Wanting to become a traditional Catholic

[Denise1957]

And no one bothers to mention that Mass reforms started back in 1948.

I’m beginning to think it had/has more to do with the fact that people were/are expecting more and more transparency in their government, their local church, the Fed, their schools, and on and on. Even their liturgy it seems. The priest now faces the people and everything is audiblized (even amplified) in the vernacular so that nothing goes unnoticed and there’s hardly any mystery left. Doesn’t mean people understand things any better. Nor does it mean they will follow it any better either. Financial statements of dioceses are now available to the public; CSPAN follows every move on the Senate and House floors; and so on. But how many even care now that it’s all available, when one time they demanded audits on everything?

From all my observations, many people are turned off in the EF because of the inability to follow it, even if it is well-organized and “you have Latin on one side and English on the other.” Okay reason I guess but it misses the point of what used to attract people to Mass in the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s among other eras. I’m not 100% sure but it probably had something to do with the reasons expressed in Trent, specifically Session 22.

Do you think that it was the mystery associated with the Mass that attracted people back in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s? It seems to me, that since the altar, where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered, is the meeting place between Heaven and earth, there should be an air of mystery about it.

I read the session 22 of Trent, from the link provided, and it does provide a beautiful and thorough description of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; especially chapters 4, 5, 8, and 9 (and in particular, canons 7 and 9, in chapter 9 which seem appropriate to the discussion).

 

[OraLabora]

Okay reason I guess but it misses the point of what used to attract people to Mass in the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s among other eras. I’m not 100% sure but it probably had something to do with the reasons expressed in Trent, specifically Session 22.

Or because if you were Catholic, going to Mass on Sunday was the conformist thing to do.

People started rebelling against authority in a serious way in the 1960s. It should be no surprise then, that an authoritatively instituted “obligation” started to be disobeyed en masse.

I don’t recall too many of my Catholic relatives telling me they went to Mass because of the mystery.

They went because that was the thing to do if you were Catholic. We tend to forget on CAF that in the 40s, 50s, 60s and even now, Catholics in the pew were not expert liturgists, theologians, etc. We were just the man/woman (or in my case, kid) in the pew. We did what we did because obedience still meant something back then. I’m sure there were many people in pews back then that would rather be somewhere else (this kid included). In fact many were, having a smoke together on the front steps of the church.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Nobody is mentioning the fact that the Protestant denominations experienced a severe decline in attendance also, and even with the rise in Evangelicals, most came from former traditional Protestant denominations. I hardly think the OF or Vatican II was responsible for this.

 

[Denise1957]

Or because if you were Catholic, going to Mass on Sunday was the conformist thing to do.

People started rebelling against authority in a serious way in the 1960s. It should be no surprise then, that an authoritatively instituted “obligation” started to be disobeyed en masse.

I don’t recall too many of my Catholic relatives telling me they went to Mass because of the mystery.

They went because that was the thing to do if you were Catholic. We tend to forget on CAF that in the 40s, 50s, 60s and even now, Catholics in the pew were not expert liturgists, theologians, etc. We were just the man/woman (or in my case, kid) in the pew. We did what we did because obedience still meant something back then. I’m sure there were many people in pews back then that would rather be somewhere else (this kid included). In fact many were, having a smoke together on the front steps of the church.

Mass isn’t just an obligation. We should WANT to go to Mass. Isn’t it possible that Catholics actually wanted to go to Mass back in the old days?

Did you read the Trent session 22?

–

 

[ProVobis]

Or because if you were Catholic, going to Mass on Sunday was the conformist thing to do.

I don’t believe they’ve changed the rules on conformity. Missing Mass is still grave matter.

People started rebelling against authority in a serious way in the 1960s. It should be no surprise then, that an authoritatively instituted “obligation” started to be disobeyed en masse.

Or perhaps the herd mentality wished transparency to the Mass, the faith, etc? From all indications, bishops were taking some kind of polls on these matters so it wasn’t like people didn’t provide some (name removed by moderator)ut. And we know people don’t always know what they want.

I don’t recall too many of my Catholic relatives telling me they went to Mass because of the mystery.

So what reasons do they give? Force of habit, perhaps? But then how did that habit start?

 

[OraLabora]

So what reasons do they give? Force of habit, perhaps? But then how did that habit start?

They didn’t give reasons. They were Catholic. They just went. It was the thing they’d been doing since they were a small child. It didn’t take a reason to go to Mass, but it sure took one to miss Mass.

I think we tend to overthink things on CAF sometimes. Most of my relatives (except one uncle who was a doctor) were simple working-class folks. My mother had a grade 10 education she never finished high school. They had a simple faith.

Sometimes I envy that.

 

[OraLabora]

Nobody is mentioning the fact that the Protestant denominations experienced a severe decline in attendance also, and even with the rise in Evangelicals, most came from former traditional Protestant denominations. I hardly think the OF or Vatican II was responsible for this.

This is exactly true.

Moreover the Anglicans had their own “Vatican II” when the Book of Alternative Services was published as an alternative to the “traditional” Book of Common Prayer in the 1960s.

At my wife’s parish, there’s still a BCP “mass” at 8:30 am, and a BAS service at 10 am. The poor pastor is caught in the middle, the two groups can hardly stand each other and rarely speak to each other. It’s as if it were two separate denominations.

I pray all the time that the same thing doesn’t happen to us with the EF vs OF crowd. I’m not always encouraged by what I read here.

 

[ProVobis]

They didn’t give reasons. They were Catholic. They just went. It was the thing they’d been doing since they were a small child. It didn’t take a reason to go to Mass, but it sure took one to miss Mass.

I think we tend to overthink things on CAF sometimes. Most of my relatives (except one uncle who was a doctor) were simple working-class folks. My mother had a grade 10 education she never finished high school. They had a simple faith.

Sometimes I envy that.

Ora, I’m not sure I know the point you’re arguing. You yourself partake of Gregorian chant and Latin prayers. If anything, I would think you’re still awed by the mystery of the Mass and the LOTH, and the mysteries of the rosary.

 

[TimothyH]

Ora, I’m not sure I know the point you’re arguing. You yourself partake of Gregorian chant and Latin prayers. If anything, I would think you’re still awed by the mystery of the Mass and the LOTH, and the mysteries of the rosary.

He is arguing the difference between a simple faith which trusts vs. those who consider themselves theologians with a divine birthright to question everything.

The former go to Mass because they trust that God is everything people say about him, the Church is everything it claims to be and if they do what the leaders God gave them tell them to do they will eventually, somehow get to heaven. The latter wrack their brains over every minutiae of the Mass, question every doctrine, reverse engineer the sacraments and think mystery is something they can find in rubrics or Gregorian chant or the perfect elevation of the host.

The former are like the woman who touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment and was healed or the woman who put two pennies in the treasury. The latter get freaked out every time the priest blows his nose and have a crisis of faith every time someone doesn’t worship perfectly.

The Early Desert Fathers walked off into the deserts of Egypt to find mystery. They also showed up at “The Pasch” every day because they trusted that “wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst.”

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Ora, I’m not sure I know the point you’re arguing. You yourself partake of Gregorian chant and Latin prayers. If anything, I would think you’re still awed by the mystery of the Mass and the LOTH, and the mysteries of the rosary.

He is arguing the difference between a simple faith which trusts vs. those who consider themselves theologians with a divine birthright to question everything.

The former go to Mass because they trust that God is everything people say about him, the Church is everything it claims to be and if they do what the leaders God gave them tell them to do they will eventually, somehow get to heaven. These are like the woman who touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment and was healed or the woman who put two pennies in the treasury.

The latter wrack their brains over every minutiae of the Mass, question every doctrine, reverse engineer the sacraments and think mystery is something they can attain to through rubrics or Gregorian chant or the perfect elevation of the host. They get freaked out every time the priest blows his nose and are never happy because they don’t have all the answers.

The Early Desert Fathers walked off into the deserts of Egypt to find mystery. They also showed up at “The Pasch” every day because they trusted that “wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst.” They didn’t trust themselves too much but rather entrusted themselves to older, more experienced “Abbas” who pointed out to them their mistakes.

-Tim-

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

Ora, I’m not sure I know the point you’re arguing. You yourself partake of Gregorian chant and Latin prayers. If anything, I would think you’re still awed by the mystery of the Mass and the LOTH, and the mysteries of the rosary.

I’m not really arguing, more like musing.

Yes, I do love the mystery of the Mass, and its enhancement with chant. My mother too loved it when the choir sang well.

But her faith was simple. No theology. No amateur canon lawyer. No expert liturgist, she wouldn’t have recognized a “liturgical abuse” unless it was something blatantly outrageous.

Just prayer and trust.

 

[Denise1957]

I’m not really arguing, more like musing.

Yes, I do love the mystery of the Mass, and its enhancement with chant. My mother too loved it when the choir sang well.

But her faith was simple. No theology. No amateur canon lawyer. No expert liturgist, she wouldn’t have recognized a “liturgical abuse” unless it was something blatantly outrageous.

Just prayer and trust.

Your post was directed toward Pro Vobis, but I hope it’s okay to interject my opinion yet again.

Perhaps your mother would have trusted that it would be alright if there were other Catholics who viewed the situation differently than she did? In other words, did she believe that all Catholics should be like her? Or do just think that all Catholics should be like her? She sounds like a wonderful person, but we aren’t all cookie cutter models of humans - we’re individuals - and as such, we don’t all think alike. We just have to look to the CAF forums to understand how we are not all alike. I think it’s okay that traditional Catholics are attached to the old liturgy and devotions. Our dear Pope Benedict believes so, too.

 

[OraLabora]

Your post was directed toward Pro Vobis, but I hope it’s okay to interject my opinion yet again.

Perhaps your mother would have trusted that it would be alright if there were other Catholics who viewed the situation differently than she did? In other words, did she believe that all Catholics should be like her? Or do just think that all Catholics should be like her? She sounds like a wonderful person, but we aren’t all cookie cutter models of humans - we’re individuals - and as such, we don’t all think alike. We just have to look to the CAF forums to understand how we are not all alike. I think it’s okay that traditional Catholics are attached to the old liturgy and devotions. Our dear Pope Benedict believes so, too.

On the contrary, my mother was one of the most tolerant human beings I’ve ever known. She worried about her own faith, not that of others (well except mine of course but she had the authority of parenthood over me). She went with the flow of the Church, didn’t impose demands or lament the past (in fact there were elements of her Catholic upbringing and education in a Catholic convent that she was glad to see the back of when Vatican II came).

Like I said, she really didn’t over-think her faith, and most of her siblings were the same way. Her brother, a doctor, was much the same way; he was our direct neighbour as a teen and I don’t recall him every speaking about the faith in a major way (he was a “man of few words” but lots of action). But that he was devout was unquestionably obvious. If he wasn’t at the hospital delivering a baby, on an emergency or performing surgery on a Sunday morning, I would see him walking to Mass, without fail (my mother and I tended to favour the early Mass and he the “High” Mass). Just the dignity with which he comported himself was obviously imprinted by the faith. He was deeply involved in his community, in fact he ran the Catholic Child Welfare society in our town; they were responsible for unwed mothers and placing their babies up for adoption. He is how my mother became my mother: I was adopted as an infant, and was one of his “patients” as it were.

From what I know of them, the living of the faith was what was important for them, and they continued to live it in fidelity well after Vatican II (my uncle died in 1988 and my mother in 2001). They could care less about some of the things we argue about here, such as which direction the priest faced at Mass.

 

[Denise1957]

On the contrary, my mother was one of the most tolerant human beings I’ve ever known. She worried about her own faith, not that of others (well except mine of course but she had the authority of parenthood over me). She went with the flow of the Church, didn’t impose demands or lament the past (in fact there were elements of her Catholic upbringing and education in a Catholic convent that she was glad to see the back of when Vatican II came).

Like I said, she really didn’t over-think her faith, and most of her siblings were the same way. Her brother, a doctor, was much the same way; he was our direct neighbour as a teen and I don’t recall him every speaking about the faith in a major way (he was a “man of few words” but lots of action). But that he was devout was unquestionably obvious. If he wasn’t at the hospital delivering a baby, on an emergency or performing surgery on a Sunday morning, I would see him walking to Mass, without fail (my mother and I tended to favour the early Mass and he the “High” Mass). Just the dignity with which he comported himself was obviously imprinted by the faith. He was deeply involved in his community, in fact he ran the Catholic Child Welfare society in our town; they were responsible for unwed mothers and placing their babies up for adoption. He is how my mother became my mother: I was adopted as an infant, and was one of his “patients” as it were.

From what I know of them, the living of the faith was what was important for them, and they continued to live it in fidelity well after Vatican II (my uncle died in 1988 and my mother in 2001). They could care less about some of the things we argue about here, such as which direction the priest faced at Mass.

Good to know that your mother worried about her own faith, and not that of others. I presume, then, that she would not have minded that some Catholics are attached to the old liturgy and devotions.

Anecdotal evidence can be helpful, but I don’t see how it’s possible to determine a norm from anecdotal evidence, or should it determine what all Catholics should believe, IMO. Since the Catholic Church used the old liturgy and devotions for many centuries, they cannot be wrong. To believe that the old liturgy and devotions are somehow wrong is like saying that the Church was wrong in using them for so long. Pope Benedict has determined that it is not wrong to be attached to the old liturgy, and some of us agree with him.

 

[OraLabora]

Good to know that your mother worried about her own faith, and not that of others. I presume, then, that she would not have minded that some Catholics are attached to the old liturgy and devotions.

Anecdotal evidence can be helpful, but I don’t see how it’s possible to determine a norm from anecdotal evidence, or should it determine what all Catholics should believe, IMO. Since the Catholic Church used the old liturgy and devotions for many centuries, they cannot be wrong. To believe that the old liturgy and devotions are somehow wrong is like saying that the Church was wrong in using them for so long. Pope Benedict has determined that it is not wrong to be attached to the old liturgy, and some of us agree with him.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with devotion to the old liturgy, nor do I disagree with Pope Emeritus Benedict that it’s still valid. I have no idea what my mother’s reaction to it would have been; she died in 2001 and I had only been back in the Church for three and a half years and this topic was very far from my mind at that time.

The “wrong” is when people use it (or the new liturgy) to foment division among Catholics. As I pointed out, it happened to a certain extent among the Anglicans. It’s happened and continues to happen in our Church too.

But alas it is a very normal human reaction. It’s proof that the Gospel message has yet to sink into our stubborn minds and that we still suffer the effects of Original Sin.

I would also like to point out that in respect of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is very much possible to have the new Mass in a way that is respectful to tradition, in fact even in a way that can be called “traditional”. It is in fact being done that way in many places. It’s a pity that more here don’t explore, and reinforce, that possibility by forming/joining a schola, getting more involved in liturgical committees, etc.

It might help narrow the gulf that separates some EF and OF aficionados.

 

[Denise1957]

Of course there’s nothing wrong with devotion to the old liturgy, nor do I disagree with Pope Emeritus Benedict that it’s still valid. I have no idea what my mother’s reaction to it would have been; she died in 2001 and I had only been back in the Church for three and a half years and this topic was very far from my mind at that time.

The “wrong” is when people use it (or the new liturgy) to foment division among Catholics. As I pointed out, it happened to a certain extent among the Anglicans. It’s happened and continues to happen in our Church too.

But alas it is a very normal human reaction. It’s proof that the Gospel message has yet to sink into our stubborn minds and that we still suffer the effects of Original Sin.

I would also like to point out that in respect of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is very much possible to have the new Mass in a way that is respectful to tradition, in fact even in a way that can be called “traditional”. It is in fact being done that way in many places. It’s a pity that more here don’t explore, and reinforce, that possibility by forming/joining a schola, getting more involved in liturgical committees, etc.

It might help narrow the gulf that separates some EF and OF aficionados.

I don’t agree that the old liturgy is at all wrong, even if it is cause for division. There can be many reasons why some trads go overboard (or what seems to be so) with their views. True, it can be the effects of original sin, which is always there and affects all of us (not just traditionalists). But that’s not the only reason. We often assume (and I’m quilty of this myself) that when division exists, that it means that whoever “seems” to us be the cause (which is subjective at times), is responsible for division.

In the case of trads seeming to cause division, I don’t think that the division would exist if the Mass hadn’t been drastically changed in the 60’s, or the old devotions done away with (for the most part), or the altar rails taken away, or the statues removed. These are causations in themselves. We cannot say, really, that the changes didn’t occur. Not everyone is going to deal with extreme change in the same way.

I happen to frequent an SSPX forum in which extreme trad views are expressed. I’ve learned a lot of patience from that forum, in that I usually don’t allow myself to react or get upset by views that seem extreme, that I disagree with. I’ve accepted that others are going to view various Catholic issues differently than I do, though I may still have an opinion to express.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t agree that the old liturgy is at all wrong, even if it is cause for division.

I suppose in a way you’re right. If I use pliers to loosen a nut instead of a proper wrench, then it isn’t the fault of the pliers if I round the corners of the nut. Similarly, if some use the EF vs OF to sow division (it takes two to tango), it isn’t the fault of either form of the Mass but people misusing the Holy Mass.

In the case of trads seeming to cause division, I don’t think that the division would exist if the Mass hadn’t been drastically changed in the 60’s,

It would be almost impossible to prove that this is the cause. To wit, many folks who went through the changes quite welcomed them. I can’t help but notice that it appears that a significant number of folks clamouring for the old Mass weren’t even born when it was the only form of the Mass, whereas a significant number of folks who lived through Vatican II took to the new Mass like a duck to water. The bottom line appears to be “you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all the time”. There are also parts of the world where Latin is an obstacle; the Mass is no longer only for people of Western European descent. Perhaps some of the changes went too far; perhaps not. I know the simplification of the liturgical year, a process begun well before Vatican II, has made the liturgy much easier. In the past so much time in the Divine Office was spent in the festive psalter that religious came to view ordinary ferias as a “special event”. That certainly undermines the notion of a “feast”.

Moreover significant reforms to the Mass and the Divine Office have been going on since the beginning of the 20th Century, what with the 1908 release of the Vatican Edition of the Roman Gradual (thus forever casting in stone the Solesmes method for Gregorian chant), the 1910 (major) reforms of the Divine Office, the reforms of the Mass beginning in 1948 (under Mgr. Bugnini I might add) which changed Holy Week in the early 50s, changed the rubrics and significantly altered the hierarch of feasts. The reform train was already picking up steam quickly befor Vatican II.

or the old devotions done away with (for the most part),

Can you demonstrate how the old devotions were “done away with”? AFAIK they haven’t. If folks don’t do them anymore… well that again is like blaming the pliers for rounding out the nut. The devotions exist. Learning and understanding them is just a Google away, and applying them rests with individual will. People still do Novenas, pray the Angelus (they even still ring it in my town), pray the Rosary, do the Stations of the Cross, do adoration, etc. And now more and more (self included) participate in the public liturgy of the Church by praying the Liturgy of the Hours, a beautiful devotion largely unknown to the laity before the 1970s.

or the altar rails taken away, or the statues removed. These are causations in themselves. We cannot say, really, that the changes didn’t occur. Not everyone is going to deal with extreme change in the same way.

None of this was “caused” by Vatican II. No edict of Vatican II required the removal of altar rails or statues. Similarly no return to the old Liturgy is required to restore them. In Chicoutimi, Quebec, at the cathedral, the old and beautiful high altar was removed and sent to collect dust in the basement during the demolition craze immediately post-Vatican II. A recent bishop took note of if, had it restored, and re-installed. Mass is still only celebrated in the Ordinary Form. Increasingly, there are people forming scholas to restore Gregorian chant. I belong to one, and our mission is to bring Gregorian chant to the Ordinary Form, like Sacrosanctum Concilium strongly recommends. All of the chant books have been reissued to adhere to the post-Vatican II reforms.

I happen to frequent an SSPX forum in which extreme trad views are expressed. I’ve learned a lot of patience from that forum, in that I usually don’t allow myself to react or get upset by views that seem extreme, that I disagree with. I’ve accepted that others are going to view various Catholic issues differently than I do, though I may still have an opinion to express.

Patience is a virtue. I think arguing with views that border on conspiracy theory should be replaced by prayer. I see a lot of conspiracy theory type logic in extreme traditionalist views: Bugnini was a freemason/Protestants create the new Mass, etc. There’s not much use arguing with that kind of nonsense.

 

[ProVobis]

To wit, many folks who went through the changes quite welcomed them. I can’t help but notice that it appears that a significant number of folks clamouring for the old Mass weren’t even born when it was the only form of the Mass, whereas a significant number of folks who lived through Vatican II took to the new Mass like a duck to water.

There were changes even before the new Mass was promulgated in 1970. Hymns were added, vernacular worked itself into the Mass, priests were facing the people, communion rails were removed, most of the signs and bows were removed, Mass was audibilized, etc. I missed a lot of this in the latter half of the '60’s but when I was talked into coming back in 1970, I noticed fewer Masses said, fewer people per Mass, confessions almost non-existent and everyone going to communion. Maybe the ducks took to the water, but there were a lot fewer of them.

 

[otjm]

There were changes even before the new Mass was promulgated in 1970. Hymns were added, vernacular worked itself into the Mass, priests were facing the people, communion rails were removed, most of the signs and bows were removed, Mass was audibilized, etc. I missed a lot of this in the latter half of the '60’s but when I was talked into coming back in 1970, I noticed fewer Masses said, fewer people per Mass, confessions almost non-existent and everyone going to communion. Maybe the ducks took to the water, but there were a lot fewer of them.

According to CARA, the peak of attendance was about 1957, with 62% attending. By 1970, it was about 50% attending, or a loss of about 12%. That averages out to a little less than a loss of 1% of the Catholics per year.

Another interesting observation comes from Father Joseph H. Fichter, writing in 1951, near the peak of attendance, both of which occurred before Vatican 2 was ever proposed.

He writes: “By actual count, 35.08 per cent of the congregation read the missal all during the Mass; while another 22.08 per cent read some sort of prayer-book while following the priest’s reading of the Gospel. … The remaining persons simply stared off into space, although several men in the last pews sometimes read a copy of Our Sunday Visitor during Mass.” this comes from Southern Parish, the Dynamics of a City Church; Volume 1, University of Chicago Press 1951, page 151.

 

[ProVobis]

… the reforms of the Mass beginning in 1948 (under Mgr. Bugnini I might add)

Which is true but after Pope Pius XII effectively and partially reversed Trent’s anathema against any pastor creating new forms of the Mass (Session 7 Canon XIII), allowing the Pope to be the sole authority on liturgy changes (Mediator Dei).

I understand the Divine Office had been changed much earlier.