People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[ethelzguy]

IYes, like the “Hail Mary”. But that’s neither here nor there, so I don’t know why you’ve brought that up.

I point to the Hail Mary, as it is probably the most well known “Catholic” prayer. It is pulled straight from scripture, as are some prayers used in the Mass.

That being said, I don’t understand why a “traditional” Catholic would find fault with a Kyrie prayer that was “taken from scripture” (your words).

Or, is it just that it is “new / Vatican II” that doesn’t sit well?

 

[Freshman88]

NONE of your religion teachers in TWELVE years believed the Catholic faith?

The Ontario Catholic School board. That’s all that needs to be said.

Though my school did have Catholic teachers, Catholicism was not taught. Although I did learn a lot about Buddhism, and visited many non-Catholic religious sites. It was a grand ol’ time.

 

[japhy]

I point to the Hail Mary, as it is probably the most well known “Catholic” prayer. It is pulled straight from scripture, as are some prayers used in the Mass.

“Right” you are.

That being said, I don’t understand why a “traditional” Catholic would find fault with a Kyrie prayer that was “taken from scripture” (your words). Or, is it just that it is “new / Vatican II” that doesn’t sit well?

It’s the fact that the Penitential Rite was reformed and modified when it doesn’t appear the good of the Church required it. (And like I said, the English translation of Penitential Rite B mangles the Latin, so we’re not even getting to say what we’re supposed to say!) If you think I’m opposed to Vatican II, you’re mistaken; I would just like to see Sacrosanctum Concilium re-applied to the 1962 liturgy in a way that is consonant with the traditional Roman Rite.

With Penitential Rite B, the problem is not its origin (which is Scripture, which is good!) but its pure innovation and insertion into the Roman Rite. It didn’t develop from anywhere that I know of, it was just written up and inserted into the Mass.

I am not opposed to the sign of peace (although its location in the liturgy isn’t ideal) or the prayer of the faithful or even the Responsorial Psalm; those aren’t inventions (they developed organically) nor innovations (they simply fell out of use in the Roman Rite, but one could argue that this was a loss), and the good of the Church from these parts of the liturgy is evident (to me, at least). But truncating a 650-year old Confiteor that was codified into the Roman Rite by Pius V, truncating the Kyrie (who knows how old?), and then throwing a wrench in the works by making the Penitential Rite a choice of three, leading to a virtual absence of the Confiteor? I fail to see how this was done for the good of the Church. Maybe you could offer an explanation.

Perhaps I could find another example from a more personal realm. For instance, do you say a blessing over your meals before you eat? If so, would you mind sharing it?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The Ontario Catholic School board. That’s all that needs to be said.

Though my school did have Catholic teachers, Catholicism was not taught. Although I did learn a lot about Buddhism, and visited many non-Catholic religious sites. It was a grand ol’ time.

I have heard much about things such as this from other people on tours that were from Canada. I was once leading a tour to Italy and the priest was from Canada. He really had me worrying about the state of the Church in Canada from the way he talked. This man would have been a full fledged Democrat in favor of all o all five on the non negotiables. How did it get that way with our neighbors to the north, most especially with the clergy. I know not all are like this, but those that are can do irreparable damage. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Perhaps I could find another example from a more personal realm. For instance, do you say a blessing over your meals before you eat? If so, would you mind sharing it?

If I’m alone, it’s “thank you Lord for the food amen”…short and to the point…if it’s a group or crowd, it’s the ubiquitous “Bless us O Lord, and these thy gifts…” (The other most commonly known “Catholic” prayer after the Hail Mary)

 

[japhy]

If I’m alone, it’s “thank you Lord for the food amen”…short and to the point…if it’s a group or crowd, it’s the ubiquitous “Bless us O Lord, and these thy gifts…” (The other most commonly known “Catholic” prayer after the Hail Mary)

(Why are you putting Catholic in quotes? I don’t get it…)

I pray “Bless us, O Lord, …” as well. Have you ever stopped to think about the words of that blessing? Isn’t it a little wordy? “Bless us, O Lord, and these, thy gifts, which we are about to receive from thy bounty.” Of course we’re talking about the food we’re about to receive! Why don’t we just say “Lord, bless us and this food”? I’d call that a needless (and damaging) truncation and modification of a traditional prayer of blessing. You might even end up removing the request for the Lord to bless us and the food, and just end up saying “thanks” instead, and then it’s not a “blessing” at all.

 

[ethelzguy]

(Why are you putting Catholic in quotes? I don’t get it…)

I pray “Bless us, O Lord, …” as well. Have you ever stopped to think about the words of that blessing? Isn’t it a little wordy? “Bless us, O Lord, and these, thy gifts, which we are about to receive from thy bounty.” Of course we’re talking about the food we’re about to receive! Why don’t we just say “Lord, bless us and this food”? I’d call that a needless (and damaging) truncation and modification of a traditional prayer of blessing. You might even end up removing the request for the Lord to bless us and the food, and just end up saying “thanks” instead, and then it’s not a “blessing” at all.

Yep, it IS wordy. But when I “wing it” and make up my own prayer, I’m usually concerned with being thankful, moreso than requesting blessing of the food. Other times, I/we thank him for the food and ask him to ‘bless it to the nourishment of our bodies’.

Lots of latitude there, but then again, it’s not Mass…

 

[ethelzguy]

(Why are you putting Catholic in quotes? I don’t get it…)

Because, while said prayer is generally considered Catholic, I am not certain that other denominations (or non-denominationals) don’t use it as well.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

I point to the Hail Mary, as it is probably the most well known “Catholic” prayer. It is pulled straight from scripture, as are some prayers used in the Mass.

That being said, I don’t understand why a “traditional” Catholic would find fault with a Kyrie prayer that was “taken from scripture” (your words).

Or, is it just that it is “new / Vatican II” that doesn’t sit well?

My beef with non-traditional penitential rites has nothing to do with the fact that they are scripturally based; rather, it is because they are inorganic and non-traditional.

However, if my only options for Mass was the least traditional licit Mass possible, and an illicit traditional Mass, I would attend the licit Mass. However, in my area, the only licit Masses are traditional (at the non-traditional Masses, there are many liturgical abuses ).

 

[Cat]

Oh, how I wish that were true.

Now, to be fair to Dauphin’s catechists, I have nearly torn my hair out during reviews with my own students about what they got out of the lessons previously taught. It makes you wonder what planet they were on. This isn’t just religion classes. This is people taking chemistry courses they need to get into their chosen profession. So I’ll recognize that Dauphin’s memory may be somewhat less than 100% accurate. That would be the rule for most of us, in my experience…and as a whole, my students did pretty much the same on standard exams as students in all the other classes. It wasn’t just me.

It is possible, however, for a Catholic to attend Mass every week during their entire childhood and then have some Protestant convince them that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach this or doesn’t teach that, when it is right there in the Mass. The priest can say “This is My Body” and immediately genuflect to the Eucharist for year after year after year, and the kids don’t get it.

The Baltimore Catechism, as stilted as it is, hits you over the head with a 2x4 as to what the basic facts of the faith are. You cannot escape them. With clear catechesis as to what the Mass means, the Novus Ordo absolutely does match ritual and prayer to reality. The emphasis is different than the EF, but the whole reality–sacrifice offered for sins, the wedding feast of the Lamb, True Presence, the “sending out”–are all there in both forms.

There are a lot of people, however, who got the faith as the educational equivalent of a barrage of cotton balls. The difficult truths of life, such as sin and its wages, were soft-pedalled. As a result, the glorious truths of life–the gracious and necessary Sacrifice of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the tremendous gifts of Eucharis and Reconcilliation, among others–lose their impact, as well.

Someone may have told Dauphin many, many times what the NO meant, but if Dauphin says it didn’t sink in, I can totally believe that.

It occurred to me as I read this interesting post that the same thing happens in Protestant churches all the time.

I know so many Protestants who have no idea what they believe, even though they appear to have their act together spiritually. They have “accepted Jesus into their hearts,” and that’s all they know. The term “systematic theology” means nothing to them. Although they speak of the Bible as their sole guide to God, they have never actually read it through, let alone studied the entire Bible. They’ve never done a study of the doctrine of their sect or of any Protestant sect. Many have never even read through one of the great creeds (Apostles, Nicene, etc.)

Some of this is due to bad teaching. Back in the late 1960s many Protestant churches stopped teaching “doctrine” and “Bible” to their people and started teaching “needs-based lessons.” Studies of music, dating, sex, movies, marriage, parenting, financial accountability, physical fitness, etc. replaced studies of the history of the Jewish people, the Proverbs, the New Testament survey, the Christian doctrines, etc.

But some of the “ignorance” is simply due to a lack of readiness of the person to receive the Gospel. They may have sat under gifted teachers, but the message flew right over their heads and they got nothing out of it.

I believe that the Holy Spirit will convict in HIS own time.

I think this same thing happens in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics have absolutely no clue about Catholicism and religion, even if the catechesis is excellent and the teachers are committed, fervent Catholics.

Then “something” happens, and these lackabouts become alive to what they believe in, and excited about their Church and their Lord. I’ve heard many Catholics give testimonies along these lines, including elderly Catholics who spent their whole lives just going through the motions until one day, the light came on and they understood what they believe as Catholics and why they believe it. I’ve also heard lots of young parents testify that they never understand the teachings of the Catholic Church until they had their own children, and THEN they started studying and understanding.

My point is that we sometimes have to wait upon the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, and not blame poor catechesis for our lack of understanding.

 

[GemmaRose]

… I think this same thing happens in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics have absolutely no clue about Catholicism and religion, even if the catechesis is excellent and the teachers are committed, fervent Catholics.

Then “something” happens, and these lackabouts become alive to what they believe in, and excited about their Church and their Lord. I’ve heard many Catholics give testimonies along these lines, including elderly Catholics who spent their whole lives just going through the motions until one day, the light came on and they understood what they believe as Catholics and why they believe it. I’ve also heard lots of young parents testify that they never understand the teachings of the Catholic Church until they had their own children, and THEN they started studying and understanding.

My point is that we sometimes have to wait upon the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, and not blame poor catechesis for our lack of understanding.

Since I’m cradle Catholic, I could be wrong about this, but this experience of “something” happening is more or less what a Protestant would call “born again.”

You can know all the prayers and all the rules… but that’s not faith - that’s religion. Faith is when that “something” happens.

I had 12 years of Catholic schooling, with nuns and the Baltimore Catechism (the “old days” ). I knew all the rules, and I was “clueless” how it all related to the free and unmerited gift of faith which I had in my heart. So far did I see the “head knowledge” from the faith in my heart, I stopped going to church – nothing… nada – from 7th to 12th grades. I never lost faith, I just didn’t see it in the Church.

When I was 15, I was “whacked in the head by God,” which got my attention, and then it took another two years before I was ready to return to Church and the Sacraments. This was in the early 70’s and when I returned, I returned “gung ho” - daily Mass, frequent Confession, involvement in parish life, etc.

These were the days of “Kumbaya” and “Blowin’ in the Wind,” dialogue homilies, teens gathered around the altar, self-reception of the Eucharist with plate passing… everyone around my age will remember these things. This was that famous pendulum swing which I think is only now starting to settle towards the center.

Why did the Church experience all the experiments and abuses of the 70’s? I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It’s how I came back. Good, bad or indifferent, the Lord used it - on me, on others I knew, and I’m sure on many others I don’t know.

He can use anything He wants to further His plan and goal: our salvation. Who knows how He may be using even the recent excommunication of those women “priests”? Maybe it will knock enough sense in them to repent and return to the flock… we don’t know and should not judge.

Jesus prayed, as His “Last Will and Testament,” as it were, that we would be one. His Body is not only now fractured into 30,000-40,000 denominations of Christians, but His One True Church is becoming divided. Let us all seriously look inside of ourselves and obey His command, His request, His wish: May we be ONE.

 

[Cat]

Since I’m cradle Catholic, I could be wrong about this, but this experience of “something” happening is more or less what a Protestant would call “born again.”

You can know all the prayers and all the rules… but that’s not faith - that’s religion. Faith is when that “something” happens.

I had 12 years of Catholic schooling, with nuns and the Baltimore Catechism (the “old days” ). I knew all the rules, and I was “clueless” how it all related to the free and unmerited gift of faith which I had in my heart. So far did I see the “head knowledge” from the faith in my heart, I stopped going to church – nothing… nada – from 7th to 12th grades. I never lost faith, I just didn’t see it in the Church.

When I was 15, I was “whacked in the head by God,” which got my attention, and then it took another two years before I was ready to return to Church and the Sacraments. This was in the early 70’s and when I returned, I returned “gung ho” - daily Mass, frequent Confession, involvement in parish life, etc.

These were the days of “Kumbaya” and “Blowin’ in the Wind,” dialogue homilies, teens gathered around the altar, self-reception of the Eucharist with plate passing… everyone around my age will remember these things. This was that famous pendulum swing which I think is only now starting to settle towards the center.

Why did the Church experience all the experiments and abuses of the 70’s? I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It’s how I came back. Good, bad or indifferent, the Lord used it - on me, on others I knew, and I’m sure on many others I don’t know.

He can use anything He wants to further His plan and goal: our salvation. Who knows how He may be using even the recent excommunication of those women “priests”? Maybe it will knock enough sense in them to repent and return to the flock… we don’t know and should not judge.

Jesus prayed, as His “Last Will and Testament,” as it were, that we would be one. His Body is not only now fractured into 30,000-40,000 denominations of Christians, but His One True Church is becoming divided. Let us all seriously look inside of ourselves and obey His command, His request, His wish: May we be ONE.

What a wonderful testimony and what wisdom! Surely God’s ways are not our ways.

We used to sing a song when I was a child–“God can do anything, God is great, God can do anything.” So simple and yet so profound.

Man can not confound God!

 

[Dies_Irae]

…So far did I see the “head knowledge” from the faith in my heart, I stopped going to church – nothing… nada – from 7th to 12th grades. I never lost faith, I just didn’t see it in the Church…

Not to get too personal, but this was okay with your folks? I can see struggling to get a junior or a senior in high school to church, but you’re talking 7th and 8th grade here.

I’d say, getting all head knowledge without the heart is dangerous because you just might be going through the motions luke warm.

But also dangerous is getting all “heart” with no head knowledge…too easy to get led astray that way.

I’m not sure which of the two would be worse. But put 'em both together - now we’re talking.

 

[GemmaRose]

Not to get too personal, but this was okay with your folks? I can see struggling to get a junior or a senior in high school to church, but you’re talking 7th and 8th grade here.
**My family was NOT religious. Not only did my father not go to church, I don’t think he ever had received a Sacrament after Baptism. Things were different back then. My parents had me very late in life. My father was born in 1898 and had to leave school in 2nd or 3rd grade to work in his family’s business. He was totally unchurched. (Thank God, in the hospital a few days before he died, he agreed to see a priest and received Extreme Unction. ) My father never said why he never went to church and would only say that if he ever did, “the ceiling would fall” on him.

The only reason my mother went to church on Sunday was because from grades 1 through 6, all the children in those grades went to Mass in the upstairs church and the adults went to Mass in the downstairs church. You sat with your class and if you weren’t there, you know you had to have had a very good explanation for Sister the next morning. Being too young to walk there alone, my mother had to go.

There were “secrets” that I never knew totally (if you come from an Italian family, you’ll understand), but as far as I’ve been able to gather, my mother had an early marriage (@1924-@1929) that ended in divorce. I don’t think there even were annulments back then. She then had a marriage which lasted until the death of her husband in 1954. I doubt that marriage could have taken place in church. After that, she married my father, and I’m kind of sure that wasn’t in church either. I can only assume that when she divorced, she stopped going to church, so when I stopped going, it was no big deal to either of them. (Again, thank God, before she died, she also received Extreme Unction.)**

I’d say, getting all head knowledge without the heart is dangerous because you just might be going through the motions luke warm.
That’s exactly what was happening. I had head knowledge and was going through the motions luke warm, but I did have a deep faith in my heart that I can only attribute to a total, free, gift, because I wasn’t getting it at home.

But also dangerous is getting all “heart” with no head knowledge…too easy to get led astray that way.

I’m not sure which of the two would be worse. But put 'em both together - now we’re talking.
**So when He whacked me over the head and grabbed my heart, I did have the head knowledge to fall back on. Isn’t God great? **

 

[elt1956]

Yeah… if you want good liturgy, you’re just a pharisee.

This is the kind of defensiveness that undermines all good intentions. I too have often thought of the attention to outward appearance the Pharisees gave when judging the actions of others. And I have judged many so called Traditional Catholics, as being at the same level of piety as those Pharisees. I have thought this, because “some” Catholics who call themselves Traditional "appeared "to me to be following those same thought and belief patterns. They “appeared” to me to be more concerned with the outward, superficial appearances of the “law” rather than internal faith. I did not at first see their calls for a return to what we once had, an anchor in the Church and in society.

Now that I have been around many forums on CAF, I am beginning to see that the basis of their concern is in what they “perceive” to be the lack of reverence in some Catholics who prefer the NO to the TLM. What we observe in many parishes as irreverence toward the Mass, especially the NO which is the predominant structure of Mass these days, is truly a change in the attitude of many who are attending, or conducting those Masses, especially those raised in the atmosphere prevalent in the world after Vatican II. I think we need to look at this irreverence which we “think” we see in the light of historical events. We need to understand that irreverence and disrespect are the opposite to what we pre-Vatican II Catholics were taught to observe. We need to remember the liberal structure of society which in the 60s began turning 180 degrees away from what we adults thought and believed when we were children and young adults. Everything broke loose. The sexual revolution, feminism, the break down of the family, abortion… on and on. There are no longer many people in the mainstream of society who believe in absolutes. Today, all decisions are made under the auspices of relativism. Those of us who were privately assured and confident that all would remain the same in society , that all of us would be able to continue in living in innocence, (who expected our world to change?.) need to understand that those we consider to be those “lost people” do not have the security which we enjoyed so many years ago. We knew what to expect, we implicitly felt in our gut that we knew what was right or wrong, because society as a whole embraced the same beliefs and moral system. People now daily struggle with the torment of which way to go, this way, that way, which is the right, wrong way? There are no anchors in society today and many believe we no longer have an anchor in the Roman Catholic Church because of these changes in society. But looking closely, what has changed at the core of our beliefs? Certainly those priests and leaders of the Church who have become more dependent on the views of others and act accordingly, have not changed The Church. Certainly the irreverence, lack of discipline, loss of respect for others by many of the younger generation have not changed The Church.

 

[elt1956]

This is the kind of defensiveness that undermines all good intentions. I too have often thought of the attention to outward appearance the Pharisees gave when judging the actions of others. And I have judged many so called Traditional Catholics, as being at the same level of piety as those Pharisees. I have thought this, because “some” Catholics who call themselves Traditional "appeared "to me to be following those same thought and belief patterns. They “appeared” to me to be more concerned with the outward, superficial appearances of the “law” rather than internal faith. I did not at first see their calls for a return to what we once had, an anchor in society.

Now that I have been around many forums on CAF, I am beginning to see that the basis of their concern is in what they “perceive” to be the lack of outward reverence in some Catholics who attend the NO Mass in comparison with the reverence “perceived” as being practiced by those attending the TLM form of the Mass and which to them, brooks no comparison. What we observe in many parishes as irreverence toward the Mass, especially the NO which is the predominant structure of Mass these days, is truly a change in the attitude of many who are attending, or conducting those Masses, especially those raised in the atmosphere prevalent in the world after Vatican II. I think we need to look at this irreverence which we “think” we see in the light of historical events. We need to understand that irreverence and disrespect are the opposite to what we pre-Vatican II Catholics were taught to observe. We need to remember the liberal structure of society which in the 60s began turning 180 degrees away from what we adults thought and believed when we were children and young adults. Everything broke loose. The sexual revolution, feminism, the break down of the family, abortion… on and on. There are no longer many people in the mainstream of society who believe in absolutes. Today, all decisions are made under the auspices of relativism. Those of us who were privately assured and confident that all would remain the same in society , that all of us would be able to continue in living in innocence, (who expected our world to change?.) need to understand that those considered to be those “lost people” do not have the security which we enjoyed so many years ago. We knew what to expect, we implicitly felt in our gut that we knew what was right or wrong, because society as a whole embraced the same beliefs and moral system. People now daily struggle with the torment of which way to go, this way, that way, which is the right, wrong way? There are no anchors in society today and many believe we no longer have an anchor in the Roman Catholic Church because of these changes in society. But looking closely, what has changed at the core of our beliefs? Certainly those priests and leaders of the Church who have become more dependent on the views of others and act accordingly, have not changed The Church. Certainly the irreverence, lack of discipline, loss of respect for the Church by many has not changed The Church. When we really look at the Church today, nothing has changed in doctrine, or dogma. There have been new understandings, enlightenment by the Holy Spirit of some beliefs, but still no change in the core beliefs. If there are changes within the church which are fundamentally wrong ,Christ could not have proclaimed that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. And we all know and believe He was “fundamentally” right, don’t we?

 

[elt1956]

Originally Posted by Dauphin
Yeah… if you want good liturgy, you’re just a pharisee

This is the kind of defensiveness that undermines all good intentions. I too have often thought of the attention to outward appearance the Pharisees gave when judging the actions of others. And I have judged many so called Traditional Catholics, as being at the same level of piety as those Pharisees. I have thought this, because “some” Catholics who call themselves Traditional "appeared "to me to be following those same thought and belief patterns. They “appeared” to me to be more concerned with the outward, superficial appearances of the “law” rather than internal faith. I did not at first see their calls for a return to what we once had, an anchor in the Church and in society.

Now that I have been around many forums on CAF, I am beginning to see that the basis of their concern is in what they “perceive” to be the lack of reverence in some Catholics who prefer the NO to the TLM. What we observe in many parishes as irreverence toward the Mass, especially the NO which is the predominant structure of Mass these days, is truly a change in the attitude of many who are attending, or conducting those Masses, especially those raised in the atmosphere prevalent in the world after Vatican II. I think we need to look at this irreverence which we “think” we see in the light of historical events. We need to understand that irreverence and disrespect are the opposite to what we pre-Vatican II Catholics were taught to observe. We need to remember the liberal structure of society which in the 60s began turning 180 degrees away from what we adults thought and believed when we were children and young adults. Everything broke loose. The sexual revolution, feminism, the break down of the family, abortion… on and on. There are no longer many people in the mainstream of society who believe in absolutes. Today, all decisions are made under the auspices of relativism. Those of us who were privately assured and confident that all would remain the same in society , that all of us would be able to continue in living in innocence, (who expected our world to change?.) need to understand that those we consider to be those “lost people” do not have the security which we enjoyed so many years ago. We knew what to expect, we implicitly felt in our gut that we knew what was right or wrong, because society as a whole embraced the same beliefs and moral system. People now daily struggle with the torment of which way to go, this way, that way, which is the right, wrong way? There are no anchors in society today and many believe we no longer have an anchor in the Roman Catholic Church because of these changes in society. But looking closely, what has changed at the core of our beliefs? Certainly those priests and leaders of the Church who have become more dependent on the views of others and act accordingly, have not changed The Church. Certainly the irreverence, lack of discipline, loss of respect for others by many of the younger generation have not changed The Church.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Since I’m cradle Catholic, I could be wrong about this, but this experience of “something” happening is more or less what a Protestant would call “born again.”

You can know all the prayers and all the rules… but that’s not faith - that’s religion. Faith is when that “something” happens.

I had 12 years of Catholic schooling, with nuns and the Baltimore Catechism (the “old days” ). I knew all the rules, and I was “clueless” how it all related to the free and unmerited gift of faith which I had in my heart. So far did I see the “head knowledge” from the faith in my heart, I stopped going to church – nothing… nada – from 7th to 12th grades. I never lost faith, I just didn’t see it in the Church.

When I was 15, I was “whacked in the head by God,” which got my attention, and then it took another two years before I was ready to return to Church and the Sacraments. This was in the early 70’s and when I returned, I returned “gung ho” - daily Mass, frequent Confession, involvement in parish life, etc.

These were the days of “Kumbaya” and “Blowin’ in the Wind,” dialogue homilies, teens gathered around the altar, self-reception of the Eucharist with plate passing… everyone around my age will remember these things. This was that famous pendulum swing which I think is only now starting to settle towards the center.

Why did the Church experience all the experiments and abuses of the 70’s? I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It’s how I came back. Good, bad or indifferent, the Lord used it - on me, on others I knew, and I’m sure on many others I don’t know.

He can use anything He wants to further His plan and goal: our salvation. Who knows how He may be using even the recent excommunication of those women “priests”? Maybe it will knock enough sense in them to repent and return to the flock… we don’t know and should not judge.

Jesus prayed, as His “Last Will and Testament,” as it were, that we would be one. His Body is not only now fractured into 30,000-40,000 denominations of Christians, but His One True Church is becoming divided. Let us all seriously look inside of ourselves and obey His command, His request, His wish: May we be ONE.

This is a really good post. I’m glad that you shared it.

However, I’d just like to share my own experience, just to contribute to this dialogue. This isn’t directed at you personally, but at “anti-traditional” sentiments. I’m just using your post as a launching pad, because I think it’s pertinent to my own experience.

For me personally, my own story resembles yours a great deal, with the exception that I converted, and that I felt alienated from faith in the new Mass and finally had it “written on my heart” in the Tridentine Mass.

I feel like that is the case with a lot of young people. The so-called “New Mass,” is well, “Old.” It’s dated. The hymns are dated. They have this “70s” feel to them that embarrass and distract me. To be honest, it doesn’t really foster a big sense of Catholic identity for me and doesn’t build my faith. The clapping, casualness, etc., really alienates me. I know a lot of people think that is unfortunate, but…

I feel like we’re faced with a quandary. To “update” the Mass and make it more accessible to my own experience would, well, make it a sacrilege, because sacrilege is what I’ve pretty much known all my life. No offense, but I can’t stand Marty Haugen’s hymns. They are so lame. What are we going to do? Bring in speedmetal and gangsta rap? Are we going to refer to each other as “dudes”? That’s not possible.

I don’t mind the Latin, because I can just look it up online. A couple hours on the computer and you can follow anything! I like the reverence and mysticism, because it takes me out of the world that I have to deal with daily, in which I am apparently the only one of my peers looking to save his own soul instead of enjoying himself to the fullest.

The traditional Mass doesn’t just require obedience, it commands it. It builds a bridge to history, to faith, to the Catholic culture, which is the most sublime part of humanity’s experience. How can I not support it in every way?

I don’t wanna knock anyone. Somehow, the Novus Ordo has produced a number of pious Catholics. It blows my mind, though, that this is the case.

It’s so hard to be Catholic. It really is. We never talk about this much, but I mean, I have to actually tell people about Transubstantiation. And while I see it as the most wonderful thing there is, people constantly call me a nut, a “cuckoo” or whatever other insult.

When these naysayers are in my face, I always show them videos of the traditional Mass. Why? Because of its integrity, because of its undeniable beauty, because of its holiness, because of its Latin, because of the rubrics, the prayers, the saints it produced, and the culture.

With all that said, I have to be honest. I’m sympathetic to the SSPX. Lefebvre did some heroic actions (so did John Paul II) which kept the traditional Mass alive. The traditional Mass is a bulwark against the horrors of secularism. As for doctrine, I don’t know much, but I do know that the Magisterium has a habit of working things out for the best.

No one is trying to take the Novus Ordo away from anyone. Bring back the Tridentine Mass to every parish, and we’ll be eating catfish on Lenten Fridays together.

This post wasn’t directed at any particular person, and feel free to contradict me.

 

[LilyM]

This is a really good post. I’m glad that you shared it.

However, I’d just like to share my own experience, just to contribute to this dialogue. This isn’t directed at you personally, but at “anti-traditional” sentiments. I’m just using your post as a launching pad, because I think it’s pertinent to my own experience.

For me personally, my own story resembles yours a great deal, with the exception that I converted, and that I felt alienated from faith in the new Mass and finally had it “written on my heart” in the Tridentine Mass.

I feel like that is the case with a lot of young people. The so-called “New Mass,” is well, “Old.” It’s dated. The hymns are dated. They have this “70s” feel to them that embarrass and distract me. To be honest, it doesn’t really foster a big sense of Catholic identity for me and doesn’t build my faith. The clapping, casualness, etc., really alienates me. I know a lot of people think that is unfortunate, but…

I feel like we’re faced with a quandary. To “update” the Mass and make it more accessible to my own experience would, well, make it a sacrilege, because sacrilege is what I’ve pretty much known all my life. No offense, but I can’t stand Marty Haugen’s hymns. They are so lame. What are we going to do? Bring in speedmetal and gangsta rap? Are we going to refer to each other as “dudes”? That’s not possible.

I don’t mind the Latin, because I can just look it up online. A couple hours on the computer and you can follow anything! I like the reverence and mysticism, because it takes me out of the world that I have to deal with daily, in which I am apparently the only one of my peers looking to save his own soul instead of enjoying himself to the fullest.

The traditional Mass doesn’t just require obedience, it commands it. It builds a bridge to history, to faith, to the Catholic culture, which is the most sublime part of humanity’s experience. How can I not support it in every way?

I don’t wanna knock anyone. Somehow, the Novus Ordo has produced a number of pious Catholics. It blows my mind, though, that this is the case.

It’s so hard to be Catholic. It really is. We never talk about this much, but I mean, I have to actually tell people about Transubstantiation. And while I see it as the most wonderful thing there is, people constantly call me a nut, a “cuckoo” or whatever other insult.

When these naysayers are in my face, I always show them videos of the traditional Mass. Why? Because of its integrity, because of its undeniable beauty, because of its holiness, because of its Latin, because of the rubrics, the prayers, the saints it produced, and the culture.

With all that said, I have to be honest. I’m sympathetic to the SSPX. Lefebvre did some heroic actions (so did John Paul II) which kept the traditional Mass alive. The traditional Mass is a bulwark against the horrors of secularism. As for doctrine, I don’t know much, but I do know that the Magisterium has a habit of working things out for the best.

No one is trying to take the Novus Ordo away from anyone. Bring back the Tridentine Mass to every parish, and we’ll be eating catfish on Lenten Fridays together.

This post wasn’t directed at any particular person, and feel free to contradict me.

Undeniable beauty? That’s a bit rich.

Where you see beauty others (and I’m not talking of my own experience here, although I don’t prefer the EF to a decently done OF) can and will see extravagance, pride, pomposity, needless and empty ornamentation, repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and deathly dullness … none of which is beautiful.

More importantly, they will see nothing they can relate to, nothing which moves them or draws them in in any way, nothing that reveals God to them. In short nothing they can even begin grasp or understand, just a ritual that seems purpose-built to baffle, mystify and totally exclude.

Again, I’m not expressing my own opinions here, it’s what some Catholics I know who have plenty of experience of both the EF and the OF - as well as some non-Catholics who’ve experienced it - have had to say about it to me.

Not to mention it’s a form of the Mass which has actually driven people AWAY from the Church - the reformers of the 16th century among them - and INTO that secularism that you seem to think the TLM prevents.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Undeniable beauty? That’s a bit rich.

Where you see beauty others (and I’m not talking of my own experience here, although I don’t prefer the EF to a decently done OF) can and will see extravagance, pride, pomposity, needless and empty ornamentation, repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and deathly dullness … none of which is beautiful.

More importantly, they will see nothing they can relate to, nothing which moves them or draws them in in any way, nothing that reveals God to them. In short nothing they can even begin grasp or understand, just a ritual that seems purpose-built to baffle, mystify and totally exclude.

Again, I’m not expressing my own opinions here, it’s what some Catholics I know who have plenty of experience of both the EF and the OF - as well as some non-Catholics who’ve experienced it - have had to say about it to me.

Not to mention it’s a form of the Mass which has actually driven people AWAY from the Church - the reformers of the 16th century among them - and INTO that secularism that you seem to think the TLM prevents.

Well… Damn!

Pomposity, Pride, Extravagance… Really? Reformers? Is the EF Satanic to you?

I don’t know how to address this post. To me, well, the beauty’s undeniable. Maybe we run in different circles. Pax.