-orthodox conformity. And gentleness? Their coarse speech and manner and lack of respect for all authority but their own, led some to imitate them. They had a “better way.”

By the end of the 1970s, corrupt music and songs began to appear. Sexual and promoting anarchy. Take Iggy Pop and Five Foot One. Among the lyrics: "I wish life could be Swedish Magazines (pornography). “I wish life could be anything!” Anarchy. The Sex Pistols? Anarchy in the UK?

Head Shops (head being short for dopehead) began to appear in my neighborhood. They sold black light posters, smelled of incense, sold ‘roach clips’ so you wouldn’t burn your fingers as you got your last toke from your marijuana joint. They also sold underground newspapers that were sexual, Marxist, and corporations are evil propaganda. One issue included a poster captioned “Eat the Rich.” They also sold perverted and graphically sexual underground comix. Most did not last long.

Then the assault against women came in a very powerful way through magazines like Ms., co-founded by Gloria Steinem who said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” That would be all men. My mother watched a protest on TV at the time and asked me, “What do these women want?” I didn’t know. But it is clear today that by painting all men as the enemy it was like fertilizing the ground for the next step.

1980s No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country. For a fee and a few signatures, lawyers took your money. And the pump had been primed in the previous decade: “hate, fear and distrust all men.” As one man told me, “It just got too easy.” Who devalued marriage? The law, in the form of lawyers. I saw plenty of ads like this: “No kids? $75.00 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” And what of the children torn apart in the process? That was never emphasized as a bad thing. A book came out titled: “How to have a healthy Divorce.” The lie we were told that allowed for this law was that court dockets were full and cases could drag on for months. Knowing what I know now, who could afford the money to pay for legal counsel for months?

It caused me pain and confusion to watch my fellow Catholics, many of whom I grew up with, slowly begin the descent into a life of illegal drug use, sex without commitment, and getting hooked on pornography. Their only excuse being, “it’s legal.”

Then we got cable TV and porn. Who allowed this?

continued…

 

[edwest2]

The wolves could not point to themselves and their partners in destroying Western life and families.They had to point to Vatican II, constantly and frequently. The wording might be different whenever it’s mentioned but they needed a scapegoat so the liars lied again and will continue the lie unless we correct them every time.

God has sent us Pope Francis at this hour and he is, I firmly believe, staking the heart of the evil. Using simple, clear and gentle words, he is calling to us and I feel and hear all of what was lost - all that I had been taught - being repeated, word for word, through him.

Let us consider the professional, conservative looking and highly educated liars and what they did to convince Catholic institutions of higher learning to cut their ties with the Church hierarchy in 1967, by using the same word as their Hippie counterparts - Freedom.

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

We need to know our history, dear brother.

A priest on Catholic Radio said that things “went crazy” in Catholic seminaries in the 1970s. Seminarians were taught about Humanae Vitae but the lie was slipped in that the Church may change its teaching on artificial birth control in the future. So, what happened? I heard a priest on Catholic Radio tell listeners that priests told their parishioners who asked about ABC, not what Pope Paul VI wrote but that “it was a matter of personal conscience.” I was shocked and to this day, feel the pain. Much of what I know now was not known to me then. As I wrote, I thought things would continue normally, but they didn’t and now, I am told, things are being straightened out and the ship is being set right.

Even among nuns, radical ideas began to spread, and Pope Francis is reminding them of their mission and has begun a reform process.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-lcwr-vs.-the-vatican-setting-the-record-straight/

So, dear brother, it is my considered view that infiltration occurred at many levels and took decades of hard, constant work by the servants of evil. The cry for Freedom was the lie that opened doors and exposed us to manipulation. At every turn, our trust was abused, followed by a media that turned from light to dark. So the matter of catechesis became an introduction to a version of being Catholic that “allowed” all sorts of wrong ideas to be added. Instead of the loaf being leavened and remaining pure, it slowly became filled with some poison.

No wonder many of our colleges and universities mirror their secular counterparts. Water dripping on a rock long enough can wear part of it away. I would say that until about the mid-1980s, it was about 50-50. After that, into the abyss.

To put it more simply, how can one hour in Church a week compete with the evil sights, sounds and behaviors we are surrounded by which are constantly being reinforced. Good is too hard. Bad is much easier.

But have hope. Throughout the Bible, we read how God always leaves a faithful remnant when the flock goes astray.

God bless you and have a pleasant weekend,

Ed

 

[Cat]

edwest2, you certainly have memories of an idyllic society.

You do realize that there were plenty of people in the U.S. who did not experience anything near your “gentle” life?

I’m not a black person so I can’t speak from personal experience, but unless all the books and documentaries and personal accounts from people I know are lies, the black people in the United States did not experience a “gentle life” back then. Far from it. Life for a black family was often a hopeless vicious circle of poverty and prejudice and sometimes even danger. Sub-standard educational opportunities meant little hope for any type of advancement in life.

And although the United States did not advance Antisemitism to the level that it was in Europe, we still had plenty of prejudice against Jews.

And there were plenty of women who lived a shadow life with a man who abused them physically and/or mentally/emotionally. My mother grew up in the rural South in a dirt-poor family where her daddy beat his wife and kids on a regular basis. There was no hope for the wife, and eventually, when her sons grew old enough, they threw their father out of the house and told him to never come back. Back then, a wife was considered “property” and it was socially acceptable for a husband to beat his wife to “keep her in line.”

For that matter, it was considered socially acceptable to beat children. I’m not talking about a good spanking–I have no problem with that. But there’s a difference between a spanking and a beating.

Women back then couldn’t even apply for a credit card! Many companies would not hire a married woman. Many women didn’t drive. Certainly there were many good things about staying home with children, but the point is, women didn’t have much choice.

And then there were the diseases. In my hospital, we have a “museum” that includes an iron lung, and pictures of the teenagers and children who were paralyzed from polio. Back then, breast cancer was a death sentence, but it didn’t matter, because most women would have been too embarrassed or afraid to seek medical attention for a lump in their breast. They just waited to die.

And there was the draft. My husband missed out on the draft by only about 6 years. There were plenty of young men who, in the 1960s, were drafted, and had no choice but to go, and many died, and many who didn’t die were exposed to chemicals that gave them cancer later in life…

And there was the anti-Communist fever, and the fear of nuclear war (duck and cover), and cigarette smoking was considered healthy, and men joined lodges so they could drink on Sundays–yes, life was good, but there were still plenty of bad things that hurt families.

And back then, Catholics and Protestants didn’t mix a lot . I remember that very clearly. My parents were friendly with our Catholic next-door neighbors, but we weren’t friends with them, and they weren’t friends with us. Catholics stuck to their own kind, and so did Protestants. Maybe some people consider that a good thing, but I don’t.

And even though Hollywood seemed “clean” compared to today, there was still plenty of trash and filth coming out of the entertainment industry. Also, many of the “stars” lived terrible lives. One example is Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball, who fought constantly, and eventually divorced. Another example is Elizabeth Taylor and her many divorces. Finally, there were all the actors who were drunks or drug addicts or secret homosexuals–at least, with the internet, we KNOW all this stuff. Back then, it was just rumors and innuendo

And there were plenty of “racy” books and magazines that caused scandals. Playboy came out in 1953, so apparently all the decency and morality and “gentleness” wasn’t enough to drive Hugh Hefner out of town. Apparently a lot of men bought his magazine even back during those idyllic times.

I’m sorry, Edwest2, but I think that every generation has been plagued with sin. God has redeemed us Christians and wants us to be salt and light in a dark world. I think that rather than pining for the past, we should live in the present and do all that we can to evangelize. In your case, I think that you should remember your past with fondness, but recognize that it was not universal. You were very blessed to grow up the way you did.

 

[edwest2]

To Cat-

In general, your comments mirror the many standard replies but since I lived through it, I can tell you this.

1. We did not lock our doors at night.
2. People were friendlier.
3. Some people enjoy pointing out certain problems as if we didn’t know about them.
4. I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do
5. I knew the travel time for a Russian ICBM. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and you know what? I didn’t lose a second of sleep over it. We had a great time. The media was not filthy. A man would appear on TV to tell us he was part of that station’s Standards and Practices Department and they watched everything we watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family.
6. When a neighbor threw out a box of old Playboys, some of the moms got together and disposed of them through unknown means. We were taught to stay away from dirty magazines.

I am sick and tired of people telling me that what I describe was idyllic. I never used that word. Every year, the nuns would give us containers to fill with coins that would be used to help poor people, so we gave up on snacks and candy and put what we could into those containers. None of our families was wealthy. I am not pining for anything. I am simply pointing out that life was better than today. And it’s all documented.

We can’t go forward if we don’t understand how we got from point A to point B, especially Catholics.

It’s too bad you don’t get it. The moral decay in the West did not occur by magic or because the date on the calendar changed. So please, don’t change the subject. The War on Families and babies in the womb began shortly after Vatican II which is the official scapegoat for the propagandists today.

money.cnn.com/2013/01/31/news/economy/secretary-women-jobs/index.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in Christ Denied TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of some nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s *Catholicism *(full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes Bl John Paul II, Benedict Emeritus XVI, and now Francis I, have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

 

[Cat]

To Cat-

In general, your comments mirror the many standard replies but since I lived through it, I can tell you this.

1. We did not lock our doors at night.
2. People were friendlier.
3. Some people enjoy pointing out certain problems as if we didn’t know about them.
4. I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do
5. I knew the travel time for a Russian ICBM. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and you know what? I didn’t lose a second of sleep over it. We had a great time. The media was not filthy. A man would appear on TV to tell us he was part of that station’s Standards and Practices Department and they watched everything we watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family.
6. When a neighbor threw out a box of old Playboys, some of the moms got together and disposed of them through unknown means. We were taught to stay away from dirty magazines.

I am sick and tired of people telling me that what I describe was idyllic. I never used that word. Every year, the nuns would give us containers to fill with coins that would be used to help poor people, so we gave up on snacks and candy and put what we could into those containers. None of our families was wealthy. I am not pining for anything. I am simply pointing out that life was better than today. And it’s all documented.

We can’t go forward if we don’t understand how we got from point A to point B, especially Catholics.

It’s too bad you don’t get it. The moral decay in the West did not occur by magic or because the date on the calendar changed. So please, don’t change the subject. The War on Families and babies in the womb began shortly after Vatican II which is the official scapegoat for the propagandists today.

money.cnn.com/2013/01/31/news/economy/secretary-women-jobs/index.html

Peace,
Ed

Before you can correctly assess how we got where we are today, you must first know where we were. You only know where YOU were. You don’t seem to be willing to admit that many people were not in the same place as you. You are basing your assessment of history on a false assumption–that life was the same for everyone in the U.S. as it was for you. This is utterly false, and therefore, your conclusions are questionable because they are based on a falsehood.

There are many people who did not experience a “great time” in the 1950s and 1960s.

As I mentioned before, for black people, the United States in the 1950s and 60s (and earlier) was a not a “better place”. During the times that you say, “We had a great time” and “we did not lock our doors at night” and “people were friendlier,” black people were experiencing deliberate and legal discrimination. It was an evil time for them and their memories of the 1950s are not pleasant as yours are.

I mentioned several other examples in my post, examples which you dismiss. You say, “I could care less what people in Hollywood did or didn’t do.” I would suggest that you’d better start caring, because what people in Hollywood do and don’t do often is the “guiding force” that determines the direction of our culture. To disregard the influence of the entertainment industry on society is, frankly, naive and foolish.

If we had paid more attention to the entertainment industry about 10 years ago, when certain television shows like Will and Grace started depicting gay men as “normal,” we might not be fighting for traditional marriage right now, a fight which we have already lost. God have mercy on us.

As for changing the subject, I really have no idea what this conversation sidetrack has to do with the OP and traditionalist Catholicism. I am friends with several Catholics who would call themselves “traditionalist” because they serve at the Latin Mass on a daily or weekly basis, and incorporate many other “traditional” (small t) Catholic practices and devotions into their daily lives, and teach their children to do the same.

These Catholics are highly intelligent, and have a good grasp of history, and many of them could intelligently discuss how both secular and religious culture got where they are today.

But my traditionalist friends live lives of joy and optimism, and they don’t keep looking back or describing how much better the past was. They live very much in the present, and strive to make a difference for the good and for God in our world.

**Their traditionalist mindset and practices are not throwbacks to a past age. The Catholic Church allows traditional (small t) practices and encourages their continuance, therefore, traditionalist Catholic practices, including the Latin Mass, are actually part of MODERN Catholic culture. ** I think we need to stop thinking of “traditionalist” Catholicism as a blast from the past, and instead, recognize that it is as modern as it is in every generation of Catholics.