Nostalgic Catholics

[palmas85]

So it would appear that one of the hallmarks of a “Traditionalist” Catholic is to return insult with insult…

Would it also appear then that one of the hallmarks of a “Progressive” Catholic would be to hurl insults in the first place, and thus start the ball rolling?

 

[revert_jen]

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.

I agree with most of what you say, but in one thing you are wrong. Your parents’ generation is only a few years older than I am. It isn’t their fault. It’s more the fault of my parents’ generation–those who were adults during or shortly after Vatican II. It wasn’t the 5-year-olds that were replacing the organ music with guitars in the 70s, and creating the dreadful burlap and felt banners that have been spoken of so feelingly in other posts. (Or rather, it may have been the 5-year-olds who did the actual creation, but it was at the instigation of adults.)

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.

Why exclusively? I don’t see any reason why one has to make a once-and-for-always choice between OF and EF Mass. EF Mass, if you haven’t been brought up with it is, frankly, harder work than OF Mass, and also generally available at more limited times. Some days you’re up for it and some days you’re not. But frequently the OF Masses at parishes that have the EF are more reverent than at some other parishes.

ljubim;5810412:

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.

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

Yep. Church in the “spirit of Vatican II.” That was my old parish, all right. Even the DRE left “men and” out of the creed and made various other personal feminist changes to the prayers (not heresay, she did it in my presence). None of the Masses with music (four per weekend), even the one with the “traditional” choir, was free from Marty Haugen and David Haas. They had “liturgical dance” during Holy Week and women getting their feet washed on Holy Thursday, until the Bishop (bless his soul) put a stop to it. The liturgy director supposedly said, “Well, you can’t expect us to follow all of the rules.” (This one is heresay, but it’s just second-hand, not third- or fourth-hand.)

It was a very large parish, too. When I first came back to the Church, I didn’t know that there were somewhat large differences between parishes, and thought I just had to deal with it. I thought the attitude of, “It doesn’t matter what’s recommended, it matters what you can get away with,” was the price I had to pay for the Eucharist. It was difficult, and would have been more difficult if we didn’t have such a good Bishop, who limits “what you can get away with.” We had reconciliation services (with individual priests for confession afterward, thank goodness!) where the group examination of conscience included all of the touchy-feely sins, but didn’t include contraception, and barely mentioned abortion. We had a homily on Corpus Christi whose theme was, “The reason we don’t have processions any more is because they were wrong. Corpus Christi was originally about us as the body of Christ.” feh.

I consider myself to be to some extent a Traditionalist, even though I frequently go to the OF Mass. I reject explicitly the “Spirit of Vatican II” while loving and reverencing the actual words of Vatican II. I do look back nostalgically (being born after Vatican II) to a time when Catholics in the US had a cultural identity apart from the mainstream–nostalgically because I’m sure that had its problems, and I don’t know what they were. But that is a marginal side issue. It isn’t part of the reason that I attend the EF Mass, or why I feel that traditional devotions and traditional music have something profound to give the people of today.

–Jen

 

[ncjohn]

As one who still observes many of the traditional practices I grew up with–such as not eating meat on Fridays, praying the rosary, Eucharistic adoration, genuflecting before the the tabernacle, etc–but who is not a “traditionalist” in that I do not prefer the EF, I too find the OP to be quite insulting and doubt that most of those here who get involved in these discussions support that view.

As I see it, God calls us in many different ways. Specific to this discussion, He calls some to worship in the EF while others of us hear Him much more clearly in the OF. It’s not a matter of one being better than the other or one drawing “liberals” or “modernists” while the other simply calls those longing for the past. It is very simply that we have different tastes, different backgrounds, different experiences, and different personalities. The Great Fisherman has more than enough lures in His tackle box to be able to work with each of us as we are and where we are.

I find the premise of the OP to be just as divisive as those who take the tack that anyone who prefers the OF is some kind of fuzzy-headed modernist. The Church doesn’t believe that and we have no business indulging ourselves in such behavior. It is human nature, and certainly has always existed in our history. But St. Paul’s letters are full of admonitions against such things, as are the words of Jesus himself.

We really need to get past this constant baiting mentality and start working on the healing. The Body of Christ cannot be divided. You’re either for him or against him. And on this one I have to stand with my traditionalist brothers and sisters in saying that enough is enough.

Peace,

 

[EasterJoy]

As one who still observes many of the traditional practices I grew up with–such as not eating meat on Fridays, praying the rosary, Eucharistic adoration, genuflecting before the the tabernacle, etc–but who is not a “traditionalist” in that I do not prefer the EF, I too find the OP to be quite insulting and doubt that most of those here who get involved in these discussions support that view…

I don’t think of following the precepts and mainstream liturgies and pious practices of the Church as being particularly traditional. In other words, I don’t think orthodox and traditional are the same thing. You’ll find some fairly unconventional Catholics who are still very fond of the rosary, for instance.

Traditional, though, might be to abstain from meat on Fridays outside of Lent, rather than choosing a different penance. The Friday penance is orthodox, while abstaining from meat is traditional. Observing the Eucharistic fast, refraining from Holy Communion unless one is in a state of grace, and so on are orthodox. Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and, where possible, on one’s knees is traditional. It is orthodox to seek out reverently offered Masses that observe the GIRM. It is traditional to seek out Masses that incorporate as much Latin as possible, that recite the prayer to St. Michael afterwards, and so on. It is orthodox to unfailingly participate at Mass every weekend and every holy day. It is traditional to attend on Sunday, rather than Saturday night, if possible. Wearing a mantilla is traditional; dressing modestly is orthodox. In other words, I would argue that traditional practices are ways of living a pious life that we might choose or not choose, but which recommend themselves because they are tried-and-true ways, while orthodox practices are those practices that Church discipline or just recognition of God oblige us to follow. A Catholic is not bound to be traditional, but is bound to be orthodox.

I suppose that it is orthodox to show some profound form of reverence before the Blessed Sacrament, while it is traditional to genuflect, but that is on the border for me. All Catholics, regardless of whether they find older practices particularly edifying, are bound to show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. Unless physical limitations or the awkwardness enforced by one’s clothing dictate otherwise, it is orthodox to genuflect…but whether that is simply my opinion or the Church’s standard, I can’t say. I just do it.

OTOH, it is traditional to be entirely orthodox. I think it is fair to say that the untraditional Catholic is far more prone to fall into violations of orthodoxy, whereas the traditional Catholic is more prone to confuse small “t” traditions for big “T” Traditions. Either one can be entirely orthodox, though…and should be held to it. Being “liberal” doesn’t mean one is excused from genuflecting or showing an appropriate sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t think of following the precepts and mainstream liturgies and pious practices of the Church as being particularly traditional. In other words, I don’t think orthodox and traditional are the same thing. You’ll find some fairly unconventional Catholics who are still very fond of the rosary, for instance.

I’m not really clear what point you’re trying to make here. All of the things I mentioned are pious practices that were traditional befoe V2 but largely fell out of favor after for various reasons. I’ll concede that the call to genuflect before the tabernacle still does exist but is again often ignored, likely mostly out of ignorance. The arguments are constantly made in this subforum about people being non-traditional because of not following these admirable traditions which have nothing to do with orthodoxy *per se *but are expressions of our piety. I disagree 100% with the idea that people aren’t devoted simply because their traditions may be different than those preferred by tradiitonalists, but was simply alluding to the fact that some of us still find value in traditional practices without considering themselves traditionalists.

In other words, I would argue that traditional practices are ways of living a pious life that we might choose or not choose, but which recommend themselves because they are tried-and-true ways, while orthodox practices are those practices that Church discipline or just recognition of God oblige us to follow.

From my experience with your posts, I don’t think you meant it this way, but this truly comes across as implying that the “traditional” are pious while others are just doing things out of obligation. My practices do not entail any sense of obligation whatsoever and if it becomes a matter of just following the rules I find it pretty worthless. To me, if it doesn’t spring from a heart of love and gratitude it’s just a bunch of words and thinking that crying “Lord, Lord” is going to get me into heaven. I know a great many saintly people who clearly love God above all else and whose devotion puts me to shame, though they indulge in none of the “traditional” practices as you describe them. I also know many “traditionalists” who observe all the pious traditional practices but whose lives reflect anything but Christian values.

Regardless, that is all off topic anyway. My objection is to the OP’s characterization that traditionalists are just trying to live in the past and can’t accept change. My examples were simply to qualify that even non-tradtionalists don’t accept such a portrayal. It is just as offensive as the idea that those who prefer things since Vatican II are just a bunch of modernists. In truth there is only “faithful” and “devoted”, regardless of which of the Church’s traditions we might follow. It’s when we start thinking we have the “one, right way” when the Church recognizes differently that we end up becoming divisive to the Body of Christ and part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Peace,

 

[foxscape]

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 find this interesting because I study Memory and Nostalgia at the University of Calgary. Just for the record Nostalgia need not have a negative connotation. Often Nostalgia is a way for people to create a continuous and coherent identity by identifying strongly with some part of the past. I would support that there is a certain amount of nostalgia in this forum but I would reject the connotation that ‘nostalgic Catholics’ are merely fools that have failed to embrace modernity. I would suggest rather that they are looking back to a part of their personal or in some cases collective history in order to try and approach the world with a coherent sense of self. Nostalgia gives people a way of making sense of their everyday reality by juxtaposing it with the past. Far from living in a dream world this is an essential part of the human experience. To paraphrase, let he who is nostalgic for nothing cast the first stone

Cheers,
JRB

 

[JustaServant]

I find this interesting because I study Memory and Nostalgia at the University of Calgary. Just for the record Nostalgia need not have a negative connotation. Often Nostalgia is a way for people to create a continuous and coherent identity by identifying strongly with some part of the past. I would support that there is a certain amount of nostalgia in this forum but I would reject the connotation that ‘nostalgic Catholics’ are merely fools that have failed to embrace modernity. I would suggest rather that they are looking back to a part of their personal or in some cases collective history in order to try and approach the world with a coherent sense of self. Nostalgia gives people a way of making sense of their everyday reality by juxtaposing it with the past. Far from living in a dream world this is an essential part of the human experience. To paraphrase, let he who is nostalgic for nothing cast the first stone

Cheers,
JRB

Excellent answer.
I’ve often viewed nostalgia as being very psychologically healthy. People are nostalgic for something from the past that was positive in thier experience, not negative. It can help the person think in a positive way about the present by looking at something positive from the past. In a way, it is the opposite of bitterness. In which the person still hangs on to a negative experience about a person/incident from their past.
So, I don’t think my parents were being ‘nostalgic’. They knew what worked in the past and knew it could work again in the future.
In this past political season the word ‘change’ has been all the rage, as it if ‘change’ alone were a good thing and an answer to all issues. But ‘change’ does not immediately denote something positive.
Luther wanted ‘change’.
Hitler wanted ‘change’.