Not your "normal" Traditional Catholic

[otjm]

What still hasn’t been addressed is the very obvious contradiction above. The EF is for the time of Trent, and the people of that time and place, and that time is over. However, the OF is a return to the Early Church and Early Saints and somehow that time is not over. Why is 500 years ago simply a time that is over, but 1700 is not? This doesn’t seem a tenable position to me.

I am not sure that there is necessarily a contradiction. In addition, without doing a serious, graduate level research project of what exactly the Council Fathers had in mind - collectively or individually - at the time that the documetns of Vatican 2 were written, a whole lot is reduced to speculation.

On the other hand, it should not be presumed that the bishops of the Council were operating in a vacuum and had no idea whatsoever what the thinking was within liturgical circles.

And putting aside for the moment whether or not the OF we have now was what was intended (I think we can generally agree that it does not seem to comport on all parts with the documents), I think that it is a bit of overstatement that the Council Fathers intended to cast out the EF and return wholesale to what the Mass may have looked like for, say, the first 500 years. There has been ample evidence that many thought that there had been so many accretions to not only the Mass but also to the other sacraments that we needed to take a serious look at how the early Church had celebrated them. That is not necessarily an opening to antiquariansim. It can signal a healthy look at what the essence of each sacrament, and the Mass is, and see if the changes that had been made over the centuries are still suitable, or if some of them were more time specific, and that time may have passed.

To make a poor analogy: Middle English is the language of Chaucer, and every school child should be exposed to it. To say that it is the highest expression of the English language is a debateable statement at best (particularly for scholars of Shapespear!).

To wit: I grew up during the time pre-Vatican 2 and served for a long time as an altar boy at both low and high Masses; and over time as a candle bearer, altar boy, thurifer, and master of ceremonies at Solemn High Masses - in other words, I served every position that was available at the time for someone not ordained.

From what I read, it appears that the current move within the EF is to have High Mases, as if that were the norm. It wasn’t in the '50s and 60’s; the Low Mass was the norm. One Sunday Mass was High (sung) Mass. A Solemn high Mass was said at Christmas and Easter.

Frankly, back then (and to this day) it never made a lot of sense to me to have a Gospel reading which appeared to be tacked on to the end of Mass (and that does not say that I do not like John 1). It seems to me that the addition of Old Testament and Psalm readings to the Mass makes perfect sense. The use of vernacular in the Mass makes sense in its essence (I will leave to others to debate how much). I don’t see that we were on the path to get rid of things “Trent” and to bring in things of “antiquity”, so much as to look at the whole process over time to see if we have lost track of some things in the persuit, over time, of others. It is not that the “others” are wrong or invalid, or in need of discarding so much as a healthy look at what lies at the heart of the Church - the Mass.

There are those who obviously would throw out anything pre Vatican 2. There are just as obviously those who hold the form of the Mass pre Vatican 2 so sacrosanct as to take on the dimensions of doctrine what is only practice. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. That the OF needs serious work, I think no one who is intellectually honest would disagree with. But I also tire of those who in one breath damn with faint praise the documents of Vatican 2 as being so vague as to be borderline either irrelevant, heretical or both; and with the next breath seem to find the documental information so specific, commanding and letter perfect that they can condemn the OF as having almost nothing to do with the Council’s intent.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

…As an illustration, where a good translation of a prayer from the Mass might say “Lord, all things stand in awe before your supreme and ineffable Majesty. Allow us, through these sacred Mysteries, to have some share of your Divine essence.”, an ICEL-style translation would say “God, you are big. Help us to be big like you.”

:yup: Spot on!

 

[SisterSnowflake]

…The Mass has always been about offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father…

Amen!

“It ain’t about us!”

 

[cothrige]

I am not sure that there is necessarily a contradiction. In addition, without doing a serious, graduate level research project of what exactly the Council Fathers had in mind - collectively or individually - at the time that the documetns of Vatican 2 were written, a whole lot is reduced to speculation.

I will certainly admit that I am not too sure if those who created the OF Mass were trying to do any particular thing with regard to the past. However, the OP made a point, and it seemed the central point, that the EF is outdated because the time it belonged to has gone. But, he praised the OF specifically because it tried to bring back the practices of the early Church, which would apparently mean that its time has not gone. This approach makes no sense, and certainly seems to be built on a contradiction. If each Mass belongs to its time, then there is no greater reason to try to recapture the Mass of Nicea than there is to retain that of Trent. The only difference between the two is that the former is 1200 years more gone than the latter.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I am not sure that there is necessarily a contradiction. In addition, without doing a serious, graduate level research project of what exactly the Council Fathers had in mind - collectively or individually - at the time that the documetns of Vatican 2 were written, a whole lot is reduced to speculation.

On the other hand, it should not be presumed that the bishops of the Council were operating in a vacuum and had no idea whatsoever what the thinking was within liturgical circles.

And putting aside for the moment whether or not the OF we have now was what was intended (I think we can generally agree that it does not seem to comport on all parts with the documents), I think that it is a bit of overstatement that the Council Fathers intended to cast out the EF and return wholesale to what the Mass may have looked like for, say, the first 500 years. There has been ample evidence that many thought that there had been so many accretions to not only the Mass but also to the other sacraments that we needed to take a serious look at how the early Church had celebrated them. That is not necessarily an opening to antiquariansim. It can signal a healthy look at what the essence of each sacrament, and the Mass is, and see if the changes that had been made over the centuries are still suitable, or if some of them were more time specific, and that time may have passed.

To make a poor analogy: Middle English is the language of Chaucer, and every school child should be exposed to it. To say that it is the highest expression of the English language is a debateable statement at best (particularly for scholars of Shapespear!).

To wit: I grew up during the time pre-Vatican 2 and served for a long time as an altar boy at both low and high Masses; and over time as a candle bearer, altar boy, thurifer, and master of ceremonies at Solemn High Masses - in other words, I served every position that was available at the time for someone not ordained.

From what I read, it appears that the current move within the EF is to have High Mases, as if that were the norm. It wasn’t in the '50s and 60’s; the Low Mass was the norm. One Sunday Mass was High (sung) Mass. A Solemn high Mass was said at Christmas and Easter.

Frankly, back then (and to this day) it never made a lot of sense to me to have a Gospel reading which appeared to be tacked on to the end of Mass (and that does not say that I do not like John 1). It seems to me that the addition of Old Testament and Psalm readings to the Mass makes perfect sense. The use of vernacular in the Mass makes sense in its essence (I will leave to others to debate how much). I don’t see that we were on the path to get rid of things “Trent” and to bring in things of “antiquity”, so much as to look at the whole process over time to see if we have lost track of some things in the persuit, over time, of others. It is not that the “others” are wrong or invalid, or in need of discarding so much as a healthy look at what lies at the heart of the Church - the Mass.

There are those who obviously would throw out anything pre Vatican 2. There are just as obviously those who hold the form of the Mass pre Vatican 2 so sacrosanct as to take on the dimensions of doctrine what is only practice. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. That the OF needs serious work, I think no one who is intellectually honest would disagree with. But I also tire of those who in one breath damn with faint praise the documents of Vatican 2 as being so vague as to be borderline either irrelevant, heretical or both; and with the next breath seem to find the documental information so specific, commanding and letter perfect that they can condemn the OF as having almost nothing to do with the Council’s intent.

So much to agree with in this post, but your thought expressed in the end that I have highlighted is one that has frustrated me as well.

Great post otjm. :yup:

 

[otjm]

I will certainly admit that I am not too sure if those who created the OF Mass were trying to do any particular thing with regard to the past. However, the OP made a point, and it seemed the central point, that the EF is outdated because the time it belonged to has gone. But, he praised the OF specifically because it tried to bring back the practices of the early Church, which would apparently mean that its time has not gone. This approach makes no sense, and certainly seems to be built on a contradiction. If each Mass belongs to its time, then there is no greater reason to try to recapture the Mass of Nicea than there is to retain that of Trent. The only difference between the two is that the former is 1200 years more gone than the latter.

To not make too fine a point of it, I do not necessarily agree with his position in its entirety…

 

[BSHoop96]

I agree with you 100%

Modern society is not religious because secular humanism has replaced all belief systems, including Catholicism.

I recently watched a documentary about the state of Orthodox Judaism in Britain. Most jews in my country are not religious or observant and this is causing big problems for the Jewish establishment; they are worried that the faith of the British Jews will perish in a few generations. To prevent this, many people have invested millions into programmes dedicated to the evangelization of young jews who have fallen away. They even pay people £20 to attend lectures on basic Judaism!

How does this relate to us? Well, it goes to show that all faiths are experiencing the same problems. It’s not just a Catholic problem. Faith seems to have vanished from the minds of all people. It would appear that all religions in Europe are declining.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. I just thought I’d share that.

Actually, I think it adds to the discussion appropriately. Although I do agree that things have gone way overboard in the “spirit of Vatican II”, I do not think you can attribute all the woes of the Catholic church to it.

 

[BSHoop96]

It really hasn’t. The Mass has always been about offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father, in continuity with the organically developed liturgical tradition of those who came before us.

Quite persuasive, Dauphin…I like this one.

 

[BSHoop96]

Frankly, back then (and to this day) it never made a lot of sense to me to have a Gospel reading which appeared to be tacked on to the end of Mass (and that does not say that I do not like John 1). It seems to me that the addition of Old Testament and Psalm readings to the Mass makes perfect sense. The use of vernacular in the Mass makes sense in its essence (I will leave to others to debate how much). I don’t see that we were on the path to get rid of things “Trent” and to bring in things of “antiquity”, so much as to look at the whole process over time to see if we have lost track of some things in the persuit, over time, of others. It is not that the “others” are wrong or invalid, or in need of discarding so much as a healthy look at what lies at the heart of the Church - the Mass.

There are those who obviously would throw out anything pre Vatican 2. There are just as obviously those who hold the form of the Mass pre Vatican 2 so sacrosanct as to take on the dimensions of doctrine what is only practice. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. That the OF needs serious work, I think no one who is intellectually honest would disagree with. But I also tire of those who in one breath damn with faint praise the documents of Vatican 2 as being so vague as to be borderline either irrelevant, heretical or both; and with the next breath seem to find the documental information so specific, commanding and letter perfect that they can condemn the OF as having almost nothing to do with the Council’s intent.

You guys are good!! There are so many good points being made on both sides that it’s making my head swim! This is a great discussion and nobody has even gotten a black eye yet.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Why the difference between the two geographic regions? Well, the newer Liturgy is certainly more stripped down. The new Liturgy is the Mass at its bare essentials. As such, specifically “European” elements have been partially removed. From an African point of view, this could be a great blessing, in that it provides a foundation for authentic incorporation of the liturgy into African culture. The genuflection, a specifically Western gesture, could eventually be dropped in favor of native gestures that invoke a sense of reverence and submission. For example, the kow-tow of many Asian cultures doesn’t really resemble the one-knee, European knightly genuflection, but it certainly does invoke a sense of submission and reverence. The new liturgy is sparse enough for this kind of proper inculturation. As a matter of fact, we ought to hope that one day, an African “Tridentine” Mass will develop, as African civilization becomes more and more refined due to the presence of the Truth on that continent.

But what about the West? It is evident that Westerners have approached the new Liturgy from a completely different, almost entirely erroneous, perspective. Westerners don’t see a seed Liturgy that can sprout into a new Rite or Rites. To the contrary, most of us belong to the timeless Latin Rite, and as such, have witnessed what has in the American Church amounted to a complete refutation of the Catholic faith. It has been expressed materially in the destruction of statues, of altar rails, etc. It has been expressed doctrinally in the giant, seemingly unassailable heterodox movements of the 20th Century. Most people in the pews don’t really recognize it, but among scholars, especially secular scholars, this “New Springtime” is seen as the end of the Church.

You have given us such a great post, with much to think on. May I offer a thought on just this one segment, having to do with expression of faith in the liturgy through gestures…?

It is all very true that our Latin rite has been filled with gestures that stem from the European customs of old, those of genuflection, etc., that gave the worshipper of those eras the sense of holy reverence and submission. And you have fairly stated that in cultures like those of Asia and Africa, adopting gestures that are more culturally impactful to them has been beneficial to them.

Might I ask if what we are in need of is the same here, especially in America, where we really are not any longer emotionally and culturally tied to the old European ways, and that in fact, most of us have a sort of knee jerk reaction to them, with historical and/or ancestral memories more in line with oppression and injustice than those of thanksgiving and reverence? Are these the types of thoughts, emotions and feelings we want to continue to bring forth through our liturgical gestures and expressions when our culture can find no positive reference point for them?

I’m not here to open a whole can of worms, and I’m sure there can be many arguments about the many holes in my theory I have left open begging for attack, but if you will just hear me out. I know that as an American, one who has not been steeped in the culture of old Europe, of Kings and Knighthood and all these things that are so inherently European, it is very foreign to me to adopt these gestures and have them mean to me what I think their original positive intentions were. To me they mean something completely different. And what they are is not endearing, engratiating or any such thing. It creates more of a barrier for me, a barrier to having that full understanding that I am to come before the throne with at once both humility and confidence, as a child of God, knowing I have forgiveness through the sacrifice being offered, through my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Somehow I think we have to strike a balance, find a way to bring about a liturgy that speaks to us all, that creates that wonder and awe in each of us positively, or else it has ceased to be a universal experience, and I do believe this is exactly what was the intent of Vatican II and the fruit of it will be seen if we all calm down and be patient, allow the Holy Spirit to finish what He has started. There is still work to be done, but it will be accomplished through patience and humility and love.

IMHO.

 

[BSHoop96]

So much to agree with in this post, but your thought expressed in the end that I have highlighted is one that has frustrated me as well.

Great post otjm. :yup:

There are those who obviously would throw out anything pre Vatican 2. There are just as obviously those who hold the form of the Mass pre Vatican 2 so sacrosanct as to take on the dimensions of doctrine what is only practice. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. That the OF needs serious work, I think no one who is intellectually honest would disagree with. But I also tire of those who in one breath damn with faint praise the documents of Vatican 2 as being so vague as to be borderline either irrelevant, heretical or both; and with the next breath seem to find the documental information so specific, commanding and letter perfect that they can condemn the OF as having almost nothing to do with the Council’s intent.

Just as an FYI. I am not as knowledgeable as the other posters on the deepers aspects of the Mass as changed by Vatican II, especially those who personally experienced it. When I speak of abuses I am talking more about rubrics of the Mass. Lay people doing the homily and/or reading the gospel, liturgical dance , too many lay people serving communion (as I think it was to help the priest when needed, not as a way to include the laity, laity purefying the vessals, things like that. I rather thought a lot of these things worked their way into the Mass in the so-called “spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Just as an FYI. I am not as knowledgeable as the other posters on the deepers aspects of the Mass as changed by Vatican II, especially those who personally experienced it. When I speak of abuses I am talking more about rubrics of the Mass. Lay people doing the homily and/or reading the gospel, liturgical dance , too many lay people serving communion (as I think it was to help the priest when needed, not as a way to include the laity, laity purefying the vessals, things like that. I rather thought a lot of these things worked their way into the Mass in the so-called “spirit of Vatican II”.

I think there is much agreement that abuses have happened because of both inappropriate understanding and inappropriate implementation, not because of the intention of the Council in the changes themselves.

Unfortunately, it is the intentions of the Council and all the popes surrounding the Council that are being attacked by many Traditionalists, and not properly the inappropriate implementations. These are the attitudes that are most unfortunate and are causing further damage to the Church, the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[BSHoop96]

Might I ask if what we are in need of is the same here, especially in America, where we really are not any longer emotionally and culturally tied to the old European ways, and that in fact, most of us have a sort of knee jerk reaction to them, with historical and/or ancestral memories more in line with oppression and injustice than those of thanksgiving and reverence? Are these the types of thoughts, emotions and feelings we want to continue to bring forth through our liturgical gestures and expressions when our culture can find no positive reference point for them?

I’m not here to open a whole can of worms, and I’m sure there can be many arguments about the many holes in my theory I have left open begging for attack, but if you will just hear me out. I know that as an American, one who has not been steeped in the culture of old Europe, of Kings and Knighthood and all these things that are so inherently European, it is very foreign to me to adopt these gestures and have them mean to me what I think their original positive intentions were. To me they mean something completely different. And what they are is not endearing, engratiating or any such thing. It creates more of a barrier for me, a barrier to having that full understanding that I am to come before the throne with at once both humility and confidence, as a child of God, knowing I have forgiveness through the sacrifice being offered, through my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Somehow I think we have to strike a balance, find a way to bring about a liturgy that speaks to us all, that creates that wonder and awe in each of us positively, or else it has ceased to be a universal experience, and I do believe this is exactly what was the intent of Vatican II and the fruit of it will be seen if we all calm down and be patient, allow the Holy Spirit to finish what He has started. There is still work to be done, but it will be accomplished through patience and humility and love.

IMHO.

I don’t quite understand this part. I mean I understand what you are saying…I don’t understand why.

I am against changing the rituals according to custom. I can see maybe where in Africa, for example, dance is more accepted in situations rather than there. But if we let all cultures pick their own gestures where do we stop? Pretty soon we won’t even recognize the Church around the world. And that’s smething that’s so wonderful about the Church…you should be able to recognize and participate anywhere you go albeit with subtle changes. But I can’t imagine the Church without genuflection and the sign of the cross. Or bowing during the Creed. It don’t think this is just European, kings, knighthood, etc. Plus plenty of people over the centuries were evangelized (correct term?) without changing things to suit their culture. I don’t mean to sound harsh…I’m a little touchy about this I admit. I will confess that changing the Church to suit everyone, rather than having people change for the Church is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t want to walk into a Church somebody and think I’m at a protestant service.

 

[BSHoop96]

Unfortunately, it is the intentions of the Council and all the popes surrounding the Council that are being attacked by many Traditionalists, and not properly the inappropriate implementations. These are the attitudes that are most unfortunate and are causing further damage to the Church, the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well said.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I don’t quite understand this part. I mean I understand what you are saying…I don’t understand why.

I am against changing the rituals according to custom. I can see maybe where in Africa, for example, dance is more accepted in situations rather than there. But if we let all cultures pick their own gestures where do we stop? Pretty soon we won’t even recognize the Church around the world. And that’s smething that’s so wonderful about the Church…you should be able to recognize and participate anywhere you go albeit with subtle changes. But I can’t imagine the Church without genuflection and the sign of the cross. Or bowing during the Creed. It don’t think this is just European, kings, knighthood, etc. Plus plenty of people over the centuries were evangelized (correct term?) without changing things to suit their culture. I don’t mean to sound harsh…I’m a little touchy about this I admit. I will confess that changing the Church to suit everyone, rather than having people change for the Church is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t want to walk into a Church somebody and think I’m at a protestant service.

I’m not for letting people change the Church to suit them, it’s not for me or any lay person to choose anything liturgical, or to say that my feelings should trump your feelings, or another’s feelings, but for the Holy Spirit, through the Church to decide when liturgy is in need of change, of growth.

I understand this is a pet peeve for many people. I now understand it is for you as well.

But likewise, there are many people who have feelings on the matter, not all of them are going to be the same as ours or our pet ones. Ultimately it is going to be up to the Holy Spirit guiding the Church as to whether any changes should be made and will, regardless of whose feelings need to come into submission.

I will do whatever They decide.

 

[BSHoop96]

I will do whatever They decide.

As will I.

Jeanette, I was still wondering about the comments you made about the gestures earlier (because I am terribly curious…maybe that’s nosy).

To me they mean something completely different. And what they are is not endearing, engratiating or any such thing

So I looked at your profile and see that you appear to be a convert from several years ago (belated congratulations btw). I noticed that you had been a lifelong evangelical. Do you think that has something to do with how uncomfortable you are with the gestures? My husband is converting from an Assembly of God background and I understand what a leap it is.
I’m just wondering if that has something to do with it. I will admit that I am uncomfortable in some protestant churches so I know it goes both ways.

 

[Jeanette_L]

As will I.

Jeanette, I was still wondering about the comments you made about the gestures earlier (because I am terribly curious…maybe that’s nosy).

To me they mean something completely different. And what they are is not endearing, engratiating or any such thing

So I looked at your profile and see that you appear to be a convert from several years ago (belated congratulations btw). I noticed that you had been a lifelong evangelical. Do you think that has something to do with how uncomfortable you are with the gestures? My husband is converting from an Assembly of God background and I understand what a leap it is.
I’m just wondering if that has something to do with it. I will admit that I am uncomfortable in some protestant churches so I know it goes both ways.

I think that it’s hard for someone who has been brought up in an atmosphere that is still saturated with the old European traditions to understand how completely foreign that is to someone who is so completely removed from it.

And our culture, as Americans, is completely removed from those types of gestures that are reminiscent of monarchs and the whole culture or court built up around them.

As Americans, we have been steeped in our own culture that is by it’s very nature opposed to the idea of monarchies and all their trappings. This is very hard to get past on a psychological level.

Now, having said that, I know there are many people who are completely unsympathetic to what myself or anyone not having been inculcated in this way of life might feel about it, but I’m thinking that the Church, or the Spirit may be more aware that the culture here, as in many parts of the world, is not the same as the old European one that the TLM was so comfortable in.

Does that make sense?

And don’t think that I am not still in awe, everytime I participate in the Mass, and I do what I know I am to do, in all the gestures and all that our worship entails, but to say that I am completely at ease or that I don’t struggle with the underlying psychological things that come into my mind as I go through them would be untruthful. And this is a problem for many, many, many converts. And yes, I am aware that the Church does not change to accomodate converts.

 

[catharina]

I think that it’s hard for someone who has been brought up in an atmosphere that is still saturated with the old European traditions to understand how completely foreign that is to someone who is so completely removed from it.

And our culture, as Americans, is completely removed from those types of gestures that are reminiscent of monarchs and the whole culture or court built up around them.

As Americans, we have been steeped in our own culture that is by it’s very nature opposed to the idea of monarchies and all their trappings. This is very hard to get past on a psychological level.

Now, having said that, I know there are many people who are completely unsympathetic to what myself or anyone not having been inculcated in this way of life might feel about it, but I’m thinking that the Church, or the Spirit may be more aware that the culture here, as in many parts of the world, is not the same as the old European one that the TLM was so comfortable in.

Does that make sense?

And don’t think that I am not still in awe, everytime I participate in the Mass, and I do what I know I am to do, in all the gestures and all that our worship entails, but to say that I am completely at ease or that I don’t struggle with the underlying psychological things that come into my mind as I go through them would be untruthful. And this is a problem for many, many, many converts. And yes, I am aware that the Church does not change to accomodate converts.

Beautiful post, Jeanette, and very helpful by way of explanation. Thanks.

 

[BSHoop96]

I think that it’s hard for someone who has been brought up in an atmosphere that is still saturated with the old European traditions to understand how completely foreign that is to someone who is so completely removed from it.

And our culture, as Americans, is completely removed from those types of gestures that are reminiscent of monarchs and the whole culture or court built up around them.

As Americans, we have been steeped in our own culture that is by it’s very nature opposed to the idea of monarchies and all their trappings. This is very hard to get past on a psychological level.

Now, having said that, I know there are many people who are completely unsympathetic to what myself or anyone not having been inculcated in this way of life might feel about it, but I’m thinking that the Church, or the Spirit may be more aware that the culture here, as in many parts of the world, is not the same as the old European one that the TLM was so comfortable in.

Does that make sense?

And don’t think that I am not still in awe, everytime I participate in the Mass, and I do what I know I am to do, in all the gestures and all that our worship entails, but to say that I am completely at ease or that I don’t struggle with the underlying psychological things that come into my mind as I go through them would be untruthful. And this is a problem for many, many, many converts. And yes, I am aware that the Church does not change to accomodate converts.

Actually, I’m a convert myself. Many years for me.

I guess it’s just varies from person to person. The first time I took my husband to Mass with me it was like he was home. He absolutely loved it. Loved the rituals, loved the gestures, loved the reverence. Now there were a few things he had to study of course to clear up in his mind…finding out that the things he had been taught about Catholicism were not true, but lucky for him, the rituals/gestures he loved. So now it’s on to RCIA for him.

Yes, I do understand what you’re saying. I just never had a problem with it as I never connected it to European courts or monarchs. Strangely enough I’ve studied European history for years (mostly British). I just always connected it to the “King of kings” if I may put it that way. Thank you for answering and I hope that you will become more comfortable as time goes on.

 

[catharina]

Actually, I’m a convert myself. Many years for me.

I guess it’s just varies from person to person. The first time I took my husband to Mass with me it was like he was home. He absolutely loved it. Loved the rituals, loved the gestures, loved the reverence. Now there were a few things he had to study of course to clear up in his mind…finding out that the things he had been taught about Catholicism were not true, but lucky for him, the rituals/gestures he loved. So now it’s on to RCIA for him.

Yes, I do understand what you’re saying. I just never had a problem with it as I never connected it to European courts or monarchs. Strangely enough I’ve studied European history for years (mostly British). I just always connected it to the “King of kings” if I may put it that way. Thank you for answering and I hope that you will become more comfortable as time goes on.

Very sweet about your husband’s immediate comfort level.
Thanks for posting it.