The Traditional Catholic "Movement"

  • Thread starter Thread starter skyvia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ockham said:
The Church should be looked at as a leader, not a follower. Have you considered the possiblity of the other religious groups declining because we have?

I’m not blaming the Council itself (although it clear wasn’t one of the best) but the modernists who wreaked havoc after it.
Click to expand...
The decline is due to a stronger influence of the world on our day to day lives. The decline would have happened if Vatican 2 would have NEVER been called.
 
Lormar said:
That is quite a speculation, and you have absolutely no way of proving it.
Click to expand...
The proof is in the overall decline of faith, even among those who are anti-Catholic. Vatican 2 had no bearing on them, yet they experienced the same downward spiral. This tells me that Vatican 2 is not to blame, but is just a convenient punching bag for those who refuse to look any further. Please, explain how Vatican 2 is to blame for the decrease in vocations among Protestants? Or increased secularization among American Muslims? If anything, Vatican 2 has helped the problem by providing pastoral instruction to the faithful.
 
StTommyMore said:
The proof is in the overall decline of faith, even among those who are anti-Catholic. Vatican 2 had no bearing on them, yet they experienced the same downward spiral. This tells me that Vatican 2 is not to blame, but is just a convenient punching bag for those who refuse to look any further. Please, explain how Vatican 2 is to blame for the decrease in vocations among Protestants? Or increased secularization among American Muslims? If anything, Vatican 2 has helped the problem by providing pastoral instruction to the faithful.
Click to expand...
What vocations for protestants? What moslems did we have in this country in 1960?
 
Ockham said:
With the Novus Ordo, ambiguous Council documents and Catechesim along with weak catechesis came a decline in reverence and belief in the Real Presence, weekly Mass attendance and regular Confession. If you die with a mortal sin on your soul The Church teaches your odds of eternal salvation aren’t good. Being Catholic is more than just the name of the building you go into Sunday mornings. The break with tradition cost many of us our heritage, identity, and centuries of riches./

QUOTE]

Yes, it did. What I cannot, for the life of me understand, is that very few in these forums really care about our grievances. I don’t know about you, Oakham, but I spent my first 28 yrs. in the pre-Vatican II Church & I’ve endured 40 more in the post Vatican II Church.
Within days of the Motu Proprio, I was hunting for a TLM. I found one & have never looked back. I haven’t attended a Novus Ordo Mass since.

You would think that the “Novus Ordo Catholics” would wonder why??
One does not remain a practicing Catholic for 68 years, throughout so many changes, without being a faithful one. Yet, no one wants to hear about why I bolted the minute I could. Do they have nothing to learn from my experiences & thoughts? Your own experiences & thoughts? Do they ask about the feelings of other Catholics who have stayed when so many left, who give thanks daily for Pope Benedict & the beginning of the reform of the reform?
NOPE!

It’s not that they are hurting my feelings, they aren’t. It’s that they are so opposed to any kind of thinking that does not match their own, that they cannot learn anything that is new to them. I worry for them.
Click to expand...
 
StTommyMore said:
Please, explain how Vatican 2 is to blame for the decrease in vocations among Protestants? Or increased secularization among American Muslims? If anything, Vatican 2 has helped the problem by providing pastoral instruction to the faithful.
Click to expand...
Yikes! Anyone care to reel this red herring in the boat?

How about looking at the numbers: seattlecatholic.com/article_20040119.html

Muslims are growing. If this keeps up you may join your CAF handle and become a martyr.
 
I think the categories missed a major group. There are those that really have no problem with the Pope or Vatican II, that rather prefer traditional worship in and of itself.
 
StTommyMore said:
None of this is the fault of Vatican 2. You are simply looking for a scapegoat to blame. The declaine in faithfulness among Catholics is not the fault of Vatican 2. Think about it, there has been a decline in all Christian faiths. Or is the decline of the Southern Baptists the fault of Vatican 2 as well?
Click to expand...
I will NEVER understand this kind of thinking. Catholics using the decline of those faiths that are no longer part of the Church Christ created, as an excuse for their own problems. You do know that Christ promised us His presence, His help until the end of the age, don’t you?

It matters not what other religions do or don’t do, we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH!

Luke 12:39-48:
Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.
 
CradleCath said:
Within days of the Motu Proprio, I was hunting for a TLM. I found one & have never looked back. I haven’t attended a Novus Ordo Mass since.

You would think that the “Novus Ordo Catholics” would wonder why??
Click to expand...
You know, those are interesting questions. I’ve debated starting a thread on the topic, why were the vast majority of people who were raised and formed before Vatican II perfectly content, and even eager, for the new Mass and all its changes? Why do we hear so often of old priests, who grew up before the Council, who despise the TLM and say that it’ll be celebrated at their church over their dead bodies?

I haven’t started the thread because I assume many people would understand it as a backhanded way of insulting the TLM, which is not what I intend at all. But I also don’t think that the one-liner throwaway answers given to those questions (“Well, they are Modernists. Thank God they are dying off now.”) are very good. I do think people who only know the OF should wonder why some folks are abandoning it for the TLM as fast as they can. But I also think it is very dangerous for people who value the TLM not to question or seek to understand why very many people gladly left the TLM for folk Masses in massive droves. The (non-)answers people give to make themselves feel comfortable (“Bad catechesis,” “Modernism,” “The smoke of Satan,” etc.) only harm the people giving them, just as people who would answer your question by saying, “He’s living in the past” or “He’s probably an anti-Semite” are just confusing themselves and missing out on valuable insights.

So you’re absolutely right – people should wonder why. But that’s the same reason I see a huge missed opportunity (and generally an act of willful blindness) every time I read where someone says, “So I talked to an old priest and asked if he would say the TLM. He grimaced and told me, Never. Sad, isn’t it? Well, at least his kind won’t be around much longer.” I would think people would want to know why he felt the way he did. Were there mistakes made in the past that should be avoided in the future? How could you simply not care?
 
Welcome to CAF, Skyvia! 👋

I hope you rejoin the conversation.
pnewton said:
I think the categories missed a major group. There are those that really have no problem with the Pope or Vatican II, that rather prefer traditional worship in and of itself.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought as well.
 
But I also think it is very dangerous for people who value the TLM not to question or seek to understand why very many people gladly left the TLM for folk Masses in massive droves.
Click to expand...
That is not accurate. “Massive droves” didn’t leave the TLM for folk Masses. The TLM was taken away from us the first Sunday of Advent, 1969. We had no choice but to endure the “folk Masses”.
 
Lormar said:
That is not accurate. “Massive droves” didn’t leave the TLM for folk Masses. The TLM was taken away from us the first Sunday of Advent, 1969. We had no choice but to endure the “folk Masses”.
Click to expand...
Feel free to believe that virtually no one welcomed the liturgical changes, and that it was imposed on unwilling masses by a tiny contingent of people in charge (Freemasons, presumably?). Others will feel equally free to believe that the people going to the TLM now are a tiny minority of unreconstructed antiquarians (schismatics, presumably). Sounds really productive.
 
MarkThompson said:
Feel free to believe that virtually no one welcomed the liturgical changes, and that it was imposed on unwilling masses by a tiny contingent of people in charge (Freemasons, presumably?). Others will feel equally free to believe that the people going to the TLM now are a tiny minority of unreconstructed antiquarians (schismatics, presumably). Sounds really productive.
Click to expand...
You have twisted things a bit.

You said
But I also think it is very dangerous for people who value the TLM not to question or seek to understand why very many people gladly left the TLM for folk Masses in massive droves.
Click to expand...
.

To which I replied:
That is not accurate. “Massive droves” didn’t leave the TLM for folk Masses. The TLM was taken away from us the first Sunday of Advent, 1969. We had no choice but to endure the “folk Masses”.
Click to expand...
Now tell me where you get
Feel free to believe that virtually no one welcomed the liturgical changes, and that it was imposed on unwilling masses by a tiny contingent of people in charge
Click to expand...
from the foregoing exchange (please note that I left out your snide remark about conspiracies, masonic or otherwise).

You said people left the TLM in “droves”. I was pointing out to you that no one left it at all. It was taken away from us the 1st Sunday of Advent, 1969.
 
MarkThompson said:
You know, those are interesting questions. I’ve debated starting a thread on the topic, why were the vast majority of people who were raised and formed before Vatican II perfectly content, and even eager, for the new Mass and all its changes? Why do we hear so often of old priests, who grew up before the Council, who despise the TLM and say that it’ll be celebrated at their church over their dead bodies?
Click to expand...
Now that would be an interesting thread. Unfortunately I doubt it would stay open long. I’d like to explore the issue to understand what was going on post WWII that created the ‘spirit of V2’ so as to not let it happen again.

There are certainly priests of that era who gladly traded the TLM is for a folk Mass. However, there are certainly priests who under their oath of obedience went along with the changes relunctantly. Others publically resisted the changes and ended up excommunicated.

I’ve heard many parishioners quit going to Mass when the NO came out. I’m not sure I’d have taken that route but I emphathize with it. Perhaps the vast majority of Catholics back then trusted the Magisterium and thought it their duty to go along with whatever came down the shoot. Ours is a more inquisitive generation, skeptical even, with access to information our forefathers couldn’t imagine. Without the Internet I would not know the names Bugnini, Bernardin, or even Mahony (being a Canuck in all).
 
Ockham said:
Yikes! Anyone care to reel this red herring in the boat?

How about looking at the numbers: seattlecatholic.com/article_20040119.html

Muslims are growing. If this keeps up you may join your CAF handle and become a martyr.
Click to expand...
Those charts & graphs really show how desparately the Church has been affected. I hope you don’t mind if I cut & paste the conclusions drawn by the statisticians:

"Many have asserted that the sudden decline in all aspects of Catholic life that began in 1965 was due to “other factors,” such as the influence of “the sixties.” But Mr. Jones soundly refutes that argument by including a simple chart (3) which shows a marked decline in Church attendance among Catholics from the 1960s to the present while it remained virtually level, with a slight increase, for Protestants. To more fully understand the nature of the crisis we find ourselves in,** I highly recommend that every Catholic capable of reading beyond an eighth grade level purchase a copy of the Index and study it. **

It is clear from this brief analysis of the data relating to the number of seminarians over the past eighty years that several things are true:

++That the decline in priestly vocations did, in fact, begin with Vatican II and the introduction of the Novus Ordo.

++That the loss is beyond our human ability to comprehend, since it involves souls, but that we should at least be honest about the situation and attempt to comprehend it. **We should quit denying that there is a crisis in the Church, and we should quit denying that it is related to the Second Vatican Council. **

++ That the decline is not showing any signs of reversal, despite the assertions of many bishops and priests to the contrary.
Although we cannot know the will of God, we can ponder the significance of the following:

God calls men to the priesthood. **His doing so within the traditional(ist) religious communities seems to be a good indication that He looks favorably upon them and the work they are doing. **God has left his Holy fingerprint on the decline by relating the decline to the natural number, e. Whenever we find an exponential decay function Ce-xt in nature, where C and x are constants, and t is time, it is in conjunction with the death or decay of some entity within His creation. Now we find an exponential decay function describing the number of seminarians from the Novus Ordo wing of the Church in the United States. We should reflect on whether He is trying to tell us something.

We must pray daily for our Pope & our Church.

The link to the above conclusions is
seattlecatholic.com/article_20040119.html
Scroll down.
 
MarkThompson said:
You know, those are interesting questions. I’ve debated starting a thread on the topic, why were the vast majority of people who were raised and formed before Vatican II perfectly content, and even eager, for the new Mass and all its changes? Why do we hear so often of old priests, who grew up before the Council, who despise the TLM and say that it’ll be celebrated at their church over their dead bodies?

You are kidding, right? All of both my family & my husbands are included in “those raised & formed before Vatican II”. PLUS, attending 3 different Catholic schools in my city, most of my friends also fit that category. Do you really think that we WANTED our Churches gutted, our devotions relegated to the dustbin, our Sacred Mass desecrated?
Those of us who stayed, & many didn’t, did so because we love God & we love the Catholic Faith…enough to hang in there & pray for 40 years.

You will need to show proof of your **“vast majority of people who were raised and formed before Vatican II perfectly content, and even eager, for the new Mass and all its changes?” ** Because I sure haven’t meant any of them.

And where are those “old priests who despise the TLM”?
You do know **that 50,000 men left the priesthood during the reign of Pope Paul IV **& to tell the truth I think we lost the brightest & the best. I know 2 personally who left. Although one has told me that he didn’t leave the priesthood, it left him. I will give you a link to the figure of 50,000 men.
latin-mass-society.org/priesthood.htm

Hopefully, you’ll give us a link as to the numbers of priests who “hated the TLM”.
I haven’t started the thread because I assume many people would understand
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
CradleCath said:
You are kidding, right? All of both my family & my husbands are included in “those raised & formed before Vatican II”. PLUS, attending 3 different Catholic schools in my city, most of my friends also fit that category. Do you really think that we WANTED our Churches gutted, our devotions relegated to the dustbin, our Sacred Mass desecrated?
Those of us who stayed, & many didn’t, did so because we love God & we love the Catholic Faith…enough to hang in there & pray for 40 years.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The data from other faiths helps filter out those factors with come from outside the Church and that which come from inside the Church. What we find is that the blame that Vatican II has for all the ills of the Church is nothing but a* post hoc ergo prompter* hoc fallacy. Yet even though the data points to more significant causes, this fallacy is the trumpet call of all those who dislike the Second Vatican Council. The truth of the matter seems less important than the rhetoric.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top