Restoring Tradition

[Bbigam]

That is not true, in my case anyway. However, I was taught as a child to listen (not just hear, but activley listen) to my elders…

There are a few Catholics on these forums who have known the Church well through both the pre & post-Vatican II years…fewer still are those who stayed in the Church, no matter what.

I was in my mid twenties when Vatican II changed the Mass & the Church. I was totally prepared to LOVE this Novus Ordo. Why not, the Church had always provided me with a sacred liturgy. After trying for many years to accept “new Church”, I found tears in my eyes at Mass more than once. I watched the herd of EEM’s jockey for the “best” positions in the Sanctuary, I listened to sermons on the feast of the Holy Family, that told us to pray for ALL families including homosexual “couples & their children”. I watched priests bring props for their sermons & stroll up & down the aisle during same. I sat, trying to decide whether to laugh or cry as 50 yr. old “liturgical dancers” performed the “ballet of the Great Flood”. AND I STAYED.

So, while no one is “discounting anything you say”, because you didn’t live in both Churches, I believe that it would be wise for those of you who have known only the Novus Ordo Church, to listen to those who have known both, who have researched the events within the Church during the 60’s & 70’s. You may ignor their thoughts, but only after giving them due consideration. There aren’t many of us left, you know. Approximately 70% of pre-Vatican II Catholics just quit attending Mass & silently drifted away.

Thank you for explaining. That’s helpful. I agree that we should be open to listening to our elders! I’m sorry you had to go through all that madness, and I’m glad you stayed. Your comment about “both Churches” made me think though… really, there is one Church, the Catholic Church. A lot may have changed to appearances, and many or even most people may improperly act like it’s a new church (“Sing a New Church,” anyone?) but it is still the Church that Christ founded (albeit a Church, as always, with many sinners as well as saints!). In my opinion, a properly celebrated OF ought to look quite a bit like the EF, and not like some “modern” feel-good show.

BTW., Vatican II was a PASTORAL Ecumenical Council. No doctrine or dogma was promulgated.

I’ve heard this a lot, but still don’t know quite what people mean when they say it. Some people seem to think that it means we can utterly reject the Council. But as I understand it it’s a bit like the authority of the Pope - he has real, legitimate authority, even when he’s not exercising the charism of infallibility, which would be rare indeed.

 

[tpw]

Unfortunately, those who claim the beauty of the liturgy prior to the Second Vatican Council, either never attended mass or have been given romantic notions of what it was like.

The simple beauty of today’s liturgy when celebrated correctly and with a sense of reverence can in itself be breath-taking. We gather together around the Lord’s table in his presence. We are challenged to examine God’s presence in our own lives and those of the people around us. A good homilist will take us from this position “outside” the gathering itself and lead us to seek God beyond us. Sacramentally, the Eucharist helps us to be mindful of God’s presence in our lives in the multitude of ways in which grace works.

Restoring smells and bells as the pre-conciliar liturgy was often described may or may not add anything to this experience. Doing the hard work of praying, reflecting and searching are ways in which we shall find God’s presence in our lives and beyond.

how can we restore the beauty of Worship to God? many dont seem to care abou it. many are more interested in what makes them comfortable without any concern for what God wants. did not God told us how to worship Him? so why are we try to play with it.

many are confusing the problems outside the Church with the problems inside the Church. the problems before, although, we had some in the Church, it was never is bad as it is today. and i have no doubts, it is because of the poor worship that we are giving to God. we have forgotten how important God really is.

youtube.com:80/watch?v=HGHdGFvm1K4

 

[Bbigam]

Wouldn’t it be nice if all Catholics could say that?

Yes indeed!

Because fidelity to the Magisterium is what all Catholics are called to do. Sadly, many of the complaints with the Novus Ordo come from infideility.

Although I generally shy away from labels as they tend to pigeon hole, there is still a purpose to them. I consider those promoting liturgical dance, women’s ordination, and other changes to be Progressives. Those who prefer the Novus Ordo but aren’t looking to make changes don’t require adjectives. Those who prefer the TLM and the pre-V2 Church in general are Traditional Catholics. Does this seem helpful?

Yes, I understand what you’re saying, thanks for explaining. I think the problem is that, the way many people talk on this forum, it’s often easy to infer (correctly or not) that people who are not “Traditional Catholics” are thereby Modernist Catholics. I understand now that you are not saying that, but it often feels like that on these forums. Based on your labels, I am a Catholic, period (but one with great respect for the EF).

At this point I’d be happy to never have to debate this issue again. If the TLM was made accessible to every Catholic each would be able to vote with their feet. It would make the Novus Ordo more reverent and hopefully lead to a restoration of Catholic culture and identity. It will probably get more peole to heaven too.

Sounds wonderful!

 

[plefe]

be there

when he decided to talk.

There are a few Catholics on these forums who have known the Church well through both the pre & post-Vatican II years…fewer still are those who stayed in the Church, no matter what.

I was in my mid twenties when Vatican II changed the Mass & the Church. I was totally prepared to LOVE this Novus Ordo. Why not, the Church had always provided me with a sacred liturgy. After trying for many years to accept “new Church”, I found tears in my eyes at Mass more than once. I watched the herd of EEM’s jockey for the “best” positions in the Sanctuary, I listened to sermons on the feast of the Holy Family, that told us to pray for ALL families including homosexual “couples & their children”. I watched priests bring props for their sermons & stroll up & down the aisle during same. I sat, trying to decide whether to laugh or cry as 50 yr. old “liturgical dancers” performed the “ballet of the Great Flood”. AND I STAYED.

So, while no one is “discounting anything you say”, because you didn’t live in both Churches, I believe that it would be wise for those of you who have known only the Novus Ordo Church, to listen to those who have known both, who have researched the events within the Church during the 60’s & 70’s. You may ignor their thoughts, but only after giving them due consideration. There aren’t many of us left, you know. Approximately 70% of pre-Vatican II Catholics just quit attending Mass & silently drifted away.

BTW., Vatican II was a PASTORAL Ecumenical Council. No doctrine or dogma was promulgated.

Amen and God Bless you.

 

[tpw]

Actually I have lived in both churches. I was nine at the conclusion of Vatican II and saw everything change. I made stupid mistakes like refusing to take communion from a nun. But had the courage to go talk with the nun afterwards to learn why the changes had taken place.

I’ve also seen my share of poor liturgies. That doesn’t mean “going back” to some romantic golden age is the answer.

The issue is how to provide a warm, welcoming, inclusive setting, with participation encouraged while likewise re-establishing a sense of the transcendent.

There are inherent tensions in the liturgy which are to be honored. But it’s going to take gifted and talented liturgists (who may or may not come from Rome) who can work with these tensions honoring both while providing the necessary education to clergy and laity alike to help foster both reverence and a communal spirit.

Having the priest turn his back to the congregation (pre-Vatican II), using language very few people understand (substiting ignorance for mystery) are patently absurd examples of tradition gone awry.

I only hope and pray the liturgical changes coming about are intent on fostering these tensions rather than Rome simply “asserting” itself because it can. Having a non-English speaker head the group which has worked on liturgical translations for the English-speaking countries smells more like the former than any genuine pastoral concern for the people…And a good many US bishops will say the same thing…

 

[Renko]

Vatican II has brought about nothing but problems for the Catholic church. Here are just a few- Lack of reverance, modernism, liberalism, sex scandle, the wanting of women priests, lack of sacred music at mass. Give the old tridentine mass and the traditional ways of the church any day, you can have all the rest of the garbage.

 

[Bbigam]

Having the priest turn his back to the congregation (pre-Vatican II), using language very few people understand (substiting ignorance for mystery) are patently absurd examples of tradition gone awry.

Vatican II has brought about nothing but problems for the Catholic church. Here are just a few- Lack of reverance, modernism, liberalism, sex scandle, the wanting of women priests, lack of sacred music at mass. Give the old tridentine mass and the traditional ways of the church any day, you can have all the rest of the garbage.

Wow, these are dramatically different views! So ad orientem is “patently absurd?” It’s not the priest turning his back on the people, it’s the priest and the people together facing God in prayer and worship. I like to think of it this way: Let’s say we are common people in an absolute monarchy, presenting a petition to our king. And our appointed spokesman faces us with his back to the king? Not likely! He’ll face the king, in front of us and in the same direction as us, presenting the petition on our behalf. I don’t feel like debating the use of Latin, which I really like to some extent but don’t feel is necessary to be the exclusive language of liturgy.

And VII did not call for irreverence, modernism, liberalism, sex scandals, women priests, or a lack of sacred music, or anything like that, by any means. Regarding the music, for example, Gregorian chant is still to be given pride of place! People made those changes or claims or errors using VII as an excuse. Some started before VII, and I don’t think the sex scandal had anything at all to do with VII.

 

[Cristiano]

Vatican II has brought about nothing but problems for the Catholic church. Here are just a few- Lack of reverance, modernism, liberalism, sex scandle, the wanting of women priests, lack of sacred music at mass. Give the old tridentine mass and the traditional ways of the church any day, you can have all the rest of the garbage.

Calling the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass garbage? Quite a Catholic thing to say!

 

[Ockham]

Calling the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass garbage? Quite a Catholic thing to say!

How many Novus Ordos refer to themselves as Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

 

[Cristiano]

How many Novus Ordos refer to themselves as Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

Don’t you know that the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice even if it is mentioned as Ordinary Form, Novus Ordo, Etraordinary Form, TLM, Divine Liturgy etc.? Is the difference in a naming convention reason good enough to lack due respect to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? What a Catholic thing to say!

 

[Bbigam]

How many Novus Ordos refer to themselves as Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

At my parish, before the entrance procession at all Sunday Masses, the cantor always says, “In order to foster reverence for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, please turn off all cell phone and paging devices before Mass begins.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Vatican II has brought about nothing but problems for the Catholic church. Here are just a few- Lack of reverance, modernism, liberalism, sex scandle, the wanting of women priests, lack of sacred music at mass. Give the old tridentine mass and the traditional ways of the church any day, you can have all the rest of the garbage.

i agree with you. people seem to think that the Liturgy is something that we can do our way. all we have to do is do this or that way, or fix this part or that part.

i truly believe that things are going bad in the Church because of the changes in the Liturgy. we built ugly Churches under the excuse as that it will save us money. where is that money now? the saved money is used to pay victims of abuse of people in the Church. God works in misterious ways. i still believe that God punishes His people for wondering off from Him. we dont create the Liturgy it is giving to us by God and it is to be preserved through the ages.

 

[tpw]

The sex scandal existed far before Vatican II. It simply wasn’t addressed as is quite obvious. “Modernism” in the form of modern psychology has discovered the harmful effects of sex abuse in all of its forms. But if you prefer to pretent that sex abuse really harms no one - that’s your privilege.

I’m not sure what you mean by “liberalism”? If you are referring to the social justice movement in the church that began in 1891 and has continued to grow since then. Take a good class in Catholic social teaching and see for yourself.

There has always been different forms of sacred music during the liturgy. The post-Vatican II church simply introduced another form of it. I agree though that some forms of traditional music should be re-introduced. The best liturgies I’ve attended have integrated both traditional and more modern music. Truly integrative.

The argument for women priests had little to do with Vatican II. It’s part of the bigger phenomenon of re-evaluation of roles for women. And since the church is part of - not absolutely separate from the cultures in which it exists - the question about women’s ordination was sure to arise.

Changes in the liturgy were bound to occur as a consequence of re-evaluating the source of Christian tradition - the early church. The Tridentine mass was an alienating experience for many promoting reverence but no communal life. The contemporary experiment has celebrated communal life over reverence. The key is maintaining the liturgical tensions by incorporating both communal life and reverence.

Vatican II has brought about nothing but problems for the Catholic church. Here are just a few- Lack of reverance, modernism, liberalism, sex scandle, the wanting of women priests, lack of sacred music at mass. Give the old tridentine mass and the traditional ways of the church any day, you can have all the rest of the garbage.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

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.

 

[brap]

…I don’t think it’s accurate to tie huge cultural upheaval, inside and outside the Church, to the Ordinary Form and Vatican II. Sure, they happened around the same time…

Since I am no authority on anything I would like to chime in with my own experience which might be applied to my peers and hopefully give insight to the over 50’s crowd.

Growning up Catholic in the 50’s and 60’s you felt you were a suppressed religious minority in the USA. JFK’s election was a big deal and him being catholic was a good enough reason why some people wouldn’t vote for him (as we saw with a morman Mitt Romney).

My education in catholic elementary school has handled by nuns, brothers and priests exclusively until the sixth grade (where I assume the dropoff in religious made this impossible). The Baltimore Cathecism was taught every day and the sacrament of reconciliation was called confession (and God help those who didn’t have something to confess).

We were REQUIRED to attend 9 o’clock Mass (attendence was taken) and by the 5th grade I knew the entire Mass by heart. Although I knew it I still did not UNDERSTAND what I was saying for most of the time. I went to Mass faithfully until my late teens and welcomed the early changes brought about by Vatican II.

Now in the 60’s “Free Love” was a social phenomenom. You were a “Hawk” or a “Dove” a Hippie or part of the establishment. I am not trying to oversimplify but broadly show the choices or paths open to those of us at that time. I (and many of my peers) believed in the free love stuff. What freedom after all those years of catholic suppression. Every part of our social structure was now put under the spotlight of radical thinking. Marriage was not the best way anymore, too many divorces and unhappy spouses. Children were not a expression of loving marriage but a commodity to be accepted or rejected (aborted). Religion was for the ignorant peasants whose lacked the intelligence to understand the sciences.

Being fairly intelligent (you’ve heard what they say about just enough brains to be dangerous) and oh so young, I started to believe what I was hearing.

Religion = BS
Social reform = Truth

So guess what? I stopped going to church. I stopped practicing my faith. I persued those things that I was told I should have. And I did that for a long time.

It wasn’t Vatican II, the Novus Ordo or for that matter anything the Church did that made me fall away. If anything Vactican II was an attempt by the Church to stop the bleeding. The Church Fathers saw what was happening and wanted the laity to understand more fully what was going on during the Mass (and in the faith broadly) in the hope that it would make people stronger in their catholicism.

Probably too little too late.

I am hopeful that my peers will return as I did. If they feel they same way, they never considered themselves anything but catholic - just not a active one.

 

[CradleCath]

Wow, these are dramatically different views! So ad orientem is “patently absurd?” It’s not the priest turning his back on the people, it’s the priest and the people together facing God in prayer and worship.

I do wonder why people like Bbigham come to the Traditional forum. We have forums on the Liturgy, Social Justice, Scripture, Philosophy & on & on. It’s obvious that most of them have NO idea about the Theology of the Latin Mass, so it’s almost impossible to discuss it with them.

For one thing, the idea that the priest & the laity pray the Mass together, seems foreign to many of them. One trys to explain, for instance, we say two PUBLIC confiteors…the first is the priest’s prayer for forgiveness, that he may become worthy of praying the Mass, the second if a prayer of forgiveness for our own sins.

The priest prays toward the altar & the Tabernacle (the holy of holies), because in the TLM. he is** one of us**. He does not pray AT us, but** with **us & in several of the Mass prayers, we pray for him.

The prayers at the foot of the Altar are another thing that the Novus Ordo people do not understand &, as far as I can see, they believe NOTHING they are told on the Traditional Catholic forum. I’ll try anyway: Before the priest ascends the steps of the high altar, he prays the Judica Me “(Jugde me, O God) & distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy…Send forth Thy light & Thy truth. They have conducted me & brought me unto Thy Holy Hill & into Thy Tabernacles”

He is praying to be worthy to even approach the Altar upon which the Sacrifice of Calvary is to be celebrated. The Mass notation beside the Judica Me, in my 1962 missal says the following:
“The celbrant longs to ascend to the altar of God, there to perform his Holy office & to draw near to the Lord God, even in union with Him in the Eucharist. HE CONFIDES HIMSELF TO THE MERCY OF GOD, source of light, salvation & peace.”

I don’t think that anyone who does not **want **to understand the TLM, will ever be able to relate to it’s humility, it’s pleading prayers, it’s emphasis on the unworthiness of all present, including the priest.

 

[CradleCath]

I do wonder why people like Bbigham come to the Traditional forum. We have forums on the Liturgy, Social Justice, Scripture, Philosophy & on & on.

 

[pnewton]

I do wonder why people like Bbigham come to the Traditional forum. We have forums on the Liturgy, Social Justice, Scripture, Philosophy & on & on.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

good questions.
here is a great quote.

**… Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, but I’m here among you to prevent something far worse for you. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal — who allow scandals to destroy their faith — are guilty of spiritual suicide. **
St. Francis de Sales

 

[Bbigam]

Sorry for misusing the name bBigham. This post was a REPLY to his quote of another poster who called the Ad Orientem position in the TLM., a “disaster” .

Thanks for clarifying! I was confused and starting to think you dramatically misunderstood my post!

In case anyone else has in fact misunderstood, while I primarily attend the OF, I am a big supporter of ad orientem, particularly for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I’ve never been to an OF that was celebrated ad orientem, though - one of the reasons I make it a point to attend the EF on occasion. Other reasons include, but are not limited to, the beautiful use of Latin chant and kneeling to receive Our Lord.