Should the Church return to the old rite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaslighting? Pretty strong and strange words.
I see a lot of ‘force’ and “spirit”. What ever happened to words like teaching and actions or even thoughts?

There is a Holy Spirit out there. The other spirits we have actually been warned about; we can hold to the ones we TEST yes, that’s in the Bible and find to be true. Others can disguise themselves as ‘angels of light’ but be ravening wolves.
 
spirit of Trent on until the Church needed to reorient us
There is no such thing as the “spirit of Trent”. The Council of Trent gave the Church a solid foundation and produced a catechism that Pope Benedict XVI said was the most important Catholic Catechism.

There was a “spirit of Vatican II” and people stated it, claimed it and used it as an excuse to do unspeakable things to the Church.
And because of the dialogue made possible by embracing an ecumenical spirit, we now have the happy situation of Anglican Ordinariates. Some entire Anglican Parishes coming back to the Pope.
Yes it is important that ecumenism brings people into the Church, not lead people out.
 
40.png
Emeraldlady:
spirit of Trent on until the Church needed to reorient us
There is no such thing as the “spirit of Trent”. The Council of Trent gave the Church a solid foundation and produced a catechism that Pope Benedict XVI said was the most important Catholic Catechism.

There was a “spirit of Vatican II” and people stated it, claimed it and used it as an excuse to do unspeakable things to the Church.
Of course there was. It was the ‘spirit’ of counter Reformation. That was the particular mission of the Council of Trent. All the Councils have a backstory to reference which provides the ‘spirit’ of the work.
 
Of course there was. It was the ‘spirit’ of counter Reformation. That was the particular mission of the Council of Trent. All the Councils have a backstory to reference which provides the ‘spirit’ of the work.
Yes, every council has a mission that is based on what is happening at that time, though post VII, there were actions that were being done that were based not on the mission of VII but a false “spirit”. This was the stated movement of some at the time. A feeling of we are better Christians now, let’s get rid of everything that came before us.

Post Trent, I am sure, there were things done and said that were evil because people misinterpreted the Council or the “mission” was misinterpreted, because we are all sinners then and now, but there were also great saints pre VII that spread the love of Christ and His Church. We can not get the false impression that we are better than our Church Fathers, the Apostles or the saints of the past.

The truth may have been hard to hear post Trent, which is part of our Catholic church and is also a valid council and the documents still stand, but it is just as wrong not to give people the truth and let them suffer eternally. False ecumenism is just as wrong as no ecumenism.
 
Last edited:
That’s what happens at our local abbey: Latin propers, Latin/Greek ordinary, the rest in French plainchant. It is very beautiful especially as the chant is expertly done. I sing in a schola too that also does the same thing once a month at local OF Masses. Well did, until this miserable pandemic.
You belong to a congregation connected to Solemnes, right? I’m a big admirer of the work they do.
 
Yes, every council has a mission that is based on what is happening at that time, though post VII, there were actions that were being done that were based not on the mission of VII but a false “spirit”. This was the stated movement of some at the time. A feeling of we are better Christians now, let’s get rid of everything that came before us.
You’ve been a lady after my own heart in this discussion today, but I have to ask — where are you getting the “we are better Christians now” concept that some apparently felt? I’ve never heard this before. A so-called “spirit” of Vatican II, yes. An idea of “we are the new and improved version”? Interesting, but new to me.
 
Oh, I’ve been on the receiving end of that, back in 1970 and even today. But as MagdaldenaRita notes it was some, and stated. Even today you get the faint whiffs of it (subtle but there) with hearing how people who like the EF are trying to go ‘back’ to some supposedly great but of course not just imperfect but HIGHLY imperfect times as compared to now. “Go back to the 1950s? Don’t you people care that women had ‘no’ opportunities, couldn’t have their own money, were limited to marriage, nursing, and teaching? Don’t you people CARE about how blacks and other minorities were treated? Of course you don’t you elitist slobs. You are trying to go back to that terrible preVatican 2 time With mumbojumbo Mass, segregation, racism, and hatred. It was Vatican 2 and its spirit that breathed in reform. That ‘allowed Protestants to be our brothers and sisters and not ‘going to hell”. It was Vatican 2 that gave us a mass we understood, that let the priest not turn his back on the people. We’re better Christians now. Our whole outlook is Easter and family, not sorrow for sins —who could ever commit a mortal ‘sin’ anyway? Etc. etc.

Like I said, it has pretty much permeated the whole Catholic Culture in most “Anglo” Catholics, especially those of the coasts and cities.

There was a thread about Marian devotions not too long ago in which as early as 1976 Pope St. Paul VI remarked on how in pretty much just since Vatican 2 there were concerns about Marian devotions being too old fashioned and too ‘over the top’. He condemned that sort of feeling, along with the idea that Mary was too ‘rarified’ for the ‘average Catholic woman. But despite what he said, you’ll hear that kind of sentiment from today’s “modern Catholic’ still!
 
One man’s meat, etc.

When I was re-reading C. S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters’ recently, there was a chapter that made me think a lot of these fora.

The hero (a nameless ‘patient’ who is to be tempted by a young devil and his superior, Screwtape) has a mother (with her own ‘tempter’). Screwtape tells the young devil to ‘let your patient think in talking with his mother that all the little ‘irritants’ she has, her finger tapping, the way she only wants a ‘teeny piece of toast and tea’ when he has taken trouble to fix a nice meal, etc. are not only known by her to irritate the son, but that she irritates him DELIBERATELY. Every word she utters the son is to ‘hear’ with the most aggravating and offensive undertone. Whereas every word that HE utters (even though of course he has habits that irritate his mother as well) is to be taken as being the most charitable, reasonable, and sweetly uttered.

So while they might engage in seeming kind conversations, they are each practicing oneupmanship.

The one is hearing every word the other says as being harsh and hateful, but thinking every word of theirs is sweetness and light.

So of course, the more they speak and interact, the angrier they get.

It reminds me of here because most of us who like something —say it is the OF and the EF in question—probably think that everything WE say is ‘sweet reason’ while—the longer the conversation goes on and people are saying, or arguing, the contrary-the madder we are getting at each other, because we simply cannot ‘grant’ to the other person the same virtue we are parading ourselves as possessing.

We’re leaping for the moral high ground and in order to do so, we have to stand on top of the other person.

And of course it helps to use loaded words too and then do a ‘who innocent little me” when called on it, too (and NONE of us can say we aren’t guilty of that at some point).

That’s one reason that as much as I’ve enjoyed participating in the times CA has been on, I am starting to get too uncomfortable. I just see too many people on here who are just going to get on the bully pulpit and pat themselves on the back for showing those ‘others’ (those who are ‘not-like-me’) how utterly vile they are for their hatefulness (we don’t even have differences of opinion any more). It gets harder and harder to pick oneself up and say, “They aren’t really attacking me as a person” and it gets hard not to snark in return.

I am tired of it all.

I think I’ll spend the next couple of weeks knitting and just forgetting about ‘talk’ for a while. It gets, sadly, soul killing here.
 
You’ve been a lady after my own heart in this discussion today, but I have to ask — where are you getting the “we are better Christians now” concept that some apparently felt? I’ve never heard this before. A so-called “spirit” of Vatican II, yes. An idea of “we are the new and improved version”? Interesting, but new to me.
Thank you

The we are better Christians now and not so rigid as the past is occassionaly a thought that goes through the forum.

I recently heard a priest say that to feel we are better now, more merciful, better Catholics because of the thoughts and ideas of today is uncharitable to those who have gone before us, uncharitable to the leading of the Holy Spirit and a sin against the 4th commandment because we are not honoring our Fathers.
 
Considering the amount of people who are leaving in droves should the Catholic Church return back to the missal of 1962? I understand that proper education should be given first before making a switch but don’t you think it’s worth a shot?
I think the notion that the style of the Mass is the deciding factor on people being Catholic or not is absurd.

In my humble opinion, the deciding factor is whether or not people live as Catholic outside of Mass. Is being Catholic magnet or is it confined to the hour or so you spend at Mass? The future of Catholicism will be determined by our actions, not the form of Mass we prefer.
 
Thank you

The we are better Christians now and not so rigid as the past is occassionaly a thought that goes through the forum.

I recently heard a priest say that to feel we are better now, more merciful, better Catholics because of the thoughts and ideas of today is uncharitable to those who have gone before us, uncharitable to the leading of the Holy Spirit and a sin against the 4th commandment because we are not honoring our Fathers.
I think humanity, and in conjunction with it Christianity does progress with time. It’s not that we are “better” but simply that we progress. Let’s not forget that it’s been some time that the Church condoned slavery. Over time we’ve softened our language about the “perfidious Jews”, and we’ve grown in the ways we coexist with our Christian brethren of other ecclesial communities. We no longer refuse absolution to women who use NFP. Women, rightfully, are no longer regarded as chattel and the Church respects women in professions, government, etc.

These changes parallel changes in society. We like to think that humanity is going down the drain, but the fact is huge progress has been made in the last couple of decades in stopping racism, in technology, in medicine, and other areas. And the Church is no longer as suspicious of some of them as she used to be.

I would call that “progress”

What’s important to keep in mind though, is that we cannot judge the actions of yesteryear by the standards of today. We have to measure behaviours of the 1950s or any other time against the standards of that era.
 
There was a “spirit of Vatican II” and people stated it, claimed it and used it as an excuse to do unspeakable things to the Church.
Not sure I agree … I can not think of unspeakable things that happened due to the spirit of VII. I often hear people complain about Church renovations as a travesty, but only a segment of the population feels that way. Many feel the opposite… that stripping away the decadence and obsession with the ornate decoration of the Church building was a very good thing that is leading us through the new evangelization.

I for one hope that we do not fall prey to a sterile restorationism that longs for an idealized version of the past… the exact thing that St John XXIII warmed against in the opening speech at VII… prophets of doom
 
Last edited:
Not sure I agree … I can not think of unspeakable things that happened due to the spirit of VII. I often here people complain about Church renovations as a travesty, but only a segment of the population feels that way. Many feel the opposite… that stripping away the decadence and obsession with the ornate decoration of the Church building was a very good thing that is leading us through the new evangelization.
We will definitely have to agree to disagree there. I saw people crying when the altars were ripped out and statues taken down and stuck in back rooms.

I am glad to say though that there is a renovation happening. Countless Churches in my city, thank God, are being restored. Beauty is being brought back. I met a man once who it was his job to restore Churches that were destroyed in the 70’s. He said he has more work than he can handle. Once on a tour of a Church, the host said the parishioners were so glad to finally get rid of the shag carpeting.
sterile restorationism that longs for an idealized version of the past…
Again it is not about idealizing the past but bringing forward what we left behind.
St John XXIII warmed against in the opening speech at VII
He never called for the destruction of Churches.
 
Last edited:
He never called for the destruction of Churches
You’re right, we disagree. I do not believe Church’s were destroyed.

I think that the obsession with the style of the Church building rather than the health of the Church itself is proof that there is a real sickness afflicting the Chuch
 
Could it help bring the people back though is my question.
I didn’t read most of this thread. To answer your question, it could. What it takes to turn a heart, help them see clearly what they left, and come home will be different for different people.
 
Let’s not forget that it’s been some time that the Church condoned slavery.
Yes, though I was listening to a Catholic historian the other day who said the Church never condoned the type of slavery that was existing at the time of early American colonial times.
we’ve grown in the ways we coexist with our Christian brethren of other ecclesial communities.
as said in earlier posts, there is a false ecumenism and a true ecumenism. The Catholic church is still the only place one can find salvation. As citizens we havae civil religious liberty but we do not have the liberty to tell God how we will worship Him. He directs that through Divine Revelation.
We like to think that humanity is going down the drain, but the fact is huge progress has been made in the last couple of decades
Yes, there are good things happening today. True.
What’s important to keep in mind though, is that we cannot judge the actions of yesteryear by the standards of today.
Agree
We have to measure behaviours of the 1950s
I am always a little confused as to why people bring up the 1950’s in these conversations. I don’t know anyone who is wanting to return to the 1950’s. I like the music of that era and their devotion and dedication to rebuild the family structure after the wars, they had cool cars but the Tradition of the Church pre-dates the 1950’s. I also like the swing music of the 1940’s.
I think that the obsession with the style of the Church building rather than the health of the Church itself is proof that there is a real sickness afflicting the Chuch
I am not sure who is obsessed with the style of Church buildings except that we need to know that the building of Churches is the building of monuments to God. They are built to honor our God Our Cathedral was restored with such beauty and honor to so many saints and the Blessed Mother. It’s awesome. It doesn’t mean that we are not concerned about the health of the Church. We can be concerned about both. The interior of one’s heart will be reflected in our actions toward God.
 
Last edited:
We will definitely have to agree to disagree there. I saw people crying when the altars were ripped out and statues taken down and stuck in back rooms.
But sadness at seeing something change is not a reason not to do it. Look at all the oldies going to daily Mass now. They got over it and continued to go with the flow of the pilgrim Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top