Nostalgic Catholics

[Eucharisted]

Dear tradionalist Catholics,

Throughout the Church’s history, she has had many terms for a Catholic in line with the teachings of his Mother and Teacher. To give but a short list of these terms, they were “orthodox”, “traditional,” and “faithful.” Here on CAF, the term traditional takes on a new world. It means “to practice ancient or forgotten devotions, to enjoy ancient church architecture and artwork, to long for the days of the First Vatican Council, and/or to be weary of what’s new”. With such a defintion, I believe Traditional Catholicism is a very misleading phrase. Another, better phrase ought to be used: Nostalgic Catholic. You might be wondering, “What dose ‘nostalgic’ mean?” It is a word that means “to long for and enjoy things from the past or things that have become out-of-date, to glorify the past, and/or to ignore the faults and errors of the past and focus upon those of the present.” A nostaglic Catholic is exactly what a traditionalist Catholic: He longs for the pre-VC II days and enjoys such things as the Roman Catechism, the traditional Latin Mass, and the three Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary; he glorifies the old days of the Church in an attempt to justify his obsession over what has passed; and he ignores the many faults which the Church had than and instead focuses on the faults of today so as to justify his glorification of the past.

The traditionalist Catholic dose not approve of such things as the New Order Mass, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the recent Popes because they, to him, are new, not old, and they symbolize a misconception he has: Modernism has entered the Church. This is a misconception for three reasons: 1) The Church is One with Jesus Christ and Jesus is Holy, so His Church is Holy; 2) Mother Church holds sinners to her bosom, and yes, that includes modernists; 3) The form of the Mass, the new catechism, and the man in the Papal office all have one thing in common: They are, in essence, essential to the Church and more ancient than anything else in the Church. No one would deny that the Mass, catechical lessons, and the Papacy aren’t traditional and essnetial to the Church. So what dose that mean for the so-called “traditionalist” Catholics? Well, for the softcore traditionalist, he embraces these new things and encourages others to do the same - however, he still calls himself a traditionalist as if it makes sense. The more hardcore traditionalist won’t embrace these new things and would rather cling to the traditional name of “traditionalist” than get the humor in “nostalgic”. And the extremist of the group - and there are extremists in every group - would rather stand in the doorway of Mother Church, neither leaving or staying, than acknowlege the truths which Catholics profess.

To summarize my point: “Nostalgic Catholic” is more accurate and a better lapel than “Traditionalist Catholic”.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Dear Eucharisted,

I was perfectly content with Holy Mother Church. I was baptized, made my first communion, and was confirmed before Vatican II. I was an altar boy and I sang in the children’s choir where GASP! we sang plainsong in GASP! Latin.

I grew up with the Baltimore Catechism but I also have a copy of the CCC and GASP! have read it.

You seem to forget that there are an awful lot of us who are not dead who grew up, went to Catholic school, and had Vatican II hit us square in the face over the summer of 1967 when we were in high school. Little things like the Brothers no longer wore cassocks. We went from chanting Pange Lingua to the a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ crowd with their “Sons of God” (how politically incorrect can you get). Did you see your parents reduced to attending the (new) vigil Mass on Saturday?

Nostalgia? You insult me and every one of my generation who did not like what happened. I’m not dead, yet. And I don’t need someone who does not have the “been there; done that award” telling me that I am nostalgic.

We submitted to the magesterium and we have prayed for over 40 years. Our prayers were answered with the Motu Proprio.

You have deeply offended me. Nostalgia? Hardly. You have absolutely no idea of how gut-wrenching that change was. I lived it. Did you?

 

[John_Grudzien]

Dear Eucharisted,

I was perfectly content with Holy Mother Church. I was baptized, made my first communion, and was confirmed before Vatican II. I was an altar boy and I sang in the children’s choir where GASP! we sang plainsong in GASP! Latin.

I grew up with the Baltimore Catechism but I also have a copy of the CCC and GASP! have read it.

You seem to forget that there are an awful lot of us who are not dead who grew up, went to Catholic school, and had Vatican II hit us square in the face over the summer of 1967 when we were in high school. Little things like the Brothers no longer wore cassocks. We went from chanting Pange Lingua to the a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ crowd with their “Sons of God” (how politically incorrect can you get). Did you see your parents reduced to attending the (new) vigil Mass on Saturday?

Nostalgia? You insult me and every one of my generation who did not like what happened. I’m not dead, yet. And I don’t need someone who does not have the “been there; done that award” telling me that I am nostalgic.

We submitted to the magesterium and we have prayed for over 40 years. Our prayers were answered with the Motu Proprio.

You have deeply offended me. Nostalgia? Hardly. You have absolutely no idea of how gut-wrenching that change was. I lived it. Did you?

Your story above could’ve been written by me except that I didn’t have the guts you did and just quit going after ten years of burlap banners(with felt doves and pithy sayings, not scripture, cut out in felt letters) and dust laden organs. I would from time to time attend a NO Mass, usually on one of Our Lady’s feast days and usually ended up leaving after a tuneful, one your feet glass goblet Consecration, my very heart laying in broken shards (at the foot of the Sanctuary where the altar rail used to be) thinking that is this experimentation is ALL we could give to the One Who died for us?
Nostalgia Indeed!!! That’s something I reserve for old cars, old rock n’ roll and old movies, not the very core of my Faith!

 

[Cluny]

<<The traditionalist Catholic dose not approve of such things as the New Order Mass, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the recent Popes because they, to him, are new, not old, and they symbolize a misconception he has:>>

Your use of “traditionalist Catholic” here reads more like “sedevacantist” who are neither traditionalist nor Catholic…

 

[CB_Catholic]

Dear tradionalist Catholics,

Throughout the Church’s history, she has had many terms for a Catholic in line with the teachings of his Mother and Teacher. To give but a short list of these terms, they were “orthodox”, “traditional,” and “faithful.” Here on CAF, the term traditional takes on a new world. It means “to practice ancient or forgotten devotions, to enjoy ancient church architecture and artwork, to long for the days of the First Vatican Council, and/or to be weary of what’s new”. With such a defintion, I believe Traditional Catholicism is a very misleading phrase. Another, better phrase ought to be used: Nostalgic Catholic. You might be wondering, “What dose ‘nostalgic’ mean?” It is a word that means “to long for and enjoy things from the past or things that have become out-of-date, to glorify the past, and/or to ignore the faults and errors of the past and focus upon those of the present.” A nostaglic Catholic is exactly what a traditionalist Catholic: He longs for the pre-VC II days and enjoys such things as the Roman Catechism, the traditional Latin Mass, and the three Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary; he glorifies the old days of the Church in an attempt to justify his obsession over what has passed; and he ignores the many faults which the Church had than and instead focuses on the faults of today so as to justify his glorification of the past.

The traditionalist Catholic dose not approve of such things as the New Order Mass, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the recent Popes because they, to him, are new, not old, and they symbolize a misconception he has: Modernism has entered the Church. This is a misconception for three reasons: 1) The Church is One with Jesus Christ and Jesus is Holy, so His Church is Holy; 2) Mother Church holds sinners to her bosom, and yes, that includes modernists; 3) The form of the Mass, the new catechism, and the man in the Papal office all have one thing in common: They are, in essence, essential to the Church and more ancient than anything else in the Church. No one would deny that the Mass, catechical lessons, and the Papacy aren’t traditional and essnetial to the Church. So what dose that mean for the so-called “traditionalist” Catholics? Well, for the softcore traditionalist, he embraces these new things and encourages others to do the same - however, he still calls himself a traditionalist as if it makes sense. The more hardcore traditionalist won’t embrace these new things and would rather cling to the traditional name of “traditionalist” than get the humor in “nostalgic”. And the extremist of the group - and there are extremists in every group - would rather stand in the doorway of Mother Church, neither leaving or staying, than acknowlege the truths which Catholics profess.

To summarize my point: “Nostalgic Catholic” is more accurate and a better lapel than “Traditionalist Catholic”.

I am not considered a “traditionalist” in the sense this term is used in this forum, (although I am a very orthodox Catholic), but I think this post is rather insulting. Granted, there are some who do cling to tradition for it’s own sake, but I believe the majority are sincere in their love of God and only wish to see Him worshipped in a reverential manner, and much of that reverence has been lost in the past 40 years, for various reasons. No two people relate to God in the same way. If one’s walk with the Lord is enhanced by traditional practices and worshipping in the EF, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not nostalgia, it is a love for God and our Catholic tradition that motivates “traditionalists”. There is much that has been lost in our Catholic tradition, and we need to regain some of that beauty and reverence in our worship and our practice. And thankfully, because of these “traditionalists”, this is beginning to happen. God deserves better than what is happening in many parishes. The EF probably will not become the ordinary form again, and the Church will not return to the pre-Vatican II state, but we will see a return to reverence and restoration of many traditional practices, and we will have the traditionalists to thank for that in large part.

I think you have judged these people unfairly–you cannot read their hearts-and I think you need to reconsider what you have posted and perhaps offer an apology for offending them.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am going to further amplify what I have said. You have no idea about the heart-wrenching we felt when the communion rails got taken out. The music was bad enough but I could no longer kneel to receive Our Lord? Let me tell you something Eucharisted. I have never received Our Lord in the hand and I would dearly love to be able to receive kneeling.

I don’t see my longing as nostalgia. I know my history. I know my chant. I know my Latin. I had to sing our Anglican brethren’s very nice English translations of all the Great Sequences for years and years when I sang in the cathedral choir. Pange Lingua is not Sing My Tongue the Savior’s Glory anymore than Victimae Paschali Laudes is Christians to the Paschal Victim. The analogy I have always drawn is that it is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

There’s a whole bunch of us, Eucharisted, who are not dead and who grew up with and were content with HMC as she existed before Vatican II.

Have you ever taken a look at a 1965 St. Joseph’s Missal? We threw our Missals out in 1965. What was supposed to happen and what actually happened are two different things. But, no, I don’t know what I am talking about.

I’ve got one of those 1965 Missal’s, Eucharisted and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that even though the NO was supposed to be installed on the First Sunday of Advent 1969, it was in existence two years earlier despite what was said about the 1965 Missal.

I have driven 25 miles one way to attend my cathedral parish since 1983. Attended one pre SSPX Latin Mass and freaked out because they were not in communion with Rome. You treat my deeply held beliefs as if they were simple nostalgia.

 

[Layman]

I prefer to see the N.O. as a little, local experiment in the long history of the Church. The toothing for updating our religion has been there since at least the time of the Reformation and now we see the fruits of such an impulse more and more clearly.

I remember in these forums trying to figure out where the Novus Ordo could ‘progress’ to after all the changes to date and made a remark about a bunch of old ladies dancing around a ciborium of consecrated hosts in a ‘Communion Service In The Absence Of A Priest’.

a bit behind the timesIt looks like I’m still.

If people have been to some TLMs and still prefer the O.F., then that’s their choice. They didn’t have one when the N.O. was introduced. **I’d like to be able to get to a Mass where I don’t have to participate in, or view, or hear things which distract from the main purpose of the Mass; the propitiation of God and, hopefully, thereby, being sanctified by this. **The TLM suits this purpose elegantly and we are now told it was never forbidden. Nothing nostalgic about that, just practical.

 

[Cluny]

I prefer to see the N.O. as a little, local experiment in the long history of the Church. The toothing for updating our religion has been there since at least the time of the Reformation and now we see the fruits of such an impulse more and more clearly.

I remember in these forums trying to figure out where the Novus Ordo could ‘progress’ to after all the changes to date and made a remark about a bunch of old ladies dancing around a ciborium of consecrated hosts in a ‘Communion Service In The Absence Of A Priest’.

It looks like I’m still a bit behind the times.

If people have been to some TLMs and still prefer the O.F., then that’s their choice. They didn’t have one when the N.O. was introduced. **I’d like to be able to get to a Mass where I don’t have to participate in, or view, or hear things which distract from the main purpose of the Mass; the propitiation of God and, hopefully, thereby, being sanctified by this. **The TLM suits this purpose elegantly and we are now told it was never forbidden. Nothing nostalgic about that, just practical.

God was propitiated about 2000 years ago. Haven’t you heard?

 

[Layman]

So we don’t need to, now? I beg to to differ.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

God was propitiated about 2000 years ago. Haven’t you heard?

The Mass continues the propitiation of Calvary. The Mass is a continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, transcending time and space. The propitiatory power of the Mass is objectively the same as Calvary, the only difference being that on Calvary Jesus was sacrifice in a bloody manner, whereas at Mass it is unbloody.

From the Catechism of Pius X:

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The Essence, Institution and Ends of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

3 Q. What is this Sacrifice of the New Law called?

A. This Sacrifice of the New Law is called the Holy Mass.

4 Q. What, then, is the Holy Mass?

A. The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

5 Q. Is the Sacrifice of the Mass the same as that of the Cross?

A. The Sacrifice of the Mass is substantially the same as that of the Cross, for the same Jesus Christ, Who offered Himself on the Cross, it is Who offers Himself by the hands of the priests, His ministers, on our altars; but as regards the way in which He is offered, the Sacrifice of the Mass differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross, though retaining the most intimate and essential relation to it.

6 Q. What difference and relation then is there between the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross?

A. Between the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross there is this difference and relation, that on the Cross Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; whereas on our altars He sacrifices Himself without the shedding of His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His passion And death.

7 Q. What other relation has the Sacrifice of the Mass to that of the Cross?

A. Another relation of the Sacrifice of the Mass to that of the Cross is, that the Sacrifice of the Mass represents in a sensible way the shedding of the Blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross, because, in virtue of the words of consecration, only the Body of our Saviour is made present under the species of the bread and only His Blood under the species of the wine; although by natural concomitance and by the hypostatic union, the living And real Jesus Christ is present under each of the species.

8 Q. Is not the Sacrifice of the Cross the one only Sacrifice of the New Law?

A. The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one only Sacrifice of the New Law, inasmuch as through it Our Lord satisfied Divine Justice, acquired all the merits necessary to save us, and thus, on His part, fully accomplished our redemption. These merits, however, He applies to us through the means instituted by Him in His Church, among which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

9 Q. For what ends then is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered?

A. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honour Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favours, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory.

10 Q. Who is it that offers to God the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?

A. The first and principal Offeror of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is Jesus Christ, while the priest is the minister who in the Name of Jesus Christ offers the same Sacrifice to the Eternal Father.

11 Q. Who instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?

A. Jesus Christ Himself instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass when He instituted the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist and said that this should be done in memory of His passion.

12 Q. To whom is the Holy Mass offered?

A. The Holy Mass is offered to God alone.

13 Q. If the Holy Mass is offered to God alone why are so many Masses celebrated in honour of the Blessed Virgin And the Saints?

A. Mass celebrated in honour of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is always a sacrifice offered to God alone; it is said to be celebrated in honour of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints to thank God for the gifts He has given them, and through their intercession to obtain from Him more abundantly the graces of which we have need.

14 Q. Who shares in the fruits of the Mass?

A. The entire Church shares in the fruits of the Mass, but more particularly: (1) The priest and those who assist at Mass, the latter being united with the priest; (2) Those for whom the Mass is applied, both living and dead.

 

[brigid12]

Since our Church is not just 45 or so years old, since it is more than 2000, it behooves us for our spiritual growth to take seriously the devotion of our predecessors.

 

[Filioque]

Nostalgic, well that too is a poor choice. Yes there are those who attend the EF who are very illiterate about the History of the development of the Liturgy, unaware that more than one Rite existed in the West prior to Vatican II, some which had died natural deaths, (Braga, Sarum, and others) some that had been supressed, (Rites that were younger than 200 years old when Pope St. Pius V promulgated his edition of the Missale Romanum. Let along the Eastern Liturgies.

Then again there exists this ignorance among those who assist at the OF too. I recently witnessed the discussion after the Liturgy at a Melkite parish, there was a Latin Rite priest who stood in the sanctuary, processed with the Melkite Clergy and distributed communion. He was unprepared, as were his people who attended the Liturgy to see how Eastern Catholics worship. They asked questions like, “How come you don’t look at the people?” and “Why don’t you like the Pope, and have your own Pope.” my favorite was, “How come you don’t stand in front of the paintings, (iconostasis) and say the mass the correct way, in english?” most funny of all the questions as most of the Liturgy was in English, and the priest is a native English speaker, an Irishman, and not an Arab.

I also meet from time to time (very few) Catholics who are nostalgic for the Folk tunes of the late 60’s and first half of the 70’s. They opine about how free they felt with macrame stoles, love beads and home made peace banners. Those were the days.

The reality is the Liturgy is not an exercise in Archeology, it is the chance for us to stand mystically at the great mysteries of the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Rising from the Dead of Jesus. Jesus who can no longer be brutalized, and wishes us to join with the Church Triumphant in both the Worship of the Holy Trinity, and to give us access to the Graces He has given us via the Sacraments.

Well as long winded as this is, my point is that in whatever Rite one assists at Mass/Liturgy, and in any individual or combination of Spirituality that the Church has availible to us, we grow as Catholics, with the same truths, and the same Sacrafice we remain orthodox, traditional, Catholics. To equate only one Spirituality, or Rite as superior or the only Traditional, or True manner of practicing the Catholic Faith, well it simply is not Catholic.

 

[brigid12]

Nostalgic, well that too is a poor choice. Yes there are those who attend the EF who are very illiterate about the History of the development of the Liturgy, unaware that more than one Rite existed in the West prior to Vatican II, some which had died natural deaths, (Braga, Sarum, and others) some that had been supressed, (Rites that were younger than 200 years old when Pope St. Pius V promulgated his edition of the Missale Romanum. Let along the Eastern Liturgies.

I also meet from time to time (very few) Catholics who are nostalgic for the Folk tunes of the late 60’s and first half of the 70’s. They opine about how free they felt with macrame stoles, love beads and home made peace banners. Those were the days.

The reality is the Liturgy is not an exercise in Archeology, it is the chance for us to stand mystically at the great mysteries of the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Rising from the Dead of Jesus. Jesus who can no longer be brutalized, and wishes us to join with the Church Triumphant in both the Worship of the Holy Trinity, and to give us access to the Graces He has given us via the Sacraments.
**
Well as long winded as this is, my point is that in whatever Rite one assists at Mass/Liturgy, and in any individual or combination of Spirituality that the Church has availible to us, we grow as Catholics, with the same truths, and the same Sacrafice we remain orthodox, traditional, Catholics. To equate only one Spirituality, or Rite as superior or the only Traditional, or True manner of practicing the Catholic Faith, well it simply is not Catholic.**

:clapping:

 

[JustaServant]

Nostalgic?
Really? Interesting.
I was born in 1961. I am a product of all those changes that occured in the Catholic Church in the 60s and 70s. My parents felt isolated and discarded. For a while they stopped going to Mass. My sisters and I went. We saw the folk Masses, liturgical dances. I sat through religious education at the Catholic school I attended. No theology was taught, just touchy-feely Jesus is my best pal, kind of stuff. So what happened when I became an adult? I longed for spiritual depthness. My parents found a Latin Mass to go to, but for me it was too late.
I left the Church for twenty years.
The first time I walked into an evangelical church, what struck me was nothing was required of me (which perhaps fed into my immature, lazy nature). No order of service, just a few songs and listening to the preacher. People had their Bibles open with pens ready to take notes. People were shouting “amen!” from the pews. There was toe-tapping music and emotional preaching. For twenty years I had a great time.
Then I grew up.
One year after I revered. I attended a traditional Latin Mass at St. Boniface Church in Pittsburgh while on vacation/
What a difference 20 years make.The first thing I noticed was the respectful and dignified attitude of the congregants, especially the children. After years of attending a pastoring churches that more resembled someone’s back porch than a place of worship, this was refreshing to see. My young daughter, a new Catholic who grew up Baptist, was fascinated by it. In fact she is far more attracted to traditional worship than the ‘toe tapping’ Baptist church she grew up in.
I finally understand why my parents were so upset at the discarding the the TLM. Remember, I grew up in a post-Vatican 2 Church. I DESIRE to go into a the Church kneel, pray, be silent in the presence of God (quite Biblical BTW). I WANT to know something sacred is there. I WANT THIS place to be different than the world outside of its doors. I am quite exited hearing a Mass in Latin and learning what is being said, KNOWING something VERY IMPORTANT is happening up on that Altar.
The Mass was like a diamond which needs a particular setting to show its value and its brilliance. The beauty of the Latin Mass holds magnetic appeal, not only for older Catholics who grew up with it, but for young people who search for true worship.

 

[ljubim]

Nostalgic?
Really? Interesting.
I was born in 1961. I am a product of all those changes that occured in the Catholic Church in the 60s and 70s. My parents felt isolated and discarded. For a while they stopped going to Mass. My sisters and I went. We saw the folk Masses, liturgical dances. I sat through religious education at the Catholic school I attended. No theology was taught, just touchy-feely Jesus is my best pal, kind of stuff. So what happened when I became an adult? I longed for spiritual depthness. My parents found a Latin Mass to go to, but for me it was too late.
I left the Church for twenty years.
The first time I walked into an evangelical church, what struck me was nothing was required of me (which perhaps fed into my immature, lazy nature). No order of service, just a few songs and listening to the preacher. People had their Bibles open with pens ready to take notes. People were shouting “amen!” from the pews. There was toe-tapping music and emotional preaching. For twenty years I had a great time.
Then I grew up.
One year after I revered. I attended a traditional Latin Mass at St. Boniface Church in Pittsburgh while on vacation/
What a difference 20 years make.The first thing I noticed was the respectful and dignified attitude of the congregants, especially the children. After years of attending a pastoring churches that more resembled someone’s back porch than a place of worship, this was refreshing to see. My young daughter, a new Catholic who grew up Baptist, was fascinated by it. In fact she is far more attracted to traditional worship than the ‘toe tapping’ Baptist church she grew up in.
I finally understand why my parents were so upset at the discarding the the TLM. Remember, I grew up in a post-Vatican 2 Church. I DESIRE to go into a the Church kneel, pray, be silent in the presence of God (quite Biblical BTW). I WANT to know something sacred is there. I WANT THIS place to be different than the world outside of its doors. I am quite exited hearing a Mass in Latin and learning what is being said, KNOWING something VERY IMPORTANT is happening up on that Altar.
The Mass was like a diamond which needs a particular setting to show its value and its brilliance. The beauty of the Latin Mass holds magnetic appeal, not only for older Catholics who grew up with it,** but for young people who search for true worship**.

That’s me Looking into the TLM right now. I haven’t been to one yet because of the distance, but after squirming through the NO year after year after year I officially decided I’m going to switch to TLM. I’m applying to college in Pittsburgh and St Boniface is really close

It’s not just old people who are dissatisfied with Vatican II. I’m 17 and even I can see what it’s done to people. Some good, some bad. It’s very rude to be so mean to “traddies.”

 

[Timothysis]

It’s not just old people who are dissatisfied with Vatican II. I’m 17 and even I can see what it’s done to people. Some good, some bad. “traddies.”

Please share.

 

[4EverHis]

I don’t reject the Novus Ordo… I think that it’s a valid Mass… but that it’s not always done properly. Sometimes it is though… I’m really drawn to the traditional elements of the faith, because I find them reverent, and for this reason I call myself a “traditional Catholic” - but not a “traditionalist”… not sure if there’s a difference. I’m not SSPX or anything… in fact I attend a NO parish on a regular basis. (I live too far from the Latin Mass parish)

 

[ljubim]

Please share.

Ok
1)People are markedly less respectful towards the mass, and the average dress of parishioners shows this. People talk loudly before mass rather than prepare themselves to recieve Jesus.

2)There’s also been a change among Religious Ed, it’s less of a theology class and more of feelings without substance.(The priorities of V-II influenced this… from what I’ve heard this started in the 70s) Many supporters of the NO even will say that Vatican II has made the mass more Protestant, and of course the Sacred Tradition that we rely so heavily upon has been edited in a way, through the mass differences. And so people my age are growing up with no theology, and at youth group we had an apologist, and people (good catholic teens) were asking him the most basic of questions about their faith, because they just haven’t been taught anything about it. There are many devout left but maybe half of the “catholics” I know never go to mass, are pro-abortion and this is a result of the poor education and simplification of the faith that took place.

The big kickers are
3) The push for ecumenicism and accepting society rather than converting it and
4) The de-emphasis on traditional spirituality such as belief in demons/exorcism. I mean if half of what Jesus did was exorcisms then obviously He’s not stupid, demons exist. And many people who say, oh, they just had a mental illness believe in angels… well there you go.

I attend an NO mass, and I did grow up with the guitars and an abscence of bells during the consecration, and a lot of things that go along with a very liberal NO mass. I go to a more traditional, more reverent NO now and love it So I don’t mean to come off as angry, it’s just that I prefer the old over the new. And we know that the large trends of 20th century society and today was for massive change. I do think that a mass in the vernacular is a good thing, but Latin should still be WAY more prominent. I just think they went a bit far. And our Pope agrees that they went just a bit far as well.
cns:

Pope Benedict XVI, who participated in the council as a theological expert, is expected to speak about the importance of the council’s documents. Although **he has criticized some postconciliar changes, the pope has made it clear that Vatican II will be the “compass” of his papacy. **The compass, of course, sets direction; it will be up to the new pope to provide the details

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505787.htm

Please let’s not make this a fight

The fact is that among the devout Catholic youth there is a trend to throw out the over-corrections of our parent’s generation and return to how the Church has been for thousands of years. And I’m not dissing NO, it’s beautiful when it’s not abused with the priest’s own personal editing(as my original parish is), I just think that we’re going to see a resurgence of the Latin mass. People are sick of churches with hidden tabernacles, no kneelers, and the songs being played off a stereo and displayed on a screen in a bare brick room. Jesus is still there of course, but perhaps with sadness in His heart.

 

[ljubim]

Oh and traddies is a word used to say traditional catholic. Somebody used it on the thread, “You Know You’re a Traditional Catholic When…” It’s hilarious, anybody who has a spare ten minutes should read it if they want a laugh. Catholic humor is the greatest

 

[Timothysis]

Ok
1)People are markedly less respectful towards the mass, and the average dress of parishioners shows this. People talk loudly before mass rather than prepare themselves to recieve Jesus.

People are markedly less respectful towards everything nowadays; it’s got more to do with the culture than piety. I personally think that the Mass goers that I am exposed to ARE respectful. If you are expecting people to walk into church with heads bowed and hands folded, then you are probably going to be disappointed and I highly doubt that people in years gone by behaved in such a way. “Average dress” is not an indicator of respect today, either. People of today, all people, do not dress up for events as they once did two or three generations ago; it is not particular to Mass.

2)There’s also been a change among Religious Ed, it’s less of a theology class and more of feelings without substance.

Agreed.

(The priorities of V-II influenced this… from what I’ve heard this started in the 70s)

Wrong. It was misguided attempts at the parish level. It was certainly never the intent of Pope Paul VI or the bishops to abandon classic theology.

Many supporters of the NO even will say that Vatican II has made the mass more Protestant,

How can the Mass, which is of itself totally and distinctly catholic, be protestant? Please show examples from the current Roman Missal.

and of course the Sacred Tradition that we rely so heavily upon has been edited in a way, through the mass differences.

How?

And so people my age are growing up with no theology, and at youth group we had an apologist, and people were asking him the most basic of questions about their faith, because they just haven’t been taught anything about it.

I agree, that is most unfortunate.

There are many devout left but maybe half of the “catholics” I know never go to mass, are pro-abortion and this is a result of the poor education and simplification of the faith that took place.

You are sadly mistaken. Many of my mom’s family, who were raised with the Tridentine Mass, do not attend and it has absolutely nothing to do with the current Missal. They don’t go because they don’t want to go.

The big kickers are
3) The push for ecumenicism and accepting society rather than converting it

There is nothing wrong with ecumenicism. While the traditional protestant branches are decimating their ranks by abandoning every thought and belief of what was traditionally considered “Christian beliefs,” many have crossed over to the Catholic Church in search of sacred truths. I think it is better to have the door open for those who wish to come in rather than to close it and not even try.

And I must ask, how are we to convert a society that has abandoned the concepts of Natural law and embrace a personal, subjective “belief” in what they call “God,” describing themselves as “spiritual but not religious?”

1. The de-emphasis on traditional spirituality such as belief in demons/exorcism. I mean if half of what Jesus did was exorcisms then obviously He’s not stupid, demons exist. And many people who say, oh, they just had a mental illness believe in angels… well there you go.

I am willing to wager that more people believe in demons than they do Jesus. What does this have to do with Vatican II?

I attend an NO mass, and I did grow up with the guitars and an abscence of bells during the consecration, and a lot of things that go along with a very liberal NO mass.

Do you know what the consecration bells are for? They are to alert those gathered that the consecration is taking place, sort of the same thing as an “applause” sign in a t.v. studio. I have nothing against them and I , personally , do prefer them but Vatican II never suggested to do away with them, nor did it suggest to use guitars instead of organs. So, to blame Vatican II is to miss the mark.

And we know that the large trends of 20th century society and today was for massive change.

Society changed because the world changed due to the second World War. The economic society that was created after the second World War was directly linked to the causes of change in the 1960s. Picture a person born in 1929 and compare their life to someone born in 1949. It isn’t coincidental that the hippie generation, the ones who rebelled against everything, were post World War II babies. That, coupled with the rise of the mainstream media and a healthy economy in which people could obtain money with relative ease, created the environment in which the world was turned on its head. And don’t underestimate the effect that the Playboy culture had on society. It is all very much more complicated than blaming everything on Vatican II.

Please let’s not make this a fight

I’m not trying to make this a fight but it is not right and unfair to try and blame the Vatican II Council for the problems we see today. If you read the documents of the council you will see that they echo the same , constant teachings of the Church. In fact, it was HUMANAE VITAE that was criticized the most, even though it upheld the constant teaching of the Church in regards to contraception being intrinsically evil. The abrupt shift in society was coming and the Church did its best to meet it. While we can criticize the actions and decisions made I think we need to keep in mind that had the Tridentine Mass been kept as the regular form of the Mass, we would probably have still seen the same, massive changes in the Church.

The fact is that among the devout Catholic youth there is a trend to throw out the over-corrections of our parent’s generation and return to how the Church has been for thousands of years.

And how was that, exactly?

And I’m not dissing NO, it’s beautiful when it’s not abused with the priest’s own personal editing(as my original parish is), I just think that we’re going to see a resurgence of the Latin mass.

The percentage of exclusive latin Mass goers is very, very small compared to those who attend the Ordinary Form. It will be interesting to see if those who do attend out of curiosities sake will stay with it exclusively.

People are sick of churches with hidden tabernacles, no kneelers, and the songs being played off a stereo. Jesus is still there of course, but perhaps with sadness in His heart.

Tell that to the church that is practically in my back yard. They are pushing 3,000 families in this area alone.