Restoring Tradition

[wisdomseeker]

Michael Rose saw a connection in Goodbye Good Men between the misinterpreted “spirit of Vatican II” and homosexuality in the seminaries.

Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, pp. 56-57: “According to former seminarians and
recently ordained priests, this ‘gay subculture’ is so prominent at certain seminaries
that these institutions have earned nicknames such as Notre Flame (for Notre Dame
Seminary in New Orleans) and Theological Closet (for Theological College at the
Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.). St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore
has earned the nickname the ‘Pink Palace.’”2

“Father Andrew Walter, ordained for the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in 2000,
spent several semesters at the Baltimore school as a seminarian for the Diocese of
Paterson, New Jersey. The [homosexual] problem was so bad when he was there, he
explained, that ‘some of the students and faculty used to get dressed up in leather to
go to ‘the block,’ Baltimore’s equivalent to 42nd Street in Manhattan.’”3

Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, p. 57: “Father John Trigilio of the Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, diocese remembers visiting St. Mary’s in Baltimore when he was a
seminarian in Pennsylvania. ‘There was no discretion at all,’ he said of the gay
subculture there. ‘The few times I was there, some of the seminarians would literally
dress like gays from the Village. They would even go so far as to wear pink silk; it
was like going to see La Cage aux Folles.’

‘In my day at St. Mary’s,’ said Father John Despard, now a religious order priest from
the Southeast, ‘down the hall there would be two guys together in the shower and
everybody knew it.’

“Ada Mason, a philosophy professor at a prominent Catholic university, once served
on the board of a seminary in the upper Midwest. In that position she was shocked to
discover a gay subculture extremely active there. ‘Open homosexual behavior was more
than tolerated,’ she admitted. ‘I was even told by one of the seminary faculty that every
Friday a van took priesthood students to a nearby city to cruise the gay bars.’”4

i find this very interesting reather. i am thinking how much our bishops lacks Spiritual knowledge and how have they are so far from God. to simply let gays to enter seminars, what are they thinking? to me is just an infiltration of this gender to ruin the Catholic Church. and what a great way of doing so. to me it is a master plan from satan and our bishops show to be very clueless on the matter or maybe willfull. who knows.

 

[wisdomseeker]

what we see today is what has been prophesied long ago.

Pope Pius XII on the “Suicide of altering the faith in her liturgy”

Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church:

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.
“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’”

• Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Historie, p. 52-53

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=Phemie;6546687]No, I’m not going to seek them out because I don’t care.

So sorry, your previous post said that you’d “be interested in seeing these stats” & I just assumed that you were telling the truth.

I simply think it’s disingenuous to give stats after Vatican II and not compare them to the stats before Vatican II. It means nothing to see a drop off after Vatican II unless there was a steady increase before, and my understanding from talking with older priests is that these things were already a problem long before 1965.

This will get you started. If you are “talking with older priests” be sure that they were priests who were in parishes in 1960…hopefully
1950, or before…otherwise what they are telling you is hearsay.

From Kenneth Jones’ Index of Leading Catholic Indicators:

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.

IOW.'s Our numbers of priests DOUBLED during the two generations, which preceded Vatican II.

 

[Ockham]

Considering that the statistics (from CARA) show that the peak of Mass attendance was in the late 1950’s and started dropping off before Vatican 2 was even thought of, and continued on about the same rate through Vatican 2 and after it, the EF it self was failing to “retain people”.

What was a slight decline in the 50’s has resulted in a significant impact today. Prior to V2 75% of Catholics attended weekly Mass and today it is less than 25%. You are speculating the same result would have occurred had the NO never been drafted. Obviously we’ll never know but we can look back at history. The TLM withstood the Protestant revolt, Muslim Crusades, and other major challenges. In forty years the NO has presided over the largest desertion and scandal in Church history. As someone said in this forum recently, if the NO was a CEO they’d get fired.

 

[Bbigam]

Let’s not forget Europe was recovering from its second major war in the same century. Often we tend to view these things from our own perspective. The point is our numbers today are significantly reduced from those prior to V2 and the Novus Ordo. By ‘simplifying’ the liturgy the NO stripped the most Catholic of elements making it a banal exercise that failed to attract and retain people like the TLM did for centuries.

While I really don’t like what many priests and parishes did using VII as an excuse, the Ordinary Form of the Mass still has the most Catholic of all things - the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which is anything but “banal.”

The TLM withstood the Protestant revolt, Muslim Crusades, and other major challenges. In forty years the NO has presided over the largest desertion and scandal in Church history. As someone said in this forum recently, if the NO was a CEO they’d get fired.

The TLM didn’t withstand those things, the Church did. The “NO” (Ordinary Form) hasn’t presided over anything, and isn’t a CEO. It’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and some people have used it badly.

I am still trying to understand of what people mean with restoring Tradition. Tradition with the majuscule “T” is just the dogmatic teachings of the Church and that cannot be restored because it can never go away even when some people wish it. Tradition with the minuscule “t” is a set of disciplines and rituals that are set for the good of the people at specific times.

I think that sometime these kind of discussions belong more on a philosophical forum that in the traditionalist forum. While it makes a lot of sense to me to have threads discussing specific “traditions” of the pre-VII times, to me it is an hasty generalization to infer that “Tradition” (for whatever it means, because it is not explicitly defined except in the head of a few posters) is just an extrapolation of the TLM and that the two are always correlated.

Tradition with the a minuscule “t” can also be considered as a medicine for our souls and when we are sick we need it, but when we are healthy it might be counterproductive. I look at the case of frequent confession where it is good for me because of my sinful habits but it could be counterproductive for someone suffering from scrupulosity and in that case spiritual direction would me more effective.

I would also like to point out that breaking with “traditions” might be a good thing; however, breaking with “Traditions” with the excuse that we are just moving away from “traditions” is just plain heresy no matter what our intent is. For example the Church changing the Mass can be seen as a departure from “traditions” while individuals changing the Mass is a departure from “Tradition”.

Excellent points! This needed to be said. Many people confuse Tradition and tradition/custom. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Sacred Tradition; the details differentiating the Ordinary Form, Extraordinary Form, Byzantine Liturgies, etc., beautiful and edifying as they may be, are tradition/custom. That said, some traditions may better portray Tradition than others do - and some traditions may better speak Tradition to me than others do. None of this excuses illicit or irreverent practices, of course.

 

[Bbigam]

Oh please, we have been through this so many times. The changes in the Mass were a symptom of the changes in the CHURCH. No more “dwelling” on sinfulness, no more “barriers” between the priest & the laity, no more sacredness…for that is off-putting to our “Separated Brethren”.

We fill our Sanctuaries with the Laity, but no longer can we find the Tabernacle. We shake hands & give little waves to our friends in the Communion line.

The author of this Mass Annibale Bugnini (& his “commitee”) , in March of 1974 said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper, that "wemust strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated." That is exactly what happened. I was in my mid twenties at the time.

My parents livedacross the street from the Cathedral at that time & I sat with them while flat-bed trucks pulled up to the Church, then hauled away our Communion Rail (tsk, tsk, another one of those “barriers”,
loaded the statues of Our Lady & St. Joseph, the candlestands & votive candles, the Confessionals…everything that spoke of the "horrible"piety of the pre-Vatican II Church. My Mother & Father, who had been devout Catholics, were just sickened by this…as was I.

While the wreckage of the Mass is perhaps the worst part of the heritage of Vatican II, it was certainly just part of the story.

Yes, horrible things happened, and I hate that! But you are again conflating VII and the Ordinary Form with the actions of (far too many) people around the same time the OF was promulgated. Vatican II didn’t do that stuff, if you read the writings of the Council. Nor did the Ordinary Form do any of that. It didn’t call for tearing out communion rails and statues and high altars and hiding the tabernacle. People did that (and I sure wish they hadn’t!). Even communion in the hand while standing, female altar servers, and some other things like that didn’t come with the Ordinary Form when promulgated. And by the way, the OF has the whole congregation saying the Confiteor, where in the EF the congregation does not say it.

Can you provide us with a link to that quote from Bugnini? If he said that, he was very wrong - but he also failed, thankfully. My dad, a staunch protestant, would take serious exception to the texts of the OF if he read them - way too Catholic for him.

 

[choy]

What was a slight decline in the 50’s has resulted in a significant impact today. Prior to V2 75% of Catholics attended weekly Mass and today it is less than 25%. You are speculating the same result would have occurred had the NO never been drafted. Obviously we’ll never know but we can look back at history. The TLM withstood the Protestant revolt, Muslim Crusades, and other major challenges. In forty years the NO has presided over the largest desertion and scandal in Church history. As someone said in this forum recently, if the NO was a CEO they’d get fired.

blaming the NO shows utter ignorance on the subject

many leave the Church in the last 40 years not because of the form of the mass. there is now an immense pressure from Protestants that were not present 50 years ago. there are more sects in Christianity today. there’s more commercialism, there’s more debates on morality that were not present 50 years ago. 50 years ago gay marriage wasn’t even an issue, now people will argue on both sides of the fence. and i can say many leave the Church because they want to be in a religion that tells them that being gay or using contraceptives or that abortion or divorce are okay. it has nothing to do with the form of mass.

others just find the mass boring and like the singing and dancing and clapping more appealing. there are just so many different “churches” out there today that would cater to the whims of most people. plus the fact that there are more who just feel that they don’t need God, those who become agnostic or become atheists all together. again, these has nothing to do with the form of mass, but the materialism of today and the emphasis on human knowledge. if you look at the progress man has made in the last 100 years compared to the thousand years before, its not surprising that some people fall into that false belief that God doesn’t exist and into idolatry of human knowledge and achievement. just because we can send men to the moon, some think we don’t need God. again, all these has nothing to do with the form of the mass

 

[otjm]

From Kenneth Jones’ Index of Leading Catholic Indicators:

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.

IOW.'s Our numbers of priests DOUBLED during the two generations, which preceded Vatican II.

Without being too cynical about it, that increase occured during the period between one world war and the next world war, the Korean war, and into the Vietnamese war. All of which may have had a profound effect on people entering the seminary and the priesthood.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

blaming the NO shows utter ignorance on the subject

many leave the Church in the last 40 years not because of the form of the mass. there is now an immense pressure from Protestants that were not present 50 years ago. there are more sects in Christianity today. there’s more commercialism, there’s more debates on morality that were not present 50 years ago. 50 years ago gay marriage wasn’t even an issue, now people will argue on both sides of the fence. and i can say many leave the Church because they want to be in a religion that tells them that being gay or using contraceptives or that abortion or divorce are okay. it has nothing to do with the form of mass.

others just find the mass boring and like the singing and dancing and clapping more appealing. there are just so many different “churches” out there today that would cater to the whims of most people. plus the fact that there are more who just feel that they don’t need God, those who become agnostic or become atheists all together. again, these has nothing to do with the form of mass, but the materialism of today and the emphasis on human knowledge. if you look at the progress man has made in the last 100 years compared to the thousand years before, its not surprising that some people fall into that false belief that God doesn’t exist and into idolatry of human knowledge and achievement. just because we can send men to the moon, some think we don’t need God. again, all these has nothing to do with the form of the mass

Then explain to me why people have said they left because something didn’t seem right to them about the new form of Mass.

 

[Bbigam]

Then explain to me why people have said they left because something didn’t seem right to them about the new form of Mass.

“Something didn’t seem right.” That’s really vague and doesn’t mean much of anything. Many Catholic teachings “didn’t seem right” to me until I realized and accepted that the Church has the fullness of the Truth. (And by the way, if the Church erred with the teachings of Vatican II and the promulgation of the Ordinary Form, then my realization was wrong and I might as well go back to being protestant, or something else entirely.)

I’m not inside the heads of the people who said it didn’t seem right. Maybe they miss Latin and have a preference for it. Maybe it was just because it wasn’t what they were used to. Maybe it was because the communion rail and statues and high altar and kneelers were torn out and the tabernacle hidden - inappropriate “renovations” that Vatican II and the Ordinary Form didn’t call for. Maybe it was the poor quality of the music - unfortunate, but not necessarily illicit.

If they left the Church that Christ founded and the Real Presence in the Eucharist because of personal preferences or even truly unfortunate practices… that’s like saying, “I don’t like my house the way it is, so I won’t live in a house anymore. I don’t like my food, so I won’t eat anymore.”

 

[CradleCath]

Without being too cynical about it, that increase occured during the period between one world war and the next world war, the Korean war, and into the Vietnamese war. All of which may have had a profound effect on people entering the seminary and the priesthood.

I have heard some lame excuses for the for the decline of Catholicism since the council, but this has to be one of the weakest.

 

[choy]

Then explain to me why people have said they left because something didn’t seem right to them about the new form of Mass.

i’m not gonna say it never happened
but neither am i going to make a ridiculous and unfounded claim that 80% of those who left have that problem with the Church

the problem is the likes of you think that is the only reason people leave the Church. i am stating there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of reasons why people leave the Church. that is only one out of all those reasons

i personally know dozens of people who have left the Church either officially (joining another faith or declaration of being agnostic or atheist) or unofficially (just stopped going to Church and is just not religious). not one of them has stated the OF as being the reason. so if your claim that 80% left because of the OF, i wonder why i haven’t met any of them if there are so many of them.

 

[CradleCath]

blaming the NO shows utter ignorance on the subject

many leave the Church in the last 40 years not because of the form of the mass. there is now an immense pressure from Protestants that were not present 50 years ago. there are more sects in Christianity today. there’s more commercialism,

 

[choy]

These excuses are getting old. Were you a member of the Catholic Church before Vatican II? I was. Commercialism? Pressure from Protestants?

i’m sorry i’m not as old as you. that doesn’t mean i’m ignorant to whats going on espeically in the last 30 years i am alive

i come from a country that used to be 90% Catholic (now down to 80%). but now it seems more and more people i know are “born again” Christians. i’ve attended a “party” once when a friend invited me which was in their church. it was a Filipino gathering, and i wouldn’t say no to free food. they have a guest of honor who was an American missionary who spent a considerable amount of time. he was a Pentecostal minister. after the meal they funneled into the “worship area” of their church where the minister/missionary talked about his time in the Philippines, so i stayed a while to hear what he was doing back in my home country. then there was this talk about a truck driver who delivered rice to their area, and he was Catholic, and he told of the story how he successfully converted the poor lad. everyone way raising their hands in the air shouting “Alleluia, Praise the Lord!” as if they just converted a pagan into Christianity. i wanted to stand up and protest but i don’t want to look like the bad guy in that area.

you see, around the world there are many Christian sects who are not only seeking converts from non-believers, they also seek to convert Catholics. i’m sure you’re well aware that every non-Catholic Christian congregation sees the Catholic Church as a great evil, a misguided group who’s going down the wrong path. and many, many Catholics fall into the lure of these sects, for one reason or another.

 

[CradleCath]

Yes, horrible things happened, and I hate that! But you are again conflating VII and the Ordinary Form with the actions of (far too many) people around the same time the OF was promulgated. Vatican II didn’t do that stuff, if you read the writings of the Council. Nor did the Ordinary Form do any of that. It didn’t call for tearing out communion rails and statues and high altars and hiding the tabernacle. People did that (and I sure wish they hadn’t!). Even communion in the hand while standing, female altar servers, and some other things like that didn’t come with the Ordinary Form when promulgated. And by the way, the OF has the whole congregation saying the Confiteor, where in the EF the congregation does not say it.

Can you provide us with a link to that quote from Bugnini? If he said that, he was very wrong - but he also failed, thankfully. My dad, a staunch protestant, would take serious exception to the texts of the OF if he read them - way too Catholic for him.

angelqueen.org/articles/04-02_bugnini.shtml

I don’t mean to be rude, but if you haven’t studied anything about this man, Annibale Bugnini, who WROTE the NO. you may not be knowlegeable enough to discuss Vatican II. Anyone who does not know the part that Karl Rahner, Hans Kung & the HANDFUL of “intellectuals” from western Europe played in the making of “new Church” AND how impressed our own hierarchy was with their “sophistication”, really needs to immerse themselves in a study of the council. There are many books about it &, of course, there is much info found on the internet. Do you know how CITH came about?

I am really tired right now. Perhaps tomorrow we can discuss the ambiguous documents of the council. They are very open-ended.

BTW. were you a member of the Catholic church pre-Vatican II. I find that many on these forums who defend the NO., have no idea what the Church was like before the council.

 

[Ockham]

i’m sorry i’m not as old as you. that doesn’t mean i’m ignorant to whats going on espeically in the last 30 years i am alive

Any chance of you making an argument without calling other people ignorant? Is that charitable?

I’m not saying the NO is the only reason for the Church’s decline. It certainly didn’t help though. Shouldn’t the liturgy be helpful in difficult times? Instead we ‘simplified’ the Mass making it less Catholic. New Coke didn’t go over well but there were some people who liked it.

 

[mardukm]

Komosta brother Choy,

i’m not gonna say it never happened
but neither am i going to make a ridiculous and unfounded claim that 80% of those who left have that problem with the Church

the problem is the likes of you think that is the only reason people leave the Church. i am stating there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of reasons why people leave the Church. that is only one out of all those reasons

i personally know dozens of people who have left the Church either officially (joining another faith or declaration of being agnostic or atheist) or unofficially (just stopped going to Church and is just not religious). not one of them has stated the OF as being the reason. so if your claim that 80% left because of the OF, i wonder why i haven’t met any of them if there are so many of them.

You are a breath of fresh air in this Forum.:bowdown:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ockham]

While there are certainly other factors let’s not minimize the impact the Novus Ordo had on the Church’s decline these past forty years. The liturgy is the reflection of our faith. As you worship so you believe. Simplifying the Mass has produced simple Catholics. When faced with moments of doubt that incredible life line we once had was no longer there.

 

[Bbigam]

angelqueen.org/articles/04-02_bugnini.shtml

I don’t mean to be rude, but if you haven’t studied anything about this man, Annibale Bugnini, who WROTE the NO. you may not be knowlegeable enough to discuss Vatican II. Anyone who does not know the part that Karl Rahner, Hans Kung & the HANDFUL of “intellectuals” from western Europe played in the making of “new Church” AND how impressed our own hierarchy was with their “sophistication”, really needs to immerse themselves in a study of the council. There are many books about it &, of course, there is much info found on the internet. Do you know how CITH came about?

I am really tired right now. Perhaps tomorrow we can discuss the ambiguous documents of the council. They are very open-ended.

BTW. were you a member of the Catholic church pre-Vatican II. I find that many on these forums who defend the NO., have no idea what the Church was like before the council.

Thanks for the link. I haven’t studied Archbishop Bugnini, just read a little here and there - that’s certainly an awful quote. What I do know is this: If this is the Church that Christ founded as it claims to be, an Ecumenical Council like Vatican II won’t teach doctrinal error, although men may certainly misinterpret it to teach error. I’m also pretty sure Holy Mother Church could never promulgate a Eucharistic Liturgy that is in serious error the way the SSPX claims the Ordinary Form is. Somewhat more simplified than preferable - sure, but not in error. So even if this quote was really Bugnini’s goal, the Church has been protected from him being able to accomplish it. I’ve tried to say this several times, but no one has responded to it. How can the Catholic Church, in an Ecumenical Council, fall into serious error? If we say this happened with VII, then it may just as well have happened at Trent or even Nicea.

Yes, I’m familiar with how communion in the hand came about, disobedience and all. It wasn’t from the Council or the Ordinary Form, it was later than that, and was unfortunate. For the record, I receive on the tongue.

And no, I wasn’t around at all back then, although I have read up on it some, from people who talk about it like a golden age to those who say it had plenty of problems, too. Unfortunately, my younger age seems to mean that at least some people on this forum will completely discount anything I may have to say.

 

[Ockham]

although men may certainly misinterpret it to teach error.

That’s essentially the legacy of V2: ambiguous documents that were misinterpreted by those with hidden agendas. Although there wasn’t any real need to call the Council I don’t believe there are any doctrinal errors from it.