Restoring Tradition

[tpw]

Why do you blame Vatican II when the growth of secularism is the real issue?

While a healthy ascetism is necessary - much of what was called “ascetism” was self-destructive. Why so many glum, bitter and guilt-ridden Catholics? Joy is the sign of the presence of God. Re-discovering a health ascetism, a health appreciation for oneself, for the body have been critical tasks in the past forty years.

Extremes are bound to occur and then gentle correctives. “Liberal-conservative” bashing does no good and is currently undermining much of the good which came out of Vatican II.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why do you blame Vatican II when the growth of secularism is the real issue?

While a healthy ascetism is necessary - much of what was called “ascetism” was self-destructive. Why so many glum, bitter and guilt-ridden Catholics? Joy is the sign of the presence of God. Re-discovering a health ascetism, a health appreciation for oneself, for the body have been critical tasks in the past forty years.

Extremes are bound to occur and then gentle correctives. “Liberal-conservative” bashing does no good and is currently undermining much of the good which came out of Vatican II.

this explains.

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100414

 

[dmorgan]

Why do you blame Vatican II when the growth of secularism is the real issue?

While a healthy ascetism is necessary - much of what was called “ascetism” was self-destructive. Why so many glum, bitter and guilt-ridden Catholics? Joy is the sign of the presence of God. Re-discovering a health ascetism, a health appreciation for oneself, for the body have been critical tasks in the past forty years.

Extremes are bound to occur and then gentle correctives. “Liberal-conservative” bashing does no good and is currently undermining much of the good which came out of Vatican II.

Read This and pay attention to the quotes from the attending bishops:
latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

This is what allowed the secular movement to invade the Sanctuary. IMHO.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Why do you blame Vatican II when the growth of secularism is the real issue?

While a healthy ascetism is necessary - much of what was called “ascetism” was self-destructive. Why so many glum, bitter and guilt-ridden Catholics? Joy is the sign of the presence of God. Re-discovering a health ascetism, a health appreciation for oneself, for the body have been critical tasks in the past forty years.

Extremes are bound to occur and then gentle correctives. “Liberal-conservative” bashing does no good and is currently undermining much of the good which came out of Vatican II.

Vatican II helped contniue that growth of secularism. Nothing good came out of Vatican II.

Liberal-conservative may not be the way to put it, but rather modern-Traditional.

 

[Cristiano]

… Nothing good came out of Vatican II…

This is one the most intellectual observation that I have observed in these threads in quite sometime.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Do the VII changes bear good fruit? Ask yourself that question.

Has VII increased church attendance and reverence for the Eucharist? Are Catholics more devout in their daily lives? Do Catholics have a reputation for being self-denying ascetics or lazy come-day-go-day church-goers?

We believe in Faith and Works. What works do you see from Catholic faithful that astounds you and impresses you?

See, when I think of a Mormon, as wrong as their religion truly is, I think of a devout self-denier with a big family, an opponent of birth control. But when I think of the average Catholic, I get a very different picture.

I want to restore tradition and make Catholics reverent self-deniers again. We are lazy and disinterested today, largely because of Vatican II.

I read the Traditonal forum because it gives me insights into things that I have never experienced and some posters here have given me some wonderful references that I have been able to use in my school work and in my parish work.
While I do not consider myself to be "orthodox" or *“progressive”, *but rather somewhere in-between, I have to say one the the biggest complaints I have about those who prefer the EF and the Church pre- VII is the attitude that everything that came about after the council is wrong and that the people who do not embrace (or in my case do not even know) the pre-VII church are somehow less Catholic than others.

Can someone please explain this attitude to me?

The Church has said that there are 2 forms available to us. If you prefer the EF go, and if you don’t have one in your area, start networking with others who are like-minded and find a priest who will celebrate the EF for you, but please do not call into question my level of spirituality or Catholicity because I prefer the OF and believe that VII was a good thing.

I am trying very hard to understand this division, quite honestly it does not make a lot of sense to me and I believe that it is actually hurting the Church more than helping.

Remember the old saying
You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar!

 

[tpw]

Since I actually grew up before Vatican II and was introduced to the Latin mass as a very young altar server, I’ll guarantee you that the mass was in Latin had nothing do with with whether or not mass was reverent. The majority of people did not speak Latin and had not a clue as to what was being prayed for.

Yet, I hear from traditionalists that having the mass said in Latin will restore reverence. Let’s think this through - if no one understands a language does that have anything to do with reverence? Isn’t this mistaking ignorance for reverence?

The best suggestions I’ve heard so far from good, solid liturgists re: restoring more reverence to the mass have to do with body posture. Actions like genuflecting, kneeling, bowing such as before receiveing the Eucharist - these are reverent actions. These make sense!

Unless you’re somehow going to guarantee that every single person will somehow mysteriously understand Latin, going back to the Latin mass makes little sense.

It’s true that if you know and understand Latin, one can appreciate the beauty of the language because it is beautiful But there’s nothing beautiful about ignorance…

tpw

 

[tpw]

Nothing good came out of Vatican II? Why remain Catholic? Why haven’t you joined the Lefeberists?

Vatican II happened to take place at the same time great movements towards secularism were taking place. What Vatican II did was open the church to the world in order to begin a dialogue. And we’ve learned immensely.

That which we learned has taken years to think through and incorporate. JPII began the slow process of incorporating the legitimate things we’ve learned into the greater tradition. Benedict has continued to a degree as well as deepening our understanding of the things we’ve learned in the past forty years (hence the value he places on environmental stewardship as an example).

The liturgical changes of Vatican II in part came to address the profound alienation that existed in Europe and the U.S. as well. By returning to the form of worship of the early church (the tradition my friend) which was much more communal and intimate, the hope was to become a more inviting and welcoming church. God only knows people need places where they feel they belong. And church should be the first to be that.

As with any historical changes in the church it has always taken a number of years for the changes to sink in, corrections made for problematic movements and so forth.

I’m sorry you found nothing good about Vatican II. I also hope you can find a church which is not part of Vatican II…

tpw

Vatican II helped contniue that growth of secularism. Nothing good came out of Vatican II.

Liberal-conservative may not be the way to put it, but rather modern-Traditional.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Nothing good came out of Vatican II? Why remain Catholic? Why haven’t you joined the Lefeberists?

Vatican II happened to take place at the same time great movements towards secularism were taking place. What Vatican II did was open the church to the world in order to begin a dialogue. And we’ve learned immensely.

That which we learned has taken years to think through and incorporate. JPII began the slow process of incorporating the legitimate things we’ve learned into the greater tradition. Benedict has continued to a degree as well as deepening our understanding of the things we’ve learned in the past forty years (hence the value he places on environmental stewardship as an example).

The liturgical changes of Vatican II in part came to address the profound alienation that existed in Europe and the U.S. as well. By returning to the form of worship of the early church (the tradition my friend) which was much more communal and intimate, the hope was to become a more inviting and welcoming church. God only knows people need places where they feel they belong. And church should be the first to be that.

As with any historical changes in the church it has always taken a number of years for the changes to sink in, corrections made for problematic movements and so forth.

I’m sorry you found nothing good about Vatican II. I also hope you can find a church which is not part of Vatican II…

tpw

and how was the form of Worship in the early Church? i want documents that show that NO is the way they worshipped God in the Mass.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

and how was the form of Worship in the early Church? i want documents that show that NO is the way they worshipped God in the Mass.

I can tell you that it was not the 1962 EF, that is for sure!!

I do not have the book in front of me, but from my Sacramental Theology class last semester the one thing I remember is that in the very early Church (i.e. before Nicea),*** “Christian”*** worship was a typical Jewish service with the added benefit of Eucharist.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can tell you that it was not the 1962 EF, that is for sure!!

I do not have the book in front of me, but from my Sacramental Theology class last semester the one thing I remember is that in the very early Church (i.e. before Nicea),*** “Christian”*** worship was a typical Jewish service with the added benefit of Eucharist.

so, explain to me how the CC worshipped God facing East for almost 2000 years? was it a made up thing in the CC?

how did the Jews worship God in temple? do you know?

do you know the 3 Sacred languages?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

so, explain to me how the CC worshipped God facing East for almost 2000 years? was it a made up thing in the CC?

how did the Jews worship God in temple? do you know?

do you know the 3 Sacred languages?

Wisdomseeker,

My comment was meant “tounge & cheek”

My experience tells me that many who identify themselves as “traditional” have the idea that the 1962 EF that they prefer is the Mass that has always been.

You and I both know this is not true!

I also know that the practice of facing east while praying is not just a Catholic (or Christian ) thing, and that the practice is as old as humanity, because that is where the light comes from!(the sun rises in the east)

I am not completely familar with ancient Jewish worship nor do I know what you mean by the “3 sacred languages”. I would be happy to learn though! (You can send me a private message if you want, so we don’t hijack this thread more than it already has been)

The point I was trying to make was that the Mass as we know it, both the 1962 EF and the OF have changed considerably since the days of the very earliest of Christians, and will and should contiune to do so if the Church is going to continue to grow and flourish!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdomseeker,

My comment was meant “tounge & cheek”

My experience tells me that many who identify themselves as “traditional” have the idea that the 1962 EF that they prefer is the Mass that has always been.

You and I both know this is not true!

I also know that the practice of facing east while praying is not just a Catholic (or Christian ) thing, and that the practice is as old as humanity, because that is where the light comes from!(the sun rises in the east)

I am not completely familar with ancient Jewish worship nor do I know what you mean by the “3 sacred languages”. I would be happy to learn though! (You can send me a private message if you want, so we don’t hijack this thread more than it already has been)

The point I was trying to make was that the Mass as we know it, both the 1962 EF and the OF have changed considerably since the days of the very earliest of Christians, and will and should contiune to do so if the Church is going to continue to grow and flourish!

not to derail the thread. there are 3 Sacred language: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

here is a good video to help you understand what is really going on in the Mass.

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/0/IIkAvjpGSiw

 

[otjm]

not to derail the thread. there are 3 Sacred language: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

Considering that the first two apply to the Catholic Church, and the third one only applies to the Roman rite, you might want to add Aramaic and Arabic (Maronite rite) and then do a review of the languages used in other Eastern rite Churches, since they do not consider Latin to be their Sacred Language. I suspect you will find more than the 5 mentioned herein.

 

[srp643]

Bull.

Someone didn’t like the Mass of Pope Paul VI so they stopped attending Mass. That’s at least one mortal sin/week. Someone claims they went to confession every week. To be absolved of their sins they would have to make The Act of Perfect Contrition:

“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they have offended Thee, my God, Who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen.”

And they did that KNOWING they would be missing Mass (and committing another mortal sin) the following Sunday?

On top of that they received Holy Communion (from whom I wonder?) each week even though they did not attend Mass?

You’re right – ultimately it’s God’s call but to offer such a horrifically sad story as if was tacitly OK because (and let me quote) “that is how strongly they felt about it” is pernicious.

Incredibly uncharitable and immature post. You need to develop an ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and think more critically. You appear to be incredibly embittered and would do well to take a break, certainly from this particular forum as it only appears to bother you. I will pray for you and your spiritual development.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Nothing good came out of Vatican II? Why remain Catholic? Why haven’t you joined the Lefeberists?

Vatican II happened to take place at the same time great movements towards secularism were taking place. What Vatican II did was open the church to the world in order to begin a dialogue. And we’ve learned immensely.

That which we learned has taken years to think through and incorporate. JPII began the slow process of incorporating the legitimate things we’ve learned into the greater tradition. Benedict has continued to a degree as well as deepening our understanding of the things we’ve learned in the past forty years (hence the value he places on environmental stewardship as an example).

The liturgical changes of Vatican II in part came to address the profound alienation that existed in Europe and the U.S. as well. By returning to the form of worship of the early church (the tradition my friend) which was much more communal and intimate, the hope was to become a more inviting and welcoming church. God only knows people need places where they feel they belong. And church should be the first to be that.

As with any historical changes in the church it has always taken a number of years for the changes to sink in, corrections made for problematic movements and so forth.

I’m sorry you found nothing good about Vatican II. I also hope you can find a church which is not part of Vatican II…

tpw

You’re sort of right there on the intent of the Council, but let me go a little further.

Their intent was to open the Church to more people, but let’s think about this for a minute. Opening the Church to “more people” basically means non-Catholics. This would be nice if the entire purpose of the Council wasn’t to please the non-Catholics. Protestants gave suggestions at the Council which were taken seriously. They wanted the Mass to focus more on the Last Supper than anything else. And you look at a Protestant service, and that’s what is focuses on. The Last Supper. Almost everything, if not everything, that got taken out was something the Protestants wanted to be taken out. Latin, altars, Communion on the tongue, etc. All those things and more were taken out because the Protestants wanted them to be removed.

So you ask why we should remain Catholic if Vatican II was in error. We should remain Catholic because it’s the Church Christ started. However, we shouldn’t go by the teachings of Vatican II if they don’t go by Tradition. Traditional Catholics go by what was taught before Vatican II mostly. And I do have two parishes near me that are not part of Vatican II. They’re Traditional parishes. I go to them.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=tpw;6579684]Nothing good came out of Vatican II? Why remain Catholic? Why haven’t you joined the Lefeberists?

1. Maybe you could tell us what came from Vatican II that will help more Catholics achieve the most important goal in one’s life…spending eternity in heaven. I know that your questions aren’t aimed at me, however…I’d like to answer them. Following are the reasons that I will die a Catholic:

Our pope is the direct successor to St. Peter. I would never dishonor him.
Sheer study of history proves that Catholicism is the Church that Christ founded. It was the ONLY Christian Church for 1500 years.
I could never change my very being & Catholicism is the largest part of same. I am a Catholic wife, a Catholic mother, a Catholic grandmother. You can see that the word “Catholic” precedes every description of me. I could NOT be a non-Catholic wife, mother or grandmother.

Vatican II happened to take place at the same time great movements towards secularism were taking place. What Vatican II did was open the church to the world in order to begin a dialogue. And we’ve learned immensely.

The above statement about Vatican II “just happening” to take place during an era where movements toward secularism were occuring, tells me that you believe in “fate” & “karma” & coincidence. When it comes to Christ’s Church, I believe that nothing just “takes place”.

BTW., secularism has been an aberrant part of society since the beginning of time. Secularism boils down to the fact that **some **in society separate their secular life (everyday life, at work life, parental lives, etc.) from their religious beliefs. EX: belonging to a Church that forbids abortion, yet votes for politicians who support it. Ted Kennedy’s funeral was a prime example of secularism. Cardinal O’Malley, allowed a pro-abortion Catholic & his friends to turn a Sacred occasion into a political rally. A funeral, fine…what I saw was a travesty of what a Catholic funeral is meant to be.

As I said before, secularism has been with us for centuries. Just study the secular humanist movement in Europe during the 19th century. Better yet, examine the corruption & secularism within the Church before Luther’s defection. (not that I excuse Luther, I totally believe that faith without works is dead, I am appalled at his hatred for the Jews, etc.) This was STOPPED by Council of Trent. If Vatican II didn’t promote the advance of current secularism & moral relativism, it surely did nothing to stop it.

I was an adult, mid-twenties, when the “vatican II Church” was born. Before that time, we heard sermons not watered-down “homilies”. We heard sermons about the importance of family prayers at home, we heard sermons about faithfulness between spouses, about the sin of anger & the damage it does. I have no doubt that if the council had been different, we’d be hearing sermons about the evils of pornography, the dangers of violent video games, consumerism, etc., etc.

That which we learned has taken years to think through and incorporate. JPII began the slow process of incorporating the legitimate things we’ve learned into the greater tradition.

The two things that Pope John Paul II did were reviving the practice of saying the rosary & issuing an indult (which was totally ignored by the US. hierarchy) for the Latin mass. Of course, we found later that we didn’t need an indult, but that’s another discussion.

What have we learned from the second Vatican Council. That our Mass needs to be fun & exciting? That our laity has to be granted access to the Sanctuary? That “active participation” means becoming semi-priests & priestettes? That physical movement during the Mass…shaking hands, assuming the Orans position, people scurrying out of their pews to do the readings, their duties an EEM’s, ect., is so important that, should it create a 3-ring circus…no problem. Too bad for those who believe that INTERIOR participation is the most important. Too bad for those who want to meditate so deeply that they can, with their mind’s eye, see the face of Christ in the host that the priest elevates during the consecration? Too bad if the constant noise & interruption make this impossible for them to reach THEIR goal.

more later, I am cleaning my hard-working daughter’s house today.

 

[tpw]

Starting with Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, go on to read Justin Martyr’s letters (150 AD) some of which describe the liturgical prayers of the early church.

Additionally, the early Christian community especially after 89 AD when they were formally excluded from synagogues worshipped in the homes of Christians. It’s difficult to say when actual churches were built since Christianity was outlawed until 313 AD and the Edict of Constantine. See also Owen Chadwick’s volume (the first) in the Penguin Church History series where he describes the early forms of worship. See also Eerdman’s handbook to Christianity which gives complements what Chadwick and others have said. Another author (can’t recall his name off hand) but his book Early Christian Creeds also describe the early liturgical life of the church.

Christian Catholics are performing good works in many, many areas: social services, food banks, education, journalism (for example Cokie Roberts, Judy Woodruff and Ray Suarez are all Catholics as is O’Reilly) judicial life, political life, non-governmental organizations NGO’s) of various sorts from refugee relief and accompaniment, environmental restoration, non-violence work, to medical work. And of course there are Catholics in business and the military.

Young people are now immersed in the notion of service whether through service programs in schools or volunteer opportunities outside of schools.

The only danger to the service work is the lack of an adequately formed spirituality to support it and sustain it. Here the re-discovery of liturgical life, para-liturgical services, reflection opportunies and devotions ranging from the traditional to those discovered as a consequence of greater inter-cultural dialogue between Catholic peoples. There’s also been a real re-discovery of the value of spiritual direction which lots of people are now engaged in.

There are great contributions by young, middle-age and older Catholic people. Vatican II did nothing if not heighten the Catholic sensibility to service while opening up new doors for service.

We are more than adequately represented in all fronts.

 

[tpw]

The configuration of the liturgical space was done in accord with what the twin emphases of the liturgy are: recalling the Last Supper and a people called into communion with each other and their God. It had nothing to do with Protestantism, but making efforts to encourage full and active participation. Thus more modern Church architecture has churches built in the round to symbolically and practically demonstrate a community of people gathered together to recall the Last Supper and Jesus’ resurrection. In older church efforts have been made - some successful others not - to re-configure them in this way.

Furthermore, as I noted in another post, changes in the liturgy were done after significant (nearly 100 years of study) on the liturgical life of the early church. The tradition starts with the early Church where vibrant and committed people met to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Renewal starts by looking at the life and experience of the early church…that’s the origin of tradition.

The linguistic changes had to do with the fact that people didn’t understand the Latin. If people fingering their rosary beads during the Eucharistic prayer (which many, many did) is hardly an example of reverence or participation. The aim is to encourage people to participate and they participate best when they understand the language of the liturgy. The majority of the people didn’t understand Latin, nor was Latin really the language people spoke. The early church liturgies were in the languages the people understood…

Their intent was to open the Church to more people, but let’s think about this for a minute. Opening the Church to “more people” basically means non-Catholics. This would be nice if the entire purpose of the Council wasn’t to please the non-Catholics. Protestants gave suggestions at the Council which were taken seriously. They wanted the Mass to focus more on the Last Supper than anything else. And you look at a Protestant service, and that’s what is focuses on. The Last Supper. Almost everything, if not everything, that got taken out was something the Protestants wanted to be taken out. Latin, altars, Communion on the tongue, etc. All those things and more were taken out because the Protestants wanted them to be removed.

Last, the tradition has always been open to change and development. The four hundred years between Trent and Vatican II were often marked by retrenchment and “stone” throwing. The 20th century leading up to and through the council have been a time of intensified historical study on the part of Catholics and Protestants to see where we split apart, what can be done to bring us back together and go through the long process of reconciliation which is slowly happening.

The irony of this conversation is you will find many Protestants who protest when their pastors bring in sacramental practices like ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday and the celebration of Advent.

As it stands now the mainline traditions share a common lectionary. Doctrinal differences on the meaning of salvation have been clarified and the distance between Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans have been reduced.

We’re still apart on the Eucharist but the discussions continue. Obviously the Protestant churches have developed in other ways in the 20 century with the ordination of women ministers and bishops.

With our renewed and clarified understanding of the tradition, we are going forward in the manner that Jesus and John Paul II called for - Together we are One.

 

[Onegin]

As the title of this topic is “Restoring Tradition” I’d like to suggest that the solution is as simple as throwing out so-called “teachings” that contradict Tradition. This includes reaffirming several important points that have been recently discarded like:

1. Reaffirming that the Catholic Church alone is the fullness of truth. Re-educate Catholics about their faith and what *extra ecclesia nulla salus *actually means.
2. Discard “ecumenical dialogue” to the extent that it requires Catholics to assent to or acknowledge so-called “truths” in other false religions.
3. Correct the teaching on the “dignity of the human person” to reject the inflated notion that the purpose of religion is for man to “fully discover his true self” and instead to reflect the truth that man was created for the sole purpose to be ordered to the greater glory of God Almighty.
4. Reject the notion that “it is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law” which has usurped the idea that a Catholic must make a declaration of Faith based on the authoritative teaching by the Church and reduces faith to little more than a matter of personal conscience.
5. Reject the humanising role of salvation which has been adopted, saying that by taking our human nature, Christ “fully reveals man to himself” so “that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.” Re-adopt the traditional teaching that Christ took on our human nature to save us from the punishments we had merited, not so that we can understand the “mystery” of ourselves.

Obviously, restoring Tradition to it’s former beauty is going to take more work than these few steps, but they are a start. We need to get the diseased apples out before we can begin re-seeding the orchard.