What attracts youths to the Tridentine?

[ComradeAndrei]

Not having the discussion with the priest, I do not know what he means by “decadant” in the 50’s , but I would certainly like to hear. As to where those priests are, You might look into the most conservative seminaries. Keep in mind that a seminary can be true to the Magisterium and not be exceedingly conservative. Read Goodby, Good Men; some of the people in there weren’t able to separate out wheat from chaff either.

All the bad stuff that people drag out against the TLM in this country is, generally speaking, attacks on a strawman of slivers of 1950’s American culture. Priests mumbling through low Masses on Sunday to get in their big sedans and head off to the golf course for the rest of the day, etc. are all part of the decadent culture of that time period. No, it wasn’t all that bad by any means, but liturgical “prowess” so to say wasn’t exactly at a high point in “pre-conciliar” America. The priest’s point was this-most of the people who attack the TLM by saying they don’t want to go back to the “Leave it to Beaver” days or that we Trads want to ossify the Church in the 1950’s are attacking (generally in ignorance) a strawman. All that was wrong in the Church in 1950’s America is not a part of the TLM and there’s nothing in the Trad movement (at least in any legit one) that is so simple-minded as to want to merely return to a “good ol’ day” that never existed.

I suspect, since Cardinal Ratzinger was a professor in Europe, and has spent almost his entire life in Europe, that when he looked at the Church and what was left of it in Europe, that was what he was speaking of - country after country where only 5 to 10% of the Catholics were attending Mass on a regular basis. Couple this with the massive loss of priests and religious throughout there, and there was only a remnant. Secularism is far more advanced there than here.

Secularism and numbers aren’t the only games in town-we also have to deal with Islam and, like I said before, apostasy and heresy within and without the Church. While this is only anecdotal and I’d like to see some hard numbers for it, from what I hear, most of that 5-10% of folks who still go to Mass fall into the same two extremely general groups you see anywhere and in anytime-pew warmers getting their Sunday obligation filled and the zealous and dedicated believers (orthodox, Trad, neo-conservative and anywhere in between alike) who will someday act as the leaven to restore Christianity.

There has been apathy (but guess what - it wasn’t invented with Vatican 2) and there has been dissent.

Never said that Vatican II was to blame.

However, not all of the dissent has been from the left; it is just that the dissent from the left has been the most widespread. Those dissenting on the right have been largely marginalized.

No, it is not all liberals but at least the “traditionalists” falsely so-called generally have the guts to say, “No, we don’t agree with you and are not in communion with you” and leave.

And Rome has repeatedly recognized the Church in the US as being a bright spot in the world of Catholicism, and a vibrant part of the Church, in spite of its problems. The difficulties elsewhwere, most particularly Europe, are far greater than you seem to realize.

I realize what is going on in Europe, thank you very much. What do you think contributed to these problems in Europe? France had something like 90% of Catholics Sunday Mass attendence before the Council and then these numbers took a drastic nose-dive after it. Do you not think that all the nonsense that happened after the Council and even some of the officially sanctioned or allowed stuff had nothing to do with this? The Church in the US is a bright spot in Catholicism, mainly because we have remained fairly orthodox despite lots of rumbling from the “American Church” to the contrary.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

What I have seen is a general and gradual move to a more conservative position in the Church in the US.

May God be praised.

But I have also seen the anger, and outright visciousness to Vatican 2 by some of those styling themsleves as traditionalists. Maybe you are simply unaware of them; but they are certainly feeling their wheaties recently.

Yeah, I’ve seen some too but they are in a really small minority compared to the leftists and apathetic masses. I’m not too worried about sedevacantist kooks.

That said, I’ve also seen many people cast honest criticism of VII and the “Spirit” thereof as a direct attack on the Church itself. Criticism of the Council and the happenings afterwards are not all sedevacantist propaganda or “visciousness” and “anger” mindlessly cast on Vatican II without any nuances. Is there some that is just propaganda and misinformation? Sure. However, I don’t get the papolatry and VII-atry that some hold to. Not everything uttered by a Pope or Council is infallible and furthermore, infallibility does not guarantee that a Pope or Council will teach the right thing clearly or well, though it certainly protects against every and all formal error in Faith and Morals.

Not saying that you do this, but it is unfortunate when traditional Catholics, who are honestly and intelligently loyal to Pope and the Councils (including matters of discipline) get painted with the “schismatic” brush by people to whom the “Spirit” is absolute unquestionable truth or that every informal musing by their favorite pontiff enjoys the status of an ex cathedra statement.

 

[otjm]

I realize what is going on in Europe, thank you very much.

You are most welcome.

What do you think contributed to these problems in Europe? France had something like 90% of Catholics Sunday Mass attendence before the Council and then these numbers took a drastic nose-dive after it. Do you not think that all the nonsense that happened after the Council and even some of the officially sanctioned or allowed stuff had nothing to do with this? The Church in the US is a bright spot in Catholicism, mainly because we have remained fairly orthodox despite lots of rumbling from the “American Church” to the contrary.

From what I have read and observed, there may be a difference with France, from the rest of Europe.

I recently read a comment -by what Vatican official I dont recall - speaking of the difference between the US and Europe (and other parts of the Catholic world). In the US, if we don’t agree with something, we tend to be very vocal, to object, to negotiate, and to do whatever to make our objections known. And when we don’t object, we pick up the rule whole-heartedly.

Europe, on the other hand, will speak of compliance. Then they do whatever they wish, without discussing, objecting, or otherwise making their disagreement known; in short, we have a tendency to take rules as rules, and while we may have too much of a streak of democracy in us, we are open about both our agreements and our disagreements.

Europe, on the other hand, appears to be very compliant, but isn’t. Authority is not objected to; it is ignored.

Other reading indicates that the two biggest problems are secularism and materialism (interestingly, Modernism simply is not mentioned); and if one wants an example, then look to Poland and the other countries that have thrown off the yoke of Communism; the Church there is already starting to see the same results; the pull of the “world”. They were countries under intense persecution; any history of the Church will show that persecution has a tendency to increase the action of faith. Both secularism and materialism have been moving in fast; I don’t know if this Pope has said much, but John Paul certainly made some addresses to Poland concerning the issue.

As to France, I guess one only has to look to the fact that SSPX birthed there and is strongest there; it appears that a goodly group of the French have a rather unique idea of what constitutes the Faith. If there is a large enough group of ultra conservative people, it will tend to pull the rest towards that direction.

 

[Rabbititus]

As to the two pictures, I don’t like the first. I do believe it is like an auditorium, but where Christ is, so is His people. I bet house Churchs in China and churches in Africa are even more humble then that first picture.

Actually, I didn’t get the feeling that the first picture was of a “humble” church in that that was the best a congregation’s meager funds could afford. That sanctuary looks actually rather expensive to me - that large flame looks to be made of different metals - it’s probably custom made - and all the furniture probably was too. Also, an exposed brick wall on the inside of a building is expensive, since it is likely a veneer laid over an inexpensive metal or cinderblock wall - solid masonry structures are unusual nowadays.

Meanwhile, a lot of the elaborite neo-Gothic and classical sanctuaries that are so admired here were mostly built with mass-produced materials and the volunteer craftsmanship of dedicated parishoners. It’s not uncommon to find elaborate marble altars and railings that are actually cheap plaster and wood painted to look like stone, or cheap pine stained to look like ebony or walnut. The places look rich because they have nice proportions and a variety of decoration. Also, it tends to be forgotten that a lot of old churches literally took years to decorate.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

Rabbititus, you have a point. I think a valid comparison is one with the new Cathedral in LA against St. Patricks in New York and the National Shrine in DC. I bet anyone can guess which is which:

http://www.piotrpix.com/files/image... Immaculate Conception Interior_0.preview.JPG

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ChristopherM]

From a 31 yr. old guy that up until about a 9 months ago was an unconfirmed cafeteria Catholic who didn’t believe in the Real Presence, the church’s teaching on ABC or on homosexual couples (i was against abortion, but only because I believed it on secular grounds), let me give my :twocents: :

I just moved to my current parish about one year ago. My church does not have a TLM, but it does has a sung NO Mass with the sung parts (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) being in Latin. The priest uses the high altar, incense is used, etc. That, combined with “orthodox” preaching on saying the rosary, confession, the Real Presence. The priests are so reverent, they really believe and this, combined with the availability of daily confession has brought a real conversion in me. In my parish they say the Angelus before daily mass and the St. Michael prayer after every mass.

I believe it is the sacraments that get people engaged. Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist go hand-in-hand. When confession is not preached, not offerred, and not attended, the healing flames of Christ’s heart cannot do their job. If someone is in mortal sin, I doubt receiving Eucharist does much good (i’m meaning the one, like I was, that was ignornant that receiving while in mortal sin is in itself mortal sin).

As to the two pictures, I don’t like the first. I do believe it is like an auditorium, but where Christ is, so is His people. I bet house Churchs in China and churches in Africa are even more humble then that first picture.

Thank you for this post.

This relays the point i would try and make.

We are 23 and will have been married 5 years in March. both Cradle catholics but both ventured away and have since reverted and when we reverted we Sought out the Extraordinary form of the Mass.

This all go’s back to lex orandi, lex credendi: The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief

When you change the way you pray you will change the way you believe plain and simple, or as Fr. Wolf FSSP likes to say “What gos on in here(in mass) affects what gos on Out there (in the world)”

The extraordinary form of the mass is the Mass of Great Saints, Great Theologans and Great Popes- Plain and simple

I offer a challange
Go to the Extraordinary form for two months Straight (or more)… Your Life WILL change

I promise, you will change your bad habits, you will change the company you keep you will Increase your visits to confession

The Proof is in the Pudding so to speak (by Their Fruits you Shall know them )

 

[Carlton1993]

I think the reason so many young people are attracted to the Old Mass is because of the sense of identity it instills within you. I am 14 and I have recently decide to attend the Old Mass only. When I am at Mass, with all the ‘smells and bells’, latin, mantillas, altar boys, etc, I am at home, I am connected spiritually with over 1000 years of Tradition. My parents are not Catholic, and they don’t understand why I attend an almost 2000 year old ritual, but i know that if the traditional Mass was brought back in Catholic schools, there would soon be a change in the way many Catholic youth behave