What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennon, what I have said all along is that Vatican II is being blamed for something that was festering long before Pope John XXIII called the council. The fact that all hell broke loose was not the fault of the council, but of things that were percolating long before Blessed John XXIII was even elected pope. That crisis is now over and the Church is emerging from this unfortunate period stronger than it could have been had it remained without the Council. You may not see the new vibrancy that I see in the Church. Maybe thats because where the Church is concerned I have learned long ago to look for the good. And I do see a lot of good.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hi Deacon Ed,

I certainly believe a Catholic can hold the opinion you do, nothing wrong with that. My primary point is that someone who holds the contrary opinion (as I do) is not denying the proper operation of the Holy Spirit in the guidance of the Church, as there is no guarantee from God that a Council will necessarily produce good fruit.

So I believe that certainly there are people who were ready and waiting to take advantage of Vatican II and thus they bear some of the blame, but also conversely that if ambiguous documents weren’t released at that time they would not have had as much to take advantage of. Hence I certainly do not believe at this time we are stronger or better off because of Vatican II. Now maybe, a couple of centuries down the line, we will have learned some hard lessons from Vatican II.

Again, to say that Vatican II has not produced good fruits or that the Church was not made stronger because of it is not to say that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church or wasn’t guiding it. The Holy Spirit kept the Church from promulgating any error in the areas of faith and morals, which is a rather amazing thing in and of itself. God bless.

 

[MrS]

Brennon, what I have said all along is that Vatican II is being blamed for something that was festering long before Pope John XXIII called the council. The fact that all hell broke loose was not the fault of the council, but of things that were percolating long before Blessed John XXIII was even elected pope. That crisis is now over and the Church is emerging from this unfortunate period stronger than it could have been had it remained without the Council. You may not see the new vibrancy that I see in the Church. Maybe thats because where the Church is concerned I have learned long ago to look for the good. And I do see a lot of good.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The majority of postings from “Traditionalists” - either self proclaimed or accused - do not blame VII.

They tend to blame the clergy and the laity after the fact who have misinterpreted VII to their own satisfaction… and demise.

.

 

[cothrige]

Brennon, what I have said all along is that Vatican II is being blamed for something that was festering long before Pope John XXIII called the council. The fact that all hell broke loose was not the fault of the council, but of things that were percolating long before Blessed John XXIII was even elected pope.
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed,

This is an interesting point, and as someone without a massive overriding preconception about Vatican II I would love it if you would explore that a bit for me. For instance, if there was a festering crisis bubbling under the surface in the Church before the council, and after that council “all hell broke loose” wouldn’t it be natural and senisble to question the wisdom of the council? Wouldn’t a non-biased viewer naturally be inclined to suspect that the Council contributed to the breaking loose itself? At best, it would seem to have done a terrible job of addressing the problem.

Also, why would the council, with that in mind, take such a strange approach to the crisis? In Trent, when the Protestant heresy was being tackled, the Church took the position of direct refutation and opposition. This is wrong, and this is right. The Protestants say this or do this, but we say this or do that. And so on. Vatican II seems to have done the opposite. If the council was called to head off this festering crisis, which I presume to mean the modernism, relativism and indifference of the period which followed that council, why did it at no obvious point really refute these issues clearly? And could it not be said that the documents of the council, in some ways, actually helped the heresies grow?

Again, trying to look with unbiased eyes, it would seem that the conciliar documents are themselves in places good fertilizer for modernism, relativism and indifference. If you feared that the people were bordering on relativism would you really decide that was the time to start opening up questions and ideas about salvation and the place of the Church in that? Would that really be the time to start opening up greater recognition of Protestantism and Judaism in the economy of salvation? Would that really be the time to try to soften the view of the Church and its place?

Again, I am not suggesting that the Council was in error in any way, or even a bad idea. But, since you had mentioned that a crisis was already present and that “all hell broke loose” after the Council I think such questions may be worth asking. If that is true, and I will trust you on it since I was not even alive then, doesn’t it seem a legitimate question, especially considering that this council would have seemingly ignored or worse contributed to the very crises it was then meant to address?

Just a consideration.

 

[LRThunder]

NO mass and TLM mass are like segragation. Blacks and whites. The TLM people look down on the NO people. One day we will have a great leader that will let both of the masses live in peace and equality together.

Please don’t even make that comparison.

Besides, even if some people who prefer the Latin Mass act like that (key words: some), then how do you explain the attitude shown by some toward the Latin Mass in turn?

 

[LRThunder]

Are you denying that many of the TLM crowd looks disdainfully toward the NO folks?

That’s true, but the problem is that such an attitude is shown towards the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.

 

[Frosty]

That’s true, but the problem is that such an attitude is shown towards the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.

From comments I’ve read, it does not seem to me that the people who prefer the OF tend to “look down” on those who prefer the EF. Most of them seem perfectly fine with the idea that there are two forms of the same rite allowed in the Church and that Catholics attend whichever Mass they prefer. On the other hand, from all the comments I’ve read on this forum and on the more popular blogs, a large percentage of the EF proponents do come across as having a superior attitude. Refering to the OF folks as ill-educated, not knowing any better, irreverent, don’t believe in the True Presence, grey haired ninnies or liberal baby boomers whose demise will be a boon for tradition etc. etc. etc.
Name calling is bad enough but I have yet to read a single comment [not to say there aren’t any] from anyone who prefers the OF to actually denigrate the EF itself. I have read literally hundreds of comments where the OF is refered to as garbage, completely Protestant, totally without any saving grace, intrinsically evil and [this one really gets me. I don’t know how anyone who calls him or herself a Catholic can even have the nerve to say it], inherently displeasing to God. Gee, did God appear and tell commentators like that what pleases Him? Sounds that way to me!

 

[Auntie_M]

A pretty sweeping statement “The TLM people look down on the NO people” I sounds like the NO people have a chip in there shoulder.

I’m sorry to but in, but in catching up on the posts, I came across this. I can certainly see (without a chip) how someone can reach that conclusion. When you read things coming from the Traditionalists such as: “We are the ONLY true Catholics left”,
“The NO is evil-hence the people who go are evil”, etc…

See the problem…?

 

[SnorterLuster]

I’m sorry to but in, but in catching up on the posts, I came across this. I can certainly see (without a chip) how someone can reach that conclusion. When you read things coming from the Traditionalists such as: “We are the ONLY true Catholics left”,
“The NO is evil-hence the people who go are evil”, etc…

See the problem…?

Just to jump in Auntie, I have run into many in my old NO parish who look down their noses at anyone who does not adhere to their “progressive” views.

Just a short story to illustrate my point. Last year, on a Saturday, I received a piece of mail that had my house number, but belonged to a street 4 blocks south of me. Since it appeared to be an invitation I thought I would just drive down there and drop it off. It might be time sensitive and there was no sense delaying it by sending it back through the post office.

I found the house and rang the doorbell. A man answered and I delivered the invitation. He was wearing a shirt that said “Irish” across the front. I asked him if it was for the university or the local Catholic high school, also known as the Fighting Irish. He replied that it was for the high school and that his grandson attended it. I replied that my son had gone there also. He then asked if I was a member of St. Charles parish to which I replied “No, I am a member of St. Michael’s Chapel”. He was unfamiliar with the parish so I explained that the chapel was the site for the diocese’s TLM. He replied “Oh, you’re one of THOSE people.” He then turned around and shut the door.

 

[Auntie_M]

From comments I’ve read, it does not seem to me that the people who prefer the OF tend to “look down” on those who prefer the EF. Most of them seem perfectly fine with the idea that there are two forms of the same rite allowed in the Church and that Catholics attend whichever Mass they prefer. On the other hand, from all the comments I’ve read on this forum and on the more popular blogs, a large percentage of the EF proponents do come across as having a superior attitude. Refering to the OF folks as ill-educated, not knowing any better, irreverent, don’t believe in the True Presence, grey haired ninnies or liberal baby boomers whose demise will be a boon for tradition etc. etc. etc.
Name calling is bad enough but I have yet to read a single comment [not to say there aren’t any] from anyone who prefers the OF to actually denigrate the EF itself. I have read literally hundreds of comments where the OF is refered to as garbage, completely Protestant, totally without any saving grace, intrinsically evil and [this one really gets me. I don’t know how anyone who calls him or herself a Catholic can even have the nerve to say it], inherently displeasing to God. Gee, did God appear and tell commentators like that what pleases Him? Sounds that way to me!

Oh, this is sooooo very true. I have been told that I was to be pittied because I was not educated enough( in the Catholic Faith) to realize the truth., the truth as the TLM sees it, this is.

I think they have come out like an all star football team. Offense is the best defense.

I have wondered, also, what the telephone number to God is, since they seem to KNOW what pleases Him, I am sure they have HAD to talk with Him personally.

I know I am being very sarcastic. Sorry, it’s my nature. But, in the same breath, I am “telling it as I see it”

Please, somebody, give me that number! I wouldn’t mind at all paying the long distance charges on that call.

 

[ethelzguy]

From comments I’ve read, it does not seem to me that the people who prefer the OF tend to “look down” on those who prefer the EF. Most of them seem perfectly fine with the idea that there are two forms of the same rite allowed in the Church and that Catholics attend whichever Mass they prefer. On the other hand, from all the comments I’ve read on this forum and on the more popular blogs, a large percentage of the EF proponents do come across as having a superior attitude. Refering to the OF folks as ill-educated, not knowing any better, irreverent, don’t believe in the True Presence, grey haired ninnies or liberal baby boomers whose demise will be a boon for tradition etc. etc. etc.
Name calling is bad enough but I have yet to read a single comment [not to say there aren’t any] from anyone who prefers the OF to actually denigrate the EF itself. I have read literally hundreds of comments where the OF is refered to as garbage, completely Protestant, totally without any saving grace, intrinsically evil and [this one really gets me. I don’t know how anyone who calls him or herself a Catholic can even have the nerve to say it], inherently displeasing to God. Gee, did God appear and tell commentators like that what pleases Him? Sounds that way to me!

:clapping: :extrahappy:

 

[MrS]

From comments I’ve read, it does not seem to me that the people who prefer the OF tend to “look down” on those who prefer the EF. Most of them seem perfectly fine with the idea that there are two forms of the same rite allowed in the Church and that Catholics attend whichever Mass they prefer. On the other hand, from all the comments I’ve read on this forum and on the more popular blogs, a large percentage of the EF proponents do come across as having a superior attitude. Refering to the OF folks as ill-educated, not knowing any better, irreverent, don’t believe in the True Presence, grey haired ninnies or liberal baby boomers whose demise will be a boon for tradition etc. etc. etc.
Name calling is bad enough but I have yet to read a single comment [not to say there aren’t any] from anyone who prefers the OF to actually denigrate the EF itself. I have read literally hundreds of comments where the OF is refered to as garbage, completely Protestant, totally without any saving grace, intrinsically evil and [this one really gets me. I don’t know how anyone who calls him or herself a Catholic can even have the nerve to say it], inherently displeasing to God. Gee, did God appear and tell commentators like that what pleases Him? Sounds that way to me!

Reminds me of a family I am close to… lots of kids.

The dad once told me that his second oldest son, who was attending a public high school, was describing the teachers he had in school.

Some were rather strict… you know, sit up straight, pay attention, do your homework etc. And those teachers were not influenced by how their peers chose to teach.

Some were rather, for want of the word, non-strict… you know… come in when you can, sleep if you must, little or no homework cuz it won’t get done anyway.

So the son took the position of being content with both teachers … the strict was “okay” if the non-strict was allowed to let him slack off.

The father, a product of the “old school”… and his oldest son, a product of a private school, disagreed. They could only inform the sibling of the value of the stricter, and his responsibility to perform in the non-stricter class in spite of the “abuses”.

Man, does that remind be of these last few posts.

Again… I, personally, have some preference for the properly celebrated NO… the Mass without the lay and clerical “additions”.

If someone does not understand what that means, then - yes - they are, in Auntie M’s words, “uneducated” in the proper celebration of the Liturgy.

It is unfortunate when a proponent of either the EF or the OF feels demeaned in their preference.

But I feel the negative/constructive comments of the “EF crowd” are not aimed at the properly celebrated OF… they are (or should be) aimed at the abuses found in the “less-strict”, that are not as common in the “strict”

Is one better than the other. Not my call. Do we “need” one over the other. I hope not… that would reduce the liturgy to what we want, not what we need.

And yes, Cardinal Arinze said it well… If the liturgy becomes horizontal (we change it to what we want…) it is heretical. If it is vertical (what the Church knows we need) then we will be fine.

It is not our liturgy to mess with. Perhaps soon B16 will issue a better “rule book” that is clear and precise in what is expected in both the EF and the OF.

.

.

 

[Auntie_M]

Reminds me of a family I am close to… lots of kids.

The dad once told me that his second oldest son, who was attending a public high school, was describing the teachers he had in school.

Some were rather strict… you know, sit up straight, pay attention, do your homework etc. And those teachers were not influenced by how their peers chose to teach.

Some were rather, for want of the word, non-strict… you know… come in when you can, sleep if you must, little or no homework cuz it won’t get done anyway.

So the son took the position of being content with both teachers … the strict was “okay” if the non-strict was allowed to let him slack off.

The father, a product of the “old school”… and his oldest son, a product of a private school, disagreed. They could only inform the sibling of the value of the stricter, and his responsibility to perform in the non-stricter class in spite of the “abuses”.

Man, does that remind be of these last few posts.

Again… I, personally, have some preference for the properly celebrated NO… the Mass without the lay and clerical “additions”.

If someone does not understand what that means, then - yes - they are, in Auntie M’s words, “uneducated” in the proper celebration of the Liturgy.

It is unfortunate when a proponent of either the EF or the OF feels demeaned in their preference.

But I feel the negative/constructive comments of the “EF crowd” are not aimed at the properly celebrated OF… they are (or should be) aimed at the abuses found in the “less-strict”, that are not as common in the “strict”

Is one better than the other. Not my call. Do we “need” one over the other. I hope not… that would reduce the liturgy to what we want, not what we need.

And yes, Cardinal Arinze said it well… If the liturgy becomes horizontal (we change it to what we want…) it is heretical. If it is vertical (what the Church knows we need) then we will be fine.

It is not our liturgy to mess with. Perhaps soon B16 will issue a better “rule book” that is clear and precise in what is expected in both the EF and the OF.

.

.

I do not understand what is referred to as “horizontal or vertical” liturgy.

It seems to be quite evident that a return to the EF, to me, is “getting what we want”. And the conversion to the OF years ago seems to be what the Church thought we needed at that time.
So which way is what you are referring to being the best.
What we want/what the Church thinks we need?

I do, personally, see where some people “need” the TLM to “feel” something. I can understand this myself, coming from a Protestant world where “feeling something” was a real biggie. There, it was all in the presentation and the “mood setting”.

As with all converts, (at least the ones I’ve talked too), seem to know more about the Catholic faith than alot of Catholics. (We do alot of reading and research, cause we are exictied about the faith).

But from the “Mass of all times”, it seems that it left the people lacking as to what they were experiencing. So, they ended up sitting and saying the Rosary with their own prayers. (Don’t get me wrong The Rosary is a most precious prayer, but they didn’t seem “connected”). Or in “one mind” as we are supposed to be.

I do know there were alot of “problems” in the church BEFORE the OF was ever instituted. Maybe, this was the reason to call a council in the first place. “Problems” don’t happen overnight, most result from quite a few years culminating to an explosive end.

This was the same reason for the Council of Trent, the Church saw that we needed “change”. I’m sure those people didn’t like it back then either. We are all creatures of habit and getting out of our comfort zone really upsets most of us.

So, what we need and what we want are usually two entirely different things.

LISTEN UP ALL CATHOLICS…The Catholic Church IS THE Church that Jesus Christ started. Please realize that she has ALL she needs to lead her children. It is the most exciting faith because IT IS the TRUE faith. Whether you are a fan of the OF or the EF, she teaches us what we need when we need it. Just believe her…

 

[MrS]

I do not understand what is referred to as “horizontal or vertical” liturgy.

"Horizontal… when the concern or direction of the liturgy becomes more about us. More modern music to “inspire”, more fellowship during the Mass, more literal “active participation”, more abuse that over time become "norms’ (like total use of the vernacular, priest facing the people, laity performing “duties” in the sanctuary, EMHC etc etc etc.)

"Vertical… when the concern or direction of the liturgy becomes more about Him… retention of the time-proven Chant, language, celebrant leading the people, altar rails, etc etc etc

I do, personally, see where some people “need” the TLM to “feel” something. I can understand this myself, coming from a Protestant world where “feeling something” was a real biggie. There, it was all in the presentation and the “mood setting”.

Actually, IMHO, the “need to feel something” is often the reason for the changes/abuses that have evolved in the OF. Active participation, as envisioned by VatII was meant to be interior, not exterior in posture, motions, actions etc.

As with all converts, (at least the ones I’ve talked too), seem to know more about the Catholic faith than alot of Catholics. (We do alot of reading and research, cause we are exictied about the faith).

But from the “Mass of all times”, it seems that it left the people lacking as to what they were experiencing. So, they ended up sitting and saying the Rosary with their own prayers. (Don’t get me wrong The Rosary is a most precious prayer, but they didn’t seem “connected”). Or in “one mind” as we are supposed to be.

Much of what you think is correct. However, much of the “distance” between celebrant and congragation is resolved with the modern PA system. Now we can both see and HEAR. And a use of a missal resolves the inability to speak Latin.

I do know there were alot of “problems” in the church BEFORE the OF was ever instituted. Maybe, this was the reason to call a council in the first place. “Problems” don’t happen overnight, most result from quite a few years culminating to an explosive end.

This was the same reason for the Council of Trent, the Church saw that we needed “change”. I’m sure those people didn’t like it back then either. We are all creatures of habit and getting out of our comfort zone really upsets most of us.

Actually Church history shows us the Council of Trent did not so much address the “changes” that the reformers wanted… it re-affirmed the position of the Catholic Church is numerous items, among them Justification, and the Canon of Scripture.

So, what we need and what we want are usually two entirely different things.

LISTEN UP ALL CATHOLICS…The Catholic Church IS THE Church that Jesus Christ started. Please realize that she has ALL she needs to lead her children. It is the most exciting faith because IT IS the TRUE faith. Whether you are a fan of the OF or the EF, she teaches us what we need when we need it. Just believe her…

 

[25_Caranzano]

I grew up in Philadelphia in Saint Richard’s parish, at that time when someone asked you where you lived it was comon to answer with the name of your church parish. All the catholic children went to catholic schools, and were tought by the nuns ( the sisters of the I.H.M.).I can remember on Saturday afternoon around 3:00 pm. looking out my front door toward the corner of 18th. street to see if my friends were there yet so that we could walk to confession togeather. Upon entering the church it was easy to see in which confessional the more lenient priest was in - the one with the longest line!! Sometimes even after finding a spot in our preferred line, and feeling quite good about it, one of the nuns would come into the church and play traffic cop and move you to a shorter line ( you know what that meant ). On Sunday we all went to mass offered in Latin as did my father and his father before him. With Vatican II all that was lost for me, we continued to attend mass, but it was not the same untill about four years ago when my family and I found a TC in Spring Hill Florida. Thank You Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

 

[ethelzguy]

Upon entering the church it was easy to see in which confessional the more lenient priest was in - the one with the longest line!! Sometimes even after finding a spot in our preferred line, and feeling quite good about it, one of the nuns would come into the church and play traffic cop and move you to a shorter line ( you know what that meant ).

What ??? You mean everyone wasn’t all holy, pious, and perfectly reverent in their approach to confessions before Vatican II?

Oh, the scandal

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m sorry to but in, but in catching up on the posts, I came across this. I can certainly see (without a chip) how someone can reach that conclusion. When you read things coming from the Traditionalists such as: “We are the ONLY true Catholics left”,
“The NO is evil-hence the people who go are evil”, etc…

See the problem…?

So you’ve actually heard someone on this forum call the Novus Ordo “evil” and thus their followers “evil”?! I’ve been on these forums for a while and I certainly haven’t heard that. Maybe you can provide a quote.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

What ??? You mean everyone wasn’t all holy, pious, and perfectly reverent in their approach to confessions before Vatican II?

Oh, the scandal

At least they were actually going to confession.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I do not understand what is referred to as “horizontal or vertical” liturgy.

It seems to be quite evident that a return to the EF, to me, is “getting what we want”. And the conversion to the OF years ago seems to be what the Church thought we needed at that time.
So which way is what you are referring to being the best.
What we want/what the Church thinks we need?

I do, personally, see where some people “need” the TLM to “feel” something. I can understand this myself, coming from a Protestant world where “feeling something” was a real biggie. There, it was all in the presentation and the “mood setting”.

As with all converts, (at least the ones I’ve talked too), seem to know more about the Catholic faith than alot of Catholics. (We do alot of reading and research, cause we are exictied about the faith).

But from the “Mass of all times”, it seems that it left the people lacking as to what they were experiencing. So, they ended up sitting and saying the Rosary with their own prayers. (Don’t get me wrong The Rosary is a most precious prayer, but they didn’t seem “connected”). Or in “one mind” as we are supposed to be.

I do know there were alot of “problems” in the church BEFORE the OF was ever instituted. Maybe, this was the reason to call a council in the first place. “Problems” don’t happen overnight, most result from quite a few years culminating to an explosive end.

This was the same reason for the Council of Trent, the Church saw that we needed “change”. I’m sure those people didn’t like it back then either. We are all creatures of habit and getting out of our comfort zone really upsets most of us.

So, what we need and what we want are usually two entirely different things.

LISTEN UP ALL CATHOLICS…The Catholic Church IS THE Church that Jesus Christ started. Please realize that she has ALL she needs to lead her children. It is the most exciting faith because IT IS the TRUE faith. Whether you are a fan of the OF or the EF, she teaches us what we need when we need it. Just believe her…

Hi Auntie M,

Since, as I remember, you’ve actually read von Hildebrands article in my signature line, is that the overall impression you got from it? That he is arguing for the TLM just because he has a need to “feel” something?! Really nothing more than that, huh? And others who argue for the TLM, nothing about Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi or the idea that the TLM actually presents the faith more clearly and strongly than the NO and hence would be good for all Catholics regardless of their preference?

I come from a Protestant background myself, and which liturgy obviously resembles a Protestant service more? The TLM’s lack of hype and emotionalism is diametrically opposed to just about all I experienced at Protestant services.

And of course the liturgy we’ve had for the last 1,600 plus years has been “lacking”, but fortunately a committee after Vatican II completely reworked the Mass and finally got it right. Which is why we’ve seen such an explosion of greater devotion and reverence (not to mention increased Mass attendance!) at our Masses after Vatican II. What a relief!

 

[Frosty]

All the catholic children went to catholic schools, and were tought by the nuns ( the sisters of the I.H.M.).I can remember on Saturday afternoon around 3:00 pm. looking out my front door toward the corner of 18th. street to see if my friends were there yet so that we could walk to confession togeather. Upon entering the church it was easy to see in which confessional the more lenient priest was in - the one with the longest line!! Sometimes even after finding a spot in our preferred line, and feeling quite good about it, one of the nuns would come into the church and play traffic cop and move you to a shorter line ( you know what that meant ). On Sunday we all went to mass offered in Latin as did my father and his father before him. With Vatican II all that was lost for me, we continued to attend mass, but it was not the same untill about four years ago when my family and I found a TC in Spring Hill Florida. Thank You Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

I remember the old confession lines very well also. Especially the ones on the Thursday afternoon before First Fridays. It was almost as good as having a half day holiday from school! The nuns would trot each class at a time to the church next door. We had no choice which priest we confessed to as the lines were drawn up arbitrarily before leaving the classroom. Actually, even for regular Saturday confessions no one ever knew which priest would be in which confessional box because they always seemed to be playing musical chairs! Being a good little Catholic girl, I went to confession almost every week until I left home to attend university. Why? Because it just seemed to be something one did back then. It certainly wasn’t because I had committed any terrible sins. In fact, my laundry list of sins pretty much stayed the same for all those years. If I happenned to get the same priest in successive weeks, I’d change the number of times I committed a sin such as “I gave my mother a dirty look” from perhaps three times to one or if I was daring ,jack it up to five! Just to let Father know that I wasn’t completely stuck in my evil ways.
One of my uncles who is a priest, often told funny anecdotes about the hours he spent in the confessional. He said that he used to wonder if grade school kids got together and made a list that they memorized because the confessions were all so similar and the kids raced through them as though if they forgot one word they would be stuck about what to say next. One of my favourite stories was about giving a young boy five Hail Mary’s for penance. There was silence and then sobbing. My uncle asked what was wrong. The boy replied that he didn’t know five Hail Mary’s. After a moments thought at this reply, the priest ashed, “Do you know one Hail Mary?” “Yes”, the boy responded brightly. “Well then, say the one Hail Mary that you know five times. Can you do that?” “Thank you , Father” the boy replied happily. :angel1:
Personally, I am very happy with the changes in the sacrament of reconciliation made after V2. I think that the majority of the faithful who do go to confession these days have a better understanding of it as a sacrament than those children and yes, even many adults, had in the “good old days”. I do wish, however, that it was more readily available in all parishes than seems to be the case.

 

[cothrige]

Personally, I am very happy with the changes in the sacrament of reconciliation made after V2. I think that the majority of the faithful who do go to confession these days have a better understanding of it as a sacrament than those children and yes, even many adults, had in the “good old days”. I do wish, however, that it was more readily available in all parishes than seems to be the case.

Well, I will tell you that my eight year old who celebrated first Holy Communion a few months ago was not instructed on how to confess or examine his conscience at all. He only knows the Hail Mary because I taught him, not because any in the Church tried to. He only knows what a sin is because I told him, not because he was ever instructed about it. He was also not instructed on how to actually confess, and the first time he went he had no idea what a confessional was or where to go or what to say. Did those children in the pre-Vatican II Church know so little?

It seems to me that if something changed in the sacrament to achieve what you are now experiencing it had no effect on my child. My boy would be at least as ignorant and lost as any preconciliar child would have been if not for the interference of his parents.

Oh, and by the way, at least there were apparently confession lines back then. Right now at our local churches there are just bunches of people sitting around, with no apparent way of knowing who is next. I sat for an hour one time in a small chapel next to the reconciliation rooms in a Church here locally, and I was the third or fourth person there. People just jumped up and ran into the room when the door opened, and nobody had any idea when it was their “turn” to go. About forty minutes in a rather nasty argument broke out between a couple of little old ladies about cutting. I guess there was more to confess after that. But, all in all, I wonder if any positive change has really been effected in confession over the last few decades.