Vatican II from a young person's perspective

[The_Old_Medic]

I was in the US Army when Vatican II began. I converted to “the old church”, and sometimes I do miss the old rituals. I do NOT however miss the old church, which was dogmatic, fuill of errors and drove a lot of people away form it

Priests and Nuns, in ignorance (I believe) taught a lot of things that simply were not true, and that were against the actual teachings of the church. They did things that caused many a young person to leave, believing that they had somehow failed the church.

As an example, a Priest in a town in Northern California got almost every child at the age of 13 to make a solemn vow to God that they would never drink alcohol before they reached the age of 21, upon pain of eternal damnation. He was wrong to do this (it was not according to the teachings of the church), he caused several teens that did drink to leave the church (they thought they were horrible sinners, condemned by God because they had broken their vow).

I had spent two years in a Passionist prepatory seminary. I learned that much of what I had “learned” about my church was garbage, superstition and some of it was simply NOT the teachings of the Church at all. Imagine what those kinds of things did to a lot of people, when they discovered that what they had been taught was not the truth at all?

The church is much more open now. That is a good thing. Nobody stays Catholic now because they were raised as one, they stay a Catholic because they believe in their Church and in what it teaches.

I wish that more people would commit to a life of service to the Church. I miss the days of having Nuns as teachers in every Catholic School (or Brothers or even Priests in some cases). I miss the “innocence of that era”.

My ONLY regret about Vatican II is that John XXIII did not live about 5 more years,. I suspect that a LOT more of the recommendations of the Council would have been approved, we WOULD have a married clergy in the Latin Rite, and we would have a much more vibrant and alive church than we do.

 

[HCC]

The church is much more open now. That is a good thing. Nobody stays Catholic now because they were raised as one, they stay a Catholic because they believe in their Church and in what it teaches.

Dear TheOldMedic,

I agree with a lot of your sentiments, however this is not one of them. I am in my 30s and after living in NYC the last 5 years and in Chicago the 5 prior, 2 cities with huge Catholic populations, I can assure you the majority of Catholics in their 20s/30s are either ignorant of, or apathetic to the teachings of the Church.

The number one sentiment I have heard expressed over and over is, “I registered (note, registered, not necessarily attend,) at a Catholic church because I want to have my wedding there.” Never mind that they’re shacked up with their hunny, that quite a few are on birth control or have had abortions and when they occasionally do attend Mass, they receive Holy Communion-Confession? HA!

Then there are the completely misguided. One young woman was telling us at work what she gave up for Lent and someone mentioned she didn’t have to do that on Sundays. Her response was that that was wrong thinking on the part of the Church because it disrupts the 40 day fast that Jesus undertook. When I mentioned Lent was in fact longer than 40 days, she said, “I don’t believe that. Lent ends for me exactly 40 days after Ash Wed.”

Another young woman I worked with, overheard the pope’s name mentioned and shouted, “Ewww! I hate the pope!” Now, this is a young woman who took great pride in her roll as a “Eucharistic Minister.” So, I very quietly asked, “How is the pope evil?” She hemmed and hawed and came out with, “I don’t know…he just is, everyone knows that.”

A few years ago I worked with a young man, very intelligent, Ivy educated, considers the Catholic Church very important to him. Did that impact his going to strip joints, the porn collection he boasted about regularly and how many people he scored? No! However, he would talk about how he had to go to Mass every Sat evening and receive Holy Communion. When I asked if he ever considered going to confession, he replied, “Yeah, I do, when my church has a penitential service during Lent, but I don’t tell the priest THAT STUFF.”

All that said, I know plenty of wonderful young adults who are serious about their faith–very serious. Many are following calls to a life of service in the Church. Sadly, it has not been my experience that these are the majority.

The confusion and mis-teaching you speak of before the Council, while wrong, was well intentioned to keep everyone on the right path. The confusion that reigns now is an ambiguity and blurring of the teachings and beauty of our faith which, I believe has lead to far more harm than good.

 

[edwest2]

I did not read all the posts, no. But I’m young (around Jack’s age I think) so I want to contribute.

VII, to me, was a step backwards. The Church has such a rich history, so why mess with it? Why change the centuries old Mass to suit modern times? The Church was doing just fine with Latin and the EF, but looked what happened with the changes. Abuses started popping up everywhere. Things like the ‘clown Mass’, while uncommon, now happen. Respect for the Church has been lost. Kids (and parents) now show up poorly dressed and are disrespectful. Women priests are now a prevalent topic and some have been ‘ordained’ by schismatic bishops. Catholic youth have next to no morals (trust me, I go to a Catholic school. If it wasn’t for the uniforms and the crucifixes everywhere we might as well be a public school). Am I saying Catholic youth were goody two-shoes before VII and snapped after? Of course not. But there is little interest in the Church now among most youth. The ones that are interested join youth groups, which I think very often offer shaky theology.

This part refers to the bold:
I disagree. If young people were educated about the Latin in the Mass and given prayer books with Latin-English translation, I think many young people would love a Latin Mass (I know I would!) It would also confer some respect and really show the kids that “Yes! Jesus really is in the Eucharist!!”. If done properly, I think kids now days really would like a Latin Mass. Of course, if they go to one without any education and no idea what’s going on, they probably would hate it. Proper education is key, but it seems that now days such proper education is lacking in many Catholic schools.

IMHO, the Church should have stuck with Latin. At least they didn’t outlaw it though.

And VII didn’t produce totally negative results. Humanae Vitae came out in 1968 (right?), after Vatican II and it just reinforced Church teaching. It didn’t modify anything, even though the Pope had pressure to do so. Vatican II wasn’t a total letdown, I suppose. But I feel more bad than good came out of it.

Just my :twocents:

Unfortunately, too many people accept opinions as if they were facts. Find out what actually happened:

harvestingthefruit.com/

You should know that none of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II. The Church was the victim of a coordinated attack from within and from the outside world. Humanae Vitae told Catholics: don’t use The Pill or other forms of Artificial Birth Control because if you do, there will be an increase in promiscuity.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wisdomseeker]

Unfortunately, too many people accept opinions as if they were facts. Find out what actually happened:

harvestingthefruit.com/

You should know that none of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II. The Church was the victim of a coordinated attack from within and from the outside world. Humanae Vitae told Catholics: don’t use The Pill or other forms of Artificial Birth Control because if you do, there will be an increase in promiscuity.

God bless,
Ed

i agree. the CC faith has been a joke to most nation. wherever the Latin Mass was forbidden, the Faith has been destroyed and the new Mass became a Mass of shows by priests who thinks like protestants.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Vat II mentioned nothing about hippie priests, etc. It was one of the most important Ecumenical Councils in Church history and will take decades or even centuries to work out its application. The time for it was right.

here is what the pope says.

On November 27, 1967, the pope said: "We lost the language of the Christian centuries, become almost profane intruders in the grounds and literary expression of the sacred, and thus lose much of that stupendous and incomparable artistic fact that is the Gregorian chant .

 

[MarkThompson]

here is what the pope says.

On November 27, 1967, the pope said: "We lost the language of the Christian centuries, become almost profane intruders in the grounds and literary expression of the sacred, and thus lose much of that stupendous and incomparable artistic fact that is the Gregorian chant .

Oops, that’s just a little bit out of context, no? After all, he continued:

1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
2. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
3. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
4. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse?
   You can agree or disagree with the sentiment, of course, but you’re misquoting the Holy Father for pretty much the exact opposite of the point he was trying to make.

 

[spankyg]

1. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? [/INDENT]

The Holy Father is doing just that, raising a point in a manor which leaves it open for debate. From the outcome we now see that the point he raised was not the case and is in fact working against the Church.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I hate to disillusion those that think that the Catholic world was perfect before Vatican II, but it was not.

Many Catholics were just as ignorant about the teachings of the Church, as they are today. Attendance at Mass was higher, but so was attendance at almost all Christian churches. Sadly, the vast majority of “Cradle Catholics” had zero understanding of the Mass, could understand none of it, and essentially went through it by rote.

I couldn’t understand why those “born Catholics” didn’t learn Latin, so they could truly participate in the Mass. But they rarely did, even later in life. Even if they took Latin in high school, they rarely could actually apply it to something as concrete as the Mass.

I learned more religious “garbage” from Priests, Nuns and Brothers in the Pre-Vatican II days than I have EVER heard since. There were a lot of children terrified that they were going to hell because of a venial sin (at worst), and often because of no sin at all, just the misguided teachings of some religious ignoramus.

I remember being told by Christian Brothers in a Catholic Boarding School that I had to get to confession immediately if i had a “wet dream”. That I had committed a “Mortal Sin”, and my soul was in jeopardy! Some of the boys actually believed that ****, and they were terrified that they might die before confession and be condemned to hell forever.

Hate to tell you, but there were just as many molestations of children going on back then (if not more), teen aged girls being seduced by Priests, Brothers and Nuns, as well as vulnerable adults. I know personally three physically disabled women that were taken advantage of by Priests. Two of them received regular payments from the Diocese where those Priests were active, to support the bastard children. The Church would just move the Priest to another parish, where he would find others to prey upon.

No, it was not an “ideal world” back then. That is exactly why Pope John XXIII called for a Vatican Council. He knew that the Church was stagnant, it was rapidly losing membership, that some things were rotten to the core, and that they had to make massive changes in the church. So did most of the Bishops and Cardinals, which is why they proposed a LOT more in the way of changes than were ever actually put in place.

Unfortunately, John XXIII was followed by a conservative, who “Chickened out” on making the necessary changes. The Church is a much poorer thing because of that.

I get such a kick out of the judgmental ways of so many on this web site. They don’t like the church, they want to turn back the clock to something that they never experienced, and they see an ideal that never was. They forget that the Tridentine Church was also a reform, as were several “reforms” before that. The Tridentine Church only came about in the 15th century.

So, what do you really want to go back to? To what the Church enforced in the West for about 450 years? Or perhaps to the church as it existed for the first 700-800 years of its existence?

If you truly went back to the church as it was founded, we would primarily meet in each others homes, there would be a massive number of married ordained Priests, (keep in mind that each and every one of the Apostles was married, and even St. Paul extolled the married clergy). Back then, virtually any good man was ordained as a Priest, and the Priests generally selected who became the Bishop. The Holy See had little power at all, other than Moral, for the first several hundred years of the existence of the Church.

 

[fhansen]

I hate to disillusion those that think that the Catholic world was perfect before Vatican II, but it was not.

Many Catholics were just as ignorant about the teachings of the Church, as they are today. Attendance at Mass was higher, but so was attendance at almost all Christian churches. Sadly, the vast majority of “Cradle Catholics” had zero understanding of the Mass, could understand none of it, and essentially went through it by rote.

I couldn’t understand why those “born Catholics” didn’t learn Latin, so they could truly participate in the Mass. But they rarely did, even later in life. Even if they took Latin in high school, they rarely could actually apply it to something as concrete as the Mass.

I learned more religious “garbage” from Priests, Nuns and Brothers in the Pre-Vatican II days than I have EVER heard since. There were a lot of children terrified that they were going to hell because of a venial sin (at worst), and often because of no sin at all, just the misguided teachings of some religious ignoramus.

I remember being told by Christian Brothers in a Catholic Boarding School that I had to get to confession immediately if i had a “wet dream”. That I had committed a “Mortal Sin”, and my soul was in jeopardy! Some of the boys actually believed that ****, and they were terrified that they might die before confession and be condemned to hell forever.

Hate to tell you, but there were just as many molestations of children going on back then (if not more), teen aged girls being seduced by Priests, Brothers and Nuns, as well as vulnerable adults. I know personally three physically disabled women that were taken advantage of by Priests. Two of them received regular payments from the Diocese where those Priests were active, to support the bastard children. The Church would just move the Priest to another parish, where he would find others to prey upon.

No, it was not an “ideal world” back then. That is exactly why Pope John XXIII called for a Vatican Council. He knew that the Church was stagnant, it was rapidly losing membership, that some things were rotten to the core, and that they had to make massive changes in the church. So did most of the Bishops and Cardinals, which is why they proposed a LOT more in the way of changes than were ever actually put in place.

Unfortunately, John XXIII was followed by a conservative, who “Chickened out” on making the necessary changes. The Church is a much poorer thing because of that.

I get such a kick out of the judgmental ways of so many on this web site. They don’t like the church, they want to turn back the clock to something that they never experienced, and they see an ideal that never was. They forget that the Tridentine Church was also a reform, as were several “reforms” before that. The Tridentine Church only came about in the 15th century.

So, what do you really want to go back to? To what the Church enforced in the West for about 450 years? Or perhaps to the church as it existed for the first 700-800 years of its existence?

If you truly went back to the church as it was founded, we would primarily meet in each others homes, there would be a massive number of married ordained Priests, (keep in mind that each and every one of the Apostles was married, and even St. Paul extolled the married clergy). Back then, virtually any good man was ordained as a Priest, and the Priests generally selected who became the Bishop. The Holy See had little power at all, other than Moral, for the first several hundred years of the existence of the Church.

I have to agree with this post. Vat II did not precipitate the changes that took place in human society in the last 40 years or so years, it anticipated those changes if anything. And abuses that occurred were the result of a major shift in peoples attitude towards authority and human freedom.

 

[edwest2]

I hate to disillusion those that think that the Catholic world was perfect before Vatican II, but it was not.

Many Catholics were just as ignorant about the teachings of the Church, as they are today. Attendance at Mass was higher, but so was attendance at almost all Christian churches. Sadly, the vast majority of “Cradle Catholics” had zero understanding of the Mass, could understand none of it, and essentially went through it by rote.

I couldn’t understand why those “born Catholics” didn’t learn Latin, so they could truly participate in the Mass. But they rarely did, even later in life. Even if they took Latin in high school, they rarely could actually apply it to something as concrete as the Mass.

I learned more religious “garbage” from Priests, Nuns and Brothers in the Pre-Vatican II days than I have EVER heard since. There were a lot of children terrified that they were going to hell because of a venial sin (at worst), and often because of no sin at all, just the misguided teachings of some religious ignoramus.

I remember being told by Christian Brothers in a Catholic Boarding School that I had to get to confession immediately if i had a “wet dream”. That I had committed a “Mortal Sin”, and my soul was in jeopardy! Some of the boys actually believed that ****, and they were terrified that they might die before confession and be condemned to hell forever.

Hate to tell you, but there were just as many molestations of children going on back then (if not more), teen aged girls being seduced by Priests, Brothers and Nuns, as well as vulnerable adults. I know personally three physically disabled women that were taken advantage of by Priests. Two of them received regular payments from the Diocese where those Priests were active, to support the bastard children. The Church would just move the Priest to another parish, where he would find others to prey upon.

No, it was not an “ideal world” back then. That is exactly why Pope John XXIII called for a Vatican Council. He knew that the Church was stagnant, it was rapidly losing membership, that some things were rotten to the core, and that they had to make massive changes in the church. So did most of the Bishops and Cardinals, which is why they proposed a LOT more in the way of changes than were ever actually put in place.

Unfortunately, John XXIII was followed by a conservative, who “Chickened out” on making the necessary changes. The Church is a much poorer thing because of that.

I get such a kick out of the judgmental ways of so many on this web site. They don’t like the church, they want to turn back the clock to something that they never experienced, and they see an ideal that never was. They forget that the Tridentine Church was also a reform, as were several “reforms” before that. The Tridentine Church only came about in the 15th century.

So, what do you really want to go back to? To what the Church enforced in the West for about 450 years? Or perhaps to the church as it existed for the first 700-800 years of its existence?

If you truly went back to the church as it was founded, we would primarily meet in each others homes, there would be a massive number of married ordained Priests, (keep in mind that each and every one of the Apostles was married, and even St. Paul extolled the married clergy). Back then, virtually any good man was ordained as a Priest, and the Priests generally selected who became the Bishop. The Holy See had little power at all, other than Moral, for the first several hundred years of the existence of the Church.

It was never perfect. I was there before and after Vatican II and it pains me to see false statements made about it. Here is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening of the Second Vatican Council:

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0261i.htm

None of the “changes” that occurred after Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II. Today, a fictional account is still being spread.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

And Vatican II bore fruit:

harvestingthefruit.com/

God bless,
Ed

 

[white_sheep]

I’m with Edwest2, V2 didn’t make all the changes.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It was never perfect. I was there before and after Vatican II and it pains me to see false statements made about it. Here is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening of the Second Vatican Council:

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0261i.htm

None of the “changes” that occurred after Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II. Today, a fictional account is still being spread.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

And Vatican II bore fruit:

harvestingthefruit.com/

God bless,
Ed

Thank you Ed. this is really nice. if only all Catholics wanted to believe the Truth, things would get better much quicker instead of staying in the wrong and fight the Council.

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

I hate to disillusion those that think that the Catholic world was perfect before Vatican II, but it was not.

Many Catholics were just as ignorant about the teachings of the Church, as they are today. Attendance at Mass was higher, but so was attendance at almost all Christian churches. Sadly, the vast majority of “Cradle Catholics” had zero understanding of the Mass, could understand none of it, and essentially went through it by rote.

I couldn’t understand why those “born Catholics” didn’t learn Latin, so they could truly participate in the Mass. But they rarely did, even later in life. Even if they took Latin in high school, they rarely could actually apply it to something as concrete as the Mass.

I learned more religious “garbage” from Priests, Nuns and Brothers in the Pre-Vatican II days than I have EVER heard since. There were a lot of children terrified that they were going to hell because of a venial sin (at worst), and often because of no sin at all, just the misguided teachings of some religious ignoramus.

I remember being told by Christian Brothers in a Catholic Boarding School that I had to get to confession immediately if i had a “wet dream”. That I had committed a “Mortal Sin”, and my soul was in jeopardy! Some of the boys actually believed that ****, and they were terrified that they might die before confession and be condemned to hell forever.

Hate to tell you, but there were just as many molestations of children going on back then (if not more), teen aged girls being seduced by Priests, Brothers and Nuns, as well as vulnerable adults. I know personally three physically disabled women that were taken advantage of by Priests. Two of them received regular payments from the Diocese where those Priests were active, to support the bastard children. The Church would just move the Priest to another parish, where he would find others to prey upon.

No, it was not an “ideal world” back then. That is exactly why Pope John XXIII called for a Vatican Council. He knew that the Church was stagnant, it was rapidly losing membership, that some things were rotten to the core, and that they had to make massive changes in the church. So did most of the Bishops and Cardinals, which is why they proposed a LOT more in the way of changes than were ever actually put in place.

Unfortunately, John XXIII was followed by a conservative, who “Chickened out” on making the necessary changes. The Church is a much poorer thing because of that.

I get such a kick out of the judgmental ways of so many on this web site. They don’t like the church, they want to turn back the clock to something that they never experienced, and they see an ideal that never was. They forget that the Tridentine Church was also a reform, as were several “reforms” before that. The Tridentine Church only came about in the 15th century.

So, what do you really want to go back to? To what the Church enforced in the West for about 450 years? Or perhaps to the church as it existed for the first 700-800 years of its existence?

If you truly went back to the church as it was founded, we would primarily meet in each others homes, there would be a massive number of married ordained Priests, (keep in mind that each and every one of the Apostles was married, and even St. Paul extolled the married clergy). Back then, virtually any good man was ordained as a Priest, and the Priests generally selected who became the Bishop. The Holy See had little power at all, other than Moral, for the first several hundred years of the existence of the Church.

I have to disagree with this post on some levels. Certainly things were not perfect, and certainly Vat II is not the cause of all evils, but from the lay perspective, Vat II did embrace certain elements of the age. As a “cradle” protestant I can attest to this. Vat II had ramifications that led far beyond the Catholic Church.
Most of the “old mainstream” protestant denominations suffered greatly from the perspectives that came from that time and “endorsed” by Vat II. Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians ect. The reach of Vat II went far beyond Rome. I saw it happen.

All eyes are on Rome, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

As far as “understanding the Mass”, that’s irrelevant to a degree. It is a participation in a Sacrament. Infants do not understand their Baptism. I spent the first few years of my “Catholic” faith immersed in a Byzantine liturgy where even most of the Greeks knew little of what what was said (similar to how many protestants, who speak English, can’t handle the King James or a high Anglican liturgy).

If you participate, you know the Mass, regardless, imo.

The sacramental was diminished for other agendas. Thank God, it seems the Church has weathered the storm. Thank God for Pope Benedict and his reforms.

 

[GIR]

I was born in 1985. I’m angry at my parents’ generation for robbing me of such wonderful things. My parents personally did what they could to raise me well, but as near as I can tell, neither of them had a super duper catholic upbringing themselves.

I started getting interested in “traditionalism” when I started learning Latin at my public high school. I asked myself “why don’t we use this in Church anymore?”

Now I can’t get enough. I don’t want a “celebration” at mass, I want Calvary. I celebrate my people’s birthdays, but Jesus sacrificed himself for us.

Would you really sing cheesy guitar songs and clap and hold hands if you really and truly believed that Jesus was up on the altar? If He knocked on your door right now, would you give Him a high five or fall to the ground and kiss the hem of his garments? The way we approach Mass indicates that we in general have lost touch with it’s meaning.

 

[Onegin]

I’m with Edwest2, V2 didn’t make all the changes.

But it did facilitate them. After all, if a new Mass hadn’t been written then there wouldn’t have been … a new Mass. If anything, it invited trouble by failing to take the firm hold necessary (especially given the rapid decline in secular society at that point).

Many traditionalists agree that there were problems before Vatican II. I agree with this - I don’t believe that things were perfect, but be that as it may I think that they were still better than what we have now in terms of Mass attendance, reverence, adherence to Catholic doctrine, quality of catechesis and Catholic education, number of vocations, etc. Reforms were needed yes - certain changes were necessary given the state of the world but Vatican II did little towards implementing them. Instead, it chose a full over-haul of the Mass and in choosing an overhaul, it opened the door to the problems and confusions we see today.

To be perfectly frank, given the progression of society at the time, what was needed was a strict condemnation of relativism, subjectivism, modernism and communism. Unfortunately, the Church instead (whether intentionally or not) projected an image of flexibility and accommodation to modern ideas. Couple the poor understanding of ecumenism to the religious pluralism that society was touting and many poor Catholics mistakenly thought that the Church was endorsing these ideas too. The bottom line is that all this gave the impression that the immutable, unchangeable Catholic Church had changed and this confusion and distress lead to many people falling away from a faith that they no longer felt they understood.

Edit: I just noticed the post above mine and I agree completely. How interesting that the lack of reverence in the Church has tracked the general lack of reverence in society. With one follows the other when, in fact, the Church needs to stand up against the lax attitudes in society through the clear imposition of doctrine and moral education. I’m a young person and I want to know what is right and wrong - my generation, for a large part, is sick of hearing that 'it depends upon each person/circumstances/culture, etc".

 

[Adeodatus]

Would you really sing cheesy guitar songs and clap and hold hands if you really and truly believed that Jesus was up on the altar? If He knocked on your door right now, would you give Him a high five or fall to the ground and kiss the hem of his garments? The way we approach Mass indicates that we in general have lost touch with it’s meaning.

Very well said.

 

[coolduude]

Very well said.

I ditto what he said

 

[wisdomseeker]

I was born in 1985. I’m angry at my parents’ generation for robbing me of such wonderful things. My parents personally did what they could to raise me well, but as near as I can tell, neither of them had a super duper catholic upbringing themselves.

I started getting interested in “traditionalism” when I started learning Latin at my public high school. I asked myself “why don’t we use this in Church anymore?”

Now I can’t get enough. I don’t want a “celebration” at mass, I want Calvary. I celebrate my people’s birthdays, but Jesus sacrificed himself for us.

Would you really sing cheesy guitar songs and clap and hold hands if you really and truly believed that Jesus was up on the altar? If He knocked on your door right now, would you give Him a high five or fall to the ground and kiss the hem of his garments? The way we approach Mass indicates that we in general have lost touch with it’s meaning.

 

[Jehoshua]

I was born in 1985. I’m angry at my parents’ generation for robbing me of such wonderful things. My parents personally did what they could to raise me well, but as near as I can tell, neither of them had a super duper catholic upbringing themselves.

I started getting interested in “traditionalism” when I started learning Latin at my public high school. I asked myself “why don’t we use this in Church anymore?”

Now I can’t get enough. I don’t want a “celebration” at mass, I want Calvary. I celebrate my people’s birthdays, but Jesus sacrificed himself for us.

Would you really sing cheesy guitar songs and clap and hold hands if you really and truly believed that Jesus was up on the altar? If He knocked on your door right now, would you give Him a high five or fall to the ground and kiss the hem of his garments? The way we approach Mass indicates that we in general have lost touch with it’s meaning.

AMEN, AMEN I SAY TO YOU.

Im 18 and i am disgusted at the filth that infringes on the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thank the Lord our God that a restoration is beginning amongst the hierarchy and amongst the young towards tradition and a genuine expression of catholicity. Not some psuedo protestant, chauvinistic farce.

I just hope that those catholics pushed away by the idiocy of my fathers have the veil of modern relativistic emptiness lifted from their minds and hearts, and turn back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, expressed as it was always meant to be, with reverence, sanctity and piety before the altar of our God.

---

Gloria in excelsis deo, pax et hominibus bonae voluntatis

Amen

 

[edwest2]

I was born in 1985. I’m angry at my parents’ generation for robbing me of such wonderful things. My parents personally did what they could to raise me well, but as near as I can tell, neither of them had a super duper catholic upbringing themselves.

I started getting interested in “traditionalism” when I started learning Latin at my public high school. I asked myself “why don’t we use this in Church anymore?”

Now I can’t get enough. I don’t want a “celebration” at mass, I want Calvary. I celebrate my people’s birthdays, but Jesus sacrificed himself for us.

Would you really sing cheesy guitar songs and clap and hold hands if you really and truly believed that Jesus was up on the altar? If He knocked on your door right now, would you give Him a high five or fall to the ground and kiss the hem of his garments? The way we approach Mass indicates that we in general have lost touch with it’s meaning.

Why are you angry? I was there before Vatican II. Then, next week, we had a new, smaller altar, Mass was in English and the priest was facing us. I was in Catholic school. We went to Mass during school hours. I had no reason to be less reverent, less worshipful or less devoted. The words were now in English instead of Latin. I never lost touch with its meaning.

The nuns told us at the time that the language change was to encourage greater participation. That’s it. All of the “innovations” like guitars and such were not introduced by Vatican II. In fact, I heard a priest on Catholic Radio talk about how guitars and similar will be removed from Churche services. Self-proclaimed “reformers” in the 1960s were responsible.

By 1970, teaching Latin was phased out of my Catholic school. The outside world and some within the Church were encouraging a “modern” (actually, modernist) approach to the Mass to make it more “relevant.” They were wrong. In some cases, they were doing harm and knew it. But the Church leadership, like Jesus, does not just slap people down.

Things are turning around.

God bless,
Ed