Rebutting the charge of 'the angry Catholic traditionalist'

[marthaferretti]

One frequently hears the charge from ‘conservative’ Catholics that ‘traditional’ Catholics are angry, Pharisees, rad trads etc. Admittedly, I’ve met my share of Catholics who could take a lesson in charity - myself included at times.

However, it would be interesting to see the reaction of ‘conservative’ Catholics if they were told starting next week that the NO Mass has been abrogated and they will no longer be able to assist at said Mass.

Further, the practice of laymen in the sanctuary will be ended too. No laymen doing the readings, distributing Holy Communion or bringing the gifts to the altar etc.

Holy Communion only on the tongue while kneeling, no girl altar boys, no more vernacular (other than the reading of the Epistle and Gospel at the lectern) at Mass - only Latin. Priest henceforth will celebrate Mass Ad Orietum. Women are obligated to wear a head covering in church.

No hand holding during the Pater Noster and no hand shaking during the Mass. No responses by the laity during Mass - only the altar boys.

The ‘charismatic renewal’ is surpressed and Medjugorje has been deemed a fraud and Catholics are no longer able to make ‘pilgrimages’ there.

My guess based on what I’ve already observed when some of these things have been implemented is that ‘conservative’ Catholics can certainly show their colors and then some when they don’t get their way and that traditional Catholics have not cornered the market on being angry.

One thing to note is that not only was the practice of the Faith radically changed in a short period of time in the late 1960’s, what replaced it often was happy-clappy-wacky ‘Catholicism’ which of course really wasn’t Catholicism at all.

Traditional Catholics were lied to for years (often by those in the hierarchy) that the Mass they wanted to assist at had been banned (abrogated).

The angry traditional Catholics witnessed the emptying out of the seminaries & convents. They saw the rise of the hippie priests and feminist nuns in lay clothing.

They witnessed the radical ‘renovations’ of their churches and were left with bizarre, barren and tacky (felt banners ? !) churches to celebrate Mass.

They saw their children and grandchildren leave the Faith in large part because the Faith was no longer taught at Catholic institutions.

The list goes on & on & on and continues to this day.

Seems to me that ‘traditional’ Catholics have some cause for being angry.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I’m a conservative Catholic, and I wouldn’t care if all of the aforementioned were removed. It’s the liberals you’re going to have issues with. I attend the EF Mass because it’s an available option to me now. I don’t consider myself a Traditionalist, nor do I really fit in with them at my parish. Even traditionalist priests will says that there are issues of pride and hypocrisy among traditionalists.

 

[Melchior_1]

You’re not doing a very good job of rebutting the charge, because you seem pretty angry. You’re doing a much better job of justifying why you’re angry though!

(Although nuns in lay clothing may be by design, as religious were called to go back to the vision of their founders, and some of their founders originally wanted them in lay clothing (so the habbits were actually the wrong thing, and the lay clothing was them going back to tradition).

And there was a shortage of priests for awhile leading up to Vatican II, but it was covered up as Bishops asked religious to run parishes. Again, once they were asked to go back to the original vision of the founder, several of them were pulled from parishes (like how Franciscans were pulled from middle class parishes, as they work with the poor).

Children leaving the faith also has something to do with parents who stopped teaching them, and several people deciding to not follow HV, so they started following society instead.)

I don’t blame people for getting upset. I do think some of the misconceptions and anger that some traditionalists have is misguided though.

 

[Boulder257]

One thing to note is that not only was the practice of the Faith radically changed in a short period of time in the late 1960’s, what replaced it often was happy-clappy-wacky ‘Catholicism’ which of course really wasn’t Catholicism at all.

What is “happy-clappy-wacky ‘Catholocism’”? Certainly some things were abused, but to suggest that after the council the Church went to “hell in a handbasket” is chicken littleish to me.

Bad things happened so it must be the entire council! Throw it all out!

Yes there were abuses, but the council has, is, and will continue to bear good fruit. This is what happened after every council. It takes time. Sometimes even hundreds of years.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I’m a conservative Catholic, and I wouldn’t care if all of the aforementioned were removed. It’s the liberals you’re going to have issues with. I attend the EF Mass because it’s an available option to me now. I don’t consider myself a Traditionalist, nor do I really fit in with them at my parish. Even traditionalist priests will says that there are issues of pride and hypocrisy among traditionalists.

Nope, I think he is speaking of neocons (neoconservatives), they are among other things, progressives in slow motion. And a group that appear to be strogly oppossed to Tradition in order to maintain their influence in the Chruch.

In Spanish speaking countries, they like to present themselves as the most Orthodox, but when comes to Tradition related themes, they tend to tolerate to a certain extent more liberals and “moderates”.

Blessings!

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Well, given the squeaks following the new translation, I’d say a wholesale abrogation of the N.O. would be … interesting.

I do not share the view that the effects of the Council have been good. It was a crack that modernists wedged wide open. Convoking it was the very last thing you would do, given that a previous Pope railed against modernism, which showed no sign of abating.

It is a very good thing if you want to make up a personal version of your religion, Mass included. Lots of leeway there. You can have very happy celebrations of the fact that you are as good as saved, for example: It’s Pentecost 365. We are the Resurrection People!

Meanwhile, doctrine hasn’t changed, but I think it has been … nuanced, cleverly.

You can still go to Hell if you die in a state of mortal sin butwedon’treallybelievethatanymore.

 

[Indyann]

So, by posting an angry rant, you hope to rebut the charge of the “angry Catholic traditionalist”?

If your scenario were to come about, I believe that most faithful Catholics would be surprised, but not angry and rebellious.

When you speak of “conservative” Catholics, do you mean Republicans? Conservative is a political stance, not a religious one. There are only orthodox Catholics and heterodox Catholics.

Why are you trying to divide the Body of Christ?

 

[Rascalking]

Hate to break it to you, but maybe your charged with being angry because you are? You even admitted you have a “cause” for being angry, so instead of wondering why your viewed as being angry, either embrace it-be angry and unpleasent, or admit you have a problem and change it.

 

[maryjk]

Hate to break it to you, but maybe your charged with being angry because you are? You even admitted you have a “cause” for being angry, so instead of wondering why your viewed as being angry, either embrace it-be angry and unpleasent, or admit you have a problem and change it.

That is what I was thinking as I read the OP. The OP doesn’t do a very good job of “rebutting the charge,” rather it explains why the OP is angry.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

One frequently hears the charge from ‘conservative’ Catholics that ‘traditional’ Catholics are angry, Pharisees, rad trads etc. Admittedly, I’ve met my share of Catholics who could take a lesson in charity - myself included at times.

However, it would be interesting to see the reaction of ‘conservative’ Catholics if they were told starting next week that the NO Mass has been abrogated and they will no longer be able to assist at said Mass.

Further, the practice of laymen in the sanctuary will be ended too. No laymen doing the readings, distributing Holy Communion or bringing the gifts to the altar etc.

Holy Communion only on the tongue while kneeling, no girl altar boys, no more vernacular (other than the reading of the Epistle and Gospel at the lectern) at Mass - only Latin. Priest henceforth will celebrate Mass Ad Orietum. Women are obligated to wear a head covering in church.

No hand holding during the Pater Noster and no hand shaking during the Mass. No responses by the laity during Mass - only the altar boys.

The ‘charismatic renewal’ is surpressed and Medjugorje has been deemed a fraud and Catholics are no longer able to make ‘pilgrimages’ there.

My guess based on what I’ve already observed when some of these things have been implemented is that ‘conservative’ Catholics can certainly show their colors and then some when they don’t get their way and that traditional Catholics have not cornered the market on being angry.

One thing to note is that not only was the practice of the Faith radically changed in a short period of time in the late 1960’s, what replaced it often was happy-clappy-wacky ‘Catholicism’ which of course really wasn’t Catholicism at all.

Traditional Catholics were lied to for years (often by those in the hierarchy) that the Mass they wanted to assist at had been banned (abrogated).

The angry traditional Catholics witnessed the emptying out of the seminaries & convents. They saw the rise of the hippie priests and feminist nuns in lay clothing.

They witnessed the radical ‘renovations’ of their churches and were left with bizarre, barren and tacky (felt banners ? !) churches to celebrate Mass.

They saw their children and grandchildren leave the Faith in large part because the Faith was no longer taught at Catholic institutions.

The list goes on & on & on and continues to this day.

Seems to me that ‘traditional’ Catholics have some cause for being angry.

I remember one at College. The college ws at the top of a mountain and you could the valley below, green with rivers crossing and p(name removed by moderator)ointed by villages. It was a gorgeous Spring Day, sunny with many small clouds in the sky that sometimes let showers of rain fall on earth.

It caught my attention one of them, a pretty dark small cloud which, furiously, was downpouring a small village. All over the landscape, there was no other downpour and the day was pretty clear blue.

It struck to me, all of a sudden, that those people in the village, might be thinking that all over the country it was raining when thee rain was only falling on top of them…

I have recounted many times this story, when it makes sense…

Like here. I did not know there was this problem and it seems that it is an American Problem. Maybe you are thinking that all over the world the situation is the same but I think that the downpour is only over the USA.

As for me, the situation is so outlandish that I cannot even understand it. And I know Latin well and the whole mass in Latin and I can sing (and read !!!) Gregorian…

 

[Boulder257]

Well, given the squeaks following the new translation, I’d say a wholesale abrogation of the N.O. would be … interesting.

I do not share the view that the effects of the Council have been good. It was a crack that modernists wedged wide open. Convoking it was the very last thing you would do, given that a previous Pope railed against modernism, which showed no sign of abating.

It is a very good thing if you want to make up a personal version of your religion, Mass included. Lots of leeway there. You can have very happy celebrations of the fact that you are as good as saved, for example: It’s Pentecost 365. We are the Resurrection People!

Meanwhile, doctrine hasn’t changed, but I think it has been … nuanced, cleverly.

You can still go to Hell if you die in a state of mortal sin butwedon’treallybelievethatanymore.

Seems like you and I have had very difference experiences. Believe it or not, I have not experienced a single item of what you have described. I actually find it hard to discuss the issue with you given the sarcastic and angry way you make your argument. It doesn’t lend itself well to rational discussion.

Also seems you are blaming the council for the abuses that were caused by it’s implementation in certain places by specific people. I would hate to judge an entire council by a few bad apples just as you can’t judge an entire group of people by a few of it’s members. Heck, I wouldn’t be Catholic if I used many other Catholics as my measuring stick. Thank goodness I chose Truth despite some of those that “represent” it.

 

[Boulder257]

That is what I was thinking as I read the OP. The OP doesn’t do a very good job of “rebutting the charge,” rather it explains why the OP is angry.

 

[JRKH]

I think that to an extent we may be missing the point in the OP. The thing that caught my eye was this…
However, it would be interesting to see the reaction of ‘conservative’ Catholics if they were told starting next week that the NO Mass has been abrogated and they will no longer be able to assist at said Mass.
…
One thing to note is that not only was the practice of the Faith radically changed in a short period of time in the late 1960’s, what replaced it often was happy-clappy-wacky ‘Catholicism’ …
It is unfortunate that, whether we like it or not, what he says here is quite true. In the wake of Vatican II there were many changes that came along in quick succession and some of those changes were abrupt and, even if they were not outright abuses, they were not terribly well thought out. These changes were very disturbing to many people - especially the older church members.
This is not to say that much good came from Vatican II because it did. The Church needed a renewal. It was due.

The thing that is often forgotten is that these changes - even the abuses, would not have occurred if there had not been an “undercurrent” within the Church that desired change and saw a true need for it. Obviously this undercurrent was widespread enough that the Holy Spirit prompted Pope John the XXIII to call for a council specifically TO look at making changes and renewals. That things got a bit out of hand…well these things happen sometimes.

In fact, if one looks at history, I would bet that one would see similar periods in church history…and similar - even longer periods of adjustments.

Vatican II opened the windows and all sorts of things blew in. Some very good. Some OK and some not so good to horrendous. Now - After several decades of “Trial and Error” the Holy Spirit is bringing forth Priests and Bishops, headed by Wonderful Pontiffs, who are dedicated to reexamining these matters and bringing order out of the chaos. They seek to bring reconciliation and unity back to the Church even while encouraging and embracing a healthy diversity.

Those of any stripe who grow angry or defensive or otherwise negative over this holy diversity within the Church (outright abuses are a separate matter) should carefully examine the reasons for their negative outlook - especially over matters that the Holy Father and the Bishops have made their ideas and wishes known.

Trust the Holy Spirit

Peace
James

 

[Joe_5859]

I think it’s unnecessary and counter-productive to try to cram Catholics into certain labels. If you define “traditionalism” as it is defined here in this subforum, I really haven’t met many “traditionalists” in real life (and I used to call myself a traditionalist before I came here!). But I know plenty of people who have problems with some of the things mentioned in the OP.

The only way to rebut the charge of the “angry Catholic traditionalist” is to not be an angry person, even (especially) when provoked. It’s that simple.

 

[DavidPalm]

The OP makes the legitimate point that there are certain things about which to be legitimately angry in the post-conciliar period. One has only to read a volume such as Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy to see just how insensitive the liturgical “reform” was to the faith and sensibilities of the faithful in the pew. In many cases the implementation of the reforms was terribly unjust and injustice rightly elicits anger.

An additional aspect that helps illuminate the dynamic of the “angry traditionalist” is that it takes a generally strong personality to be willing to swim against the tide and say, “Heck no I’m not going along with that” and then take all the slings and arrows not just from the neo-modernists but even from other orthodox Catholics. So until the traditionalist movement becomes more mainstream, as is happening, you’re going to find a group that’s skewed rather to the pugnacious side of things. This is true of all counter-revolutionary movements, including secular ones.

However, one of my life verses is James 1:20-21: “Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.” My own anger has seldom brought about any good that comes close to compensating for the harm that it’s done.

So although I, like many traditionalists, have gone through my “angry phase”, I think it strongly behooves us to “get over it” as quickly as possible and just joyfully live out our lives in the liturgical and sacramental atmosphere of the traditional Latin Mass.

 

[stanczyk]

If you take traditionalism to too great an extreme, it is no less a heresy than extremist modernism.

I, for one, would love to see the Church return to Latin-only, but the Church isn’t for me, it’s for the world. The world needs vernacular mass.

I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing the clapping and hand-holding and guitars taken out of Mass, but, again, this isn’t for me, it’s for the world. Who am I as an individual to dispute the Church’s wisdom that this is what the world needs right now?

A Catholics we have to trust that God has ensured Vatican II as free from any serious error. Even though the “traditionalist” impulse may seem laudable, it is, as a wise poster observed early, rooted in the sin of pride. We must be careful to guard against traditionalism as much as we guard against modernism.

 

[Becicat]

I used to be very angry—when I attended the NO! There were so many “masses” at which liberties were taken that at times, I didn’t believe the consecration had taken place! Abuses galore (even given the nuanced GIRM interpretations).

One fact: Vatican II was NOT a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council—that means any and all of its writings are not binding. Therefore, nothing before was changed, especially dogmas and doctrines that had been established (such as Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: outside the Church [Catholic] there is no salvation):

Defined by the Council of Florence and
Papal bull *Unam Sanctum *by Pope Boniface VIII

To be Catholic, one must accept the Church’s dogmas, period.

 

[zab]

I think it’s unnecessary and counter-productive to try to cram Catholics into certain labels. If you define “traditionalism” as it is defined here in this subforum, I really haven’t met many “traditionalists” in real life (and I used to call myself a traditionalist before I came here!). But I know plenty of people who have problems with some of the things mentioned in the OP.

The only way to rebut the charge of the “angry Catholic traditionalist” is to not be an angry person, even (especially) when provoked. It’s that simple.

 

[Bearontherun]

I think you would find many orthodox catholics who attend the NO form of the mass to be more flexible than some might expect.

I attend the NO myself and would love to see it become the norm to recieve kneeling and on the tongue, for instance.

More uniformity, if it would decrease the friction between catholics of “different stripes” would be a good thing for everyone IMHO.

 

[Boulder257]

I think that to an extent we may be missing the point in the OP. The thing that caught my eye was this…
However, it would be interesting to see the reaction of ‘conservative’ Catholics if they were told starting next week that the NO Mass has been abrogated and they will no longer be able to assist at said Mass.
…
One thing to note is that not only was the practice of the Faith radically changed in a short period of time in the late 1960’s, what replaced it often was happy-clappy-wacky ‘Catholicism’ …
It is unfortunate that, whether we like it or not, what he says here is quite true. In the wake of Vatican II there were many changes that came along in quick succession and some of those changes were abrupt and, even if they were not outright abuses, they were not terribly well thought out. These changes were very disturbing to many people - especially the older church members.
This is not to say that much good came from Vatican II because it did. The Church needed a renewal. It was due.

The thing that is often forgotten is that these changes - even the abuses, would not have occurred if there had not been an “undercurrent” within the Church that desired change and saw a true need for it. Obviously this undercurrent was widespread enough that the Holy Spirit prompted Pope John the XXIII to call for a council specifically TO look at making changes and renewals. That things got a bit out of hand…well these things happen sometimes.

In fact, if one looks at history, I would bet that one would see similar periods in church history…and similar - even longer periods of adjustments.

Vatican II opened the windows and all sorts of things blew in. Some very good. Some OK and some not so good to horrendous. Now - After several decades of “Trial and Error” the Holy Spirit is bringing forth Priests and Bishops, headed by Wonderful Pontiffs, who are dedicated to reexamining these matters and bringing order out of the chaos. They seek to bring reconciliation and unity back to the Church even while encouraging and embracing a healthy diversity.

Those of any stripe who grow angry or defensive or otherwise negative over this holy diversity within the Church (outright abuses are a separate matter) should carefully examine the reasons for their negative outlook - especially over matters that the Holy Father and the Bishops have made their ideas and wishes known.

Trust the Holy Spirit

Peace
James

You make a good point here my friend. Definitely have me thinking. And, you are correct in that at least I overlooked that point in the post after I made it to the end it became apparent, to me, that the OP was justifying anger.