What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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.

This is a common perception of many who would prefer that we had never had Vatican II. Time itself will prove that the Church will be much stronger because of the council. Implementation of change in the Church with it’s 2000 year history, has shown that change comes slow. At least to us. Nothing was watered down. A broader understanding of much that was stated in the past was given. Contrary to the belief of some,(unquantified) nothing of the core beliefs was changed. A broader understanding and emphasis was given on all being God’s children and what that means.

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?

Bolding again used for emphasis on stress of answer. In short - If not now, when? We have to reach out. I have seen many protestants come into the Church through RCIA and many have stated that it is because of the openness of the Church, instead of the attitude of condemnation, that they have inquired, and liked what they have found.

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?.

I like your first sentence of your last paragraph. At present the crisis seems to have been “fixed”. Time will tell. There were many who were ordained, or in religious life that should not have been. While the quantity at present is only a small fraction of what was, the quality is far superior. I will go with quality any time. That is what we need. Pray for vocations to all the stations of a consecrated religious life. Screening is much more stringent and the education more closely monitored and improved. Personally I see much good ahead in the church where we will have holier clergy, religious and laity. It will be greatly needed in the trials that lie ahead.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Sorry for intruding, but I am curious about this. If what you say is true, why would that be a mark against the Mass? Are you saying that the Mass made people illiterate? Or are you saying that because they were illiterate they couldn’t learn during Mass? But today most people are not illiterate, so why would that matter now?

But, when you get down to it, why would it ever matter how much people were educated during the Mass? The Mass is not a place for study is it? It is for worship and sacrifice, not education. In some Protestant circles, where worship has been abandoned, Sunday has become a day to study and learn. That is all they really can do, but we are not in that boat. We have the Mass, and so education and study should be done in classrooms where it belongs. Shouldn’t it?

Go ahead and intrude all you want, cothrige.

 

[cothrige]

Bolding again used for emphasis on stress of answer. In short - If not now, when? We have to reach out. I have seen many protestants come into the Church through RCIA and many have stated that it is because of the openness of the Church, instead of the attitude of condemnation, that they have inquired, and liked what they have found.

Deacon Ed,

Many thanks for the response. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this. As to ‘if not now, when?’ wouldn’t you concede that at a time of a crisis doing something which, instead of refuting the cause of the crisis adds to the doubts feeding it would be a bad idea? If the people are facing a spike in relativism due to the times and culture around them would it not seem sensible to keep very clear language at the fore on issues relating to the Church and its place in salvation history rather than choosing that particular time to open things up for possibly greater confusion?

At present the crisis seems to have been “fixed”. Time will tell.

Well, I hope so, though I do have to wonder if all this was really necessary or a good idea. In any case I will simply trust that the Church is sailing right and being steered straight, even if the waters get very, very choppy. Perhaps, for reasons beyond my paltry field of view, the Council only appears to have magnified and intensified the crisis rather than reducing it, and maybe that was actually the best time to say the things that the Council felt it needed to say. And maybe what appears ambiguous and vague to me is really just the way things had to be worded in order for the very human fathers of the council to respond to the provocation and protections of the Spirit but still be exercising their free will. And maybe this crisis would have grown and continued on indefinitely, gaining speed and intensity over the years if the Council had not done as it did, and so perhaps it actually did just what I am suggesting it seems not to have done. How could I ever know? But, looking back I will admit that I am tempted to wonder why when the timing seems so bad and the choices seem so unlike previous councils dealing with their respective crises the Council did in fact do as it did. It does make one think about it, doesn’t it?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan, you do love to argue, don’t you.

I was referring to people (old people who lived during that time) and also people from the posts here on CAF.
How old are you?
Did you live during that time?
The way the older people talk about the “mass of all times”, it seems that they really prefer the “Mass of today” since they have learned more by this, than they ever did before.

Years ago there were also alot of people who couldn’t even read, so “reading” the missal while the Latin was being said was really out of the question.

When I grew up, there was soooo much emphasis on “Get your education, you can’t get a good job if you don’t have your HIGH SCHOOL education!” College was not even an option.

In the south, on farms, some kids didn’t even have the privilege of going to school on a regular basis and some not at all.

There were alot of parents, back then, couldn’t read either and depended on the Church to teach them so they could in turn teach their children.) Therefore, with Latin, folks just didn’t get any instruction of the Catholic faith at all. They just went to mass and did what everybody else did, stood when they did, sat when they did, tried to understand what the priest was saying or doing, or just sit and say their Rosary.

If today’s youth had to live “BACK THEN”, there would be screaming, yelling, and gnashing of the teeth! They simply could not do it. (as the song goes, “A Country Boy Can Survive”)

Maybe, that is what we need to do. Let’s not only go back to the “Mass of all times”, Let’s go back to the “time of all times”. Say, 1800’s maybe?

We would not have to worry about gas prices!


"Way BACK THEN was NOT a bed a roses.

Life as we know it today is completely different.

Do I love to argue? With you, yes.

No, I did not live during that time.

A lot of people years ago couldn’t read?! So you are saying a lot of people years ago didn’t even go to school at all? Because if you make it through at least grade school (not to mention high school) you should be able to read.

People like CradleCath who posted (and I’m sure brotherholf as well) would tend to disagree with your assessment.

Saying that they all learned more with the New Mass than they ever did before seems to be quite a blanket statement and I have no idea how you have been able to assess that. From what I’ve seen of pre-conciliar missals and books, it seems as if you could learn quite a lot about the Mass. Not to mention I somehow just bet they would have been learning a lot more “meat” about the Mass than kids are taught today (in or even outside of Catholic schools). And it seems as if it’s many of the Catholics today who don’t really appreciate what is going on at Mass.

I think there are a lot of youth today who are discovering, and appreciating, the TLM (those who are aware of its existence and can get to one, that is.)

God bless, always good arguing with you.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We agree here with one small exception (I think) While there is as you say no guarantee that a council will produce good fruit, I would maintain that being under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, no bad fruit would come from the council, but rather from the individuals who interpret what the council did.

I believe this paragraph says you agree with what I have stated above.

As to this paragraph, the only thing I can say is that we will have to agree to disagree. You state that the Council has not produced good fruits. I disagree with this because I would not be a permanent deacon without the council. I say this not because I think that I am an example of what a permanent deacon should be, but because I know of many whom, I strive to be like and just pray that I can be as effective in doing God’s work as they.

Prayers & blessisngs
Deacon Ed B

Hi Deacon,

Well, as to your first point, it almost seems like splitting hairs.

Sure, the Council did not tell Catholics to stop attending Mass, start disobeying the Church, and priests to leave their vocations. Yet when you release ambiguous documents at a time of cultural upheaval and with even a number of clerics chomping at the bit to overthrow Church teachings and traditions, it almost becomes a moot point about whether one can say it was the documents themselves that helped cause the crisis or just their interpretation. Either way it’s bad timing (as cothrige mentioned).

I don’t really look at the permanent diaconate as a good or bad fruit.

And maybe the Council will ultimately (who knows after how many years) help usher in a stronger Church. After all, when God did things with the Israelites like let them get stuffed with quail after they complained about the manna, eventually Israel learned some lessons the hard way as they had before.

God bless.

 

[CradleCath]

=Deacon Ed B;3969338]This is a common perception of many who would prefer that we had never had Vatican II. Time itself will prove that the Church will be much stronger because of the council. Implementation of change in the Church with it’s 2000 year history, has shown that change comes slow. At least to us. **Nothing was watered down. ** A broader understanding of much that was stated in the past was given. Contrary to the belief of some,(unquantified) nothing of the core beliefs was changed. A broader understanding and emphasis was given on all being God’s children and what that means.

There’s nothing much left to say to a man who really believes this, except please study Catholicism before the council.

The effects of the council are, using your phrase:

   A watered down the ordained priesthood.
   A watered down devotion to the Virgin Mary & the Saints.
   A watered down **sacrifice** of the Mass.
   A watered down view of our merciful &** just **God.
   I could go on & on, but I don't think you'll listen.

Bolding again used for emphasis on stress of answer. In short - If not now, when? We have to reach out. I have seen many protestants come into the Church through RCIA and many have stated that it is because of the openness of the Church, instead of the attitude of condemnation, that they have inquired, and liked what they have found.

The Church does not condemn, God condemns & it is the responsibility of His Church to pass along His Laws. As for the Church being “open”, it has always been open to people who truly desire to be Catholic & to try to be all that goes with being Catholic. As I said in another message, both my Mother & my Mother-in-law converted to the Catholic faith before the council, so I do know first-hand & up-close that the Church welcomed them.

I like your first sentence of your last paragraph. At present the crisis seems to have been “fixed”. Time will tell. There were many who were ordained, or in religious life that should not have been. While the quantity at present is only a small fraction of what was, the quality is far superior.

Did you know any pre-Vatican II priests. I believe that you are saying that today’s priests are better priests than those ordained before the council. If this is what you are saying, I would like to see your source for this information. However, you might mean the priests ordained in the 60’s??

** Pray for vocations to all the stations of a consecrated religious life. ** Screening is much more stringent and the education more closely monitored and improved. Personally I see much good ahead in the church where we will have holier clergy, religious and laity. It will be greatly needed in the trials that lie ahead.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Sorry, but we already have EEM’s, hermits, oblates & deacons coming out of our ears. If you don’t mind, I’ll pray for more priests that show reverence for the whole of the Catholic Church. I’ll pray that our hierarchy obeys Pope Benedict’s document concerning the ordination of homosexual men.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

There’s nothing much left to say to a man who really believes this, except please study Catholicism before the council.

The effects of the council are, using your phrase:

   A watered down the ordained priesthood.
   A watered down devotion to the Virgin Mary & the Saints.
   A watered down **sacrifice** of the Mass.
   A watered down view of our merciful &** just **God.
   I could go on & on, but I don't think you'll listen.

You are correct, I will not listen to comments such as this about the Church. in short, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Did you know any pre-Vatican II priests. I believe that you are saying that today’s priests are better priests than those ordained before the council. If this is what you are saying, I would like to see your source for this information. However, you might mean the priests ordained in the 60’s??

I can very safely say that I most likely know hundreds, yes hundreds more than you. I spent 8 years in the seminary, all pre Vatican II and went through second theology, and left two years before I would have been ordained a priest. I know many who were priests and left. I know many who were ordained and then involved in the scandal, and then left. I stand by the comments I have made. I do not deny the fact that many were ordained after the council that should not have been. That problem is now cleared up due to the Vatican study of the seminaries, the curriculum and the faculty. Things are now different.

Sorry, but we already have EEM’s, hermits, oblates & deacons coming out of our ears. If you don’t mind, I’ll pray for more priests that show reverence for the whole of the Catholic Church. I’ll pray that our hierarchy obeys Pope Benedict’s document concerning the ordination of homosexual men.

As far as having enough Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, Oblates, Deacons and hermits, bluntly stated, that is not your call. On the flip side, I could not agree with you more about praying for more good priestly vocations. We definitely are on the same page here. If you read what I have stated, you will see that I have said that we have a higher quality at this time.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Indyann]

You are correct, I will not listen to comments such as this about the Church. in short, you don’t know what you are talking about.

I can very safely say that I most likely know hundreds, yes hundreds more than you. I spent 8 years in the seminary, all pre Vatican II and went through second theology, and left two years before I would have been ordained a priest. I know many who were priests and left. I know many who were ordained and then involved in the scandal, and then left. I stand by the comments I have made. I do not deny the fact that many were ordained after the council that should not have been. That problem is now cleared up due to the Vatican study of the seminaries, the curriculum and the faculty. Things are now different.

As far as having enough Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, Oblates, Deacons and hermits, bluntly stated, that is not your call. On the flip side, I could not agree with you more about praying for more good priestly vocations. We definitely are on the same page here. If you read what I have stated, you will see that I have said that we have a higher quality at this time.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you Deacon Ed.

Please do not cease to post for all us other “cradle-caths” who do not hold these negative views of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are by far, the minority, just more vocal!

BTW, our diocese just ordained 25 men as permanent Deacons. Whoo Hooo!!!

 

[ethelzguy]

BTW, our diocese just ordained 25 men as permanent Deacons. Whoo Hooo!!!

Wow, that’s fantastic !!

 

[Auntie_M]

Wow, that’s fantastic !!

I really like the tag on the bottom. Pope Benedict urging us to use more humor. Gooooood Pope!

 

[Gara3987]

The idea of what constitutes a Traditionalist Catholic has come up in debate numerous times in this forum- so I ask, what is a Traditionalist Catholic?

If you are looking for what Tradition really means, and what every Catholic should know and understand about Tradition you should look into getting Tradition and the Church By: Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D.

I will post the General Introduction:

        EVERY question of Christian Doctrine touches Tradition. The controversies of the centuries have been fought around it. Time only gives it an added importance. And now it is more important than ever; it takes deeper root as the centuries past.

         What is Tradition and of what does it consist?

On the answers to these questions largely rests, under God and His grace, the return of our Separated Brethren. Were the principles of Tradition once more understood and its teachings accepted, the happy day of unity for which Jesus Christ prayed would be for many honest souls not far distant. “That they may be one, as Thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us.” (John 17:21). That day shall certainly come, because Christ’s prayer cannot but be effectual. “Father, l give Thee thanks that thou hast heard Me. And l know that Thou hearest Me always.” (John 11:41-42).

          For the Protestant, Scripture alone constitutes the Rule of Faith, to the exclusion of all other authority.  For the Catholic, the Church, combined with Scripture, forms his Rule of Faith.   "We believe the only rule and way, according to which all articles of Faith . . . must be judged, is no other than the prophetic and apostolic writings both of the Old as well as of the New Testament."(i)  "Holy Scripture contains whatever is necessary to salvation. Whatever is not read therein, nor can be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith or be thought necessary to salvation."(ii)

      Catholics answer with St. lrenæus: "We must not seek the truth from others, when we can easily acquire it from the Church. The Apostles, in the fullness of their riches, brought into it, as into a depository, all that belongs to the truth. He who wishes may take from it the cup of life. This is the entrance into life: all others are thieves and burglars. For this reason, we must avoid them, love diligently what belongs to the Church, and learn the Tradition of truth."(iii)   

       Every Catholic who knows his Religion declares with St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel were it not that I am moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church."(iv) Hence the Council of Trent solemnly declares: "All truth and discipline are contained in the written books and in the non-written Traditions, which, being received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, being delivered to us, as it were, by hand, came to us."(v)

      And Tertullian, in the Second Century: "To whom belongs the Faith itself? Whose are the Scriptures? By whom and through whom and when and to whom was the authority to teach delivered, by which men are made Christians. For where the true Christian discipline and doctrine are shown to be, there will also be the truth of the Scriptures, and of their interpretation and of all Christian Traditions."(vi)

          Christianity is, therefore, divided. According to all the Protestant denominations there is no other authentic way to know the word of God but from Scripture. Scripture is the only Rule and the only Judge! No living visible authority has any right to pass judgment on an article of Faith. To expect that Christians should abide by such judgment is an imposition. Each individual has the right to his own private interpretation of Scripture. "The seventh office of the Christians (who are all ministers), is to judge and to declare on the Articles of Faith . . . every one taking care of his salvation must be sure of what he believes and follows; he must be the free judge of all that teach him, being taught interiorly only by God."(vii)

      Some of the more prominent denominations among Protestants, especially the Episcopalians, have indeed approved of and adopted the Symbols of Faith [the creeds] and the definitions of the first four General Councils of the Church, which, considered in themselves, are Traditions. These creeds and definitions, however, are accepted, not as traditional truths—such would be against their fundamental principle——but because and in so far as they are conformable to the Scriptures.

       The characteristic note of Protestantism, then, is the negation of authority outside of the Scriptures. Catholic Faith, on the other hand, declares that both the Church and the Scriptures are the Rule 0f Faith. Whereas the   Protestant claims he is the only judge, the Catholic believes the Church is the Judge. She it is that proclaims what doctrines are to be believed and what practices are to be observed and whether such doctrines and practices are found in the Scriptures or not.

      All Protestants, in order to justify their separation from the Catholic Church, deny that Christ ever established such a living authority besides the Scriptures. But in so doing, they have committed so many errors, they have denied so many Christian principles, they have fallen into so many contradictions that, if Martin Luther and the other so-called reformers of the 16th Century could ever

come to life again, they would hardly recognize their work. The leaders of Protestantism—past and present-know too well that the admission of the general principle of Tradition would carry them to that very same Divine Tradition which was rejected in the l6th Century. That Divine Tradition is nothing else than the Apostolic succession of an ever-living, indefectible and infallible Church. If they admit to a living Tradition, they must also confess their mistake and culpable rebellion.

      Here is the issue: Has Christ established, besides the Scriptures, any other agency or authority to preserve, explain and propagate His doctrines?  We propose to prove that He has; that there is a way, by which divinely revealed doctrine is propagated and preserved in its integrity.  That way is Tradition.


       i. Lutheran Formula of Concord.

ii. “Sixth Article of the Anglican Church?
iii. Book HI against heretics, C. IV
iv. “Ep. Fund,” C. V
v. Session IV
vi. “Prescriptions," C. XIX.
vii. Luther’s Institution of the Ministry of the Church, Vol. III, p. 584.

**He Gets into much more detail such as Divine Tradition, Dominical Tradition, Divine-Apostolic Tradition, Ecclesiastical Tradition, Simple-Apostolic Tradition, etc… (**Divine Tradition and Ecclesiastical Tradition being the two parent or root Traditions) **** It’s an excellent book! Take Care and God Bless!

 

[Auntie_M]

Sorry for intruding, but I am curious about this. If what you say is true, why would that be a mark against the Mass? Are you saying that the Mass made people illiterate? Or are you saying that because they were illiterate they couldn’t learn during Mass? But today most people are not illiterate, so why would that matter now?

But, when you get down to it, why would it ever matter how much people were educated during the Mass? The Mass is not a place for study is it? It is for worship and sacrifice, not education. In some Protestant circles, where worship has been abandoned, Sunday has become a day to study and learn. That is all they really can do, but we are not in that boat. We have the Mass, and so education and study should be done in classrooms where it belongs. Shouldn’t it?

Sorry I’m so late getting back with you on this, but I have been having huge computer problems.

I am assuming you are a cradle Catholic.

But the point I was making is that IF people don’t know what the mass is all about…they WILL not appreciate it and may even get bored. Today’s Catholics are better educated on the mass. They do understand more of what is going on. You can believe this or not, that is your right. But IF you talk to alot of OLDER Catholics, (as I have), they were not as educated in the whys of the mass, and the mass (although they loved it) was, to some, just a place to go and say their Rosary. I NEVER said ANYTHING LIKE a “mark against the mass”.

Please, I can talk for myself, do not put words into my mouth simply because YOU don’t approve.

I
Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but the Protestants DO study in classrooms, ever heard of “Sunday School”. This is a time BEFORE “preaching” when they study the Bible.

I do hope you are not judging “some Protestant circles where worship has been abandoned”. I personally grew up in the Protestant churches and I NEVER saw worship being abandoned.
Let’s give credit where credit is due.

They don’t have the fullness of faith as the Catholic Church does, but they try with what they have. I personally, NEVER talked to a Catholic before I went to the first mass. Never was “invited” to “come and see”. I knew absolutely Nothing about the Catholic faith, and IF I had to sit and listen to a language I didn’t understand, I am sure I would NOT have converted.

There is some good that came out of Vatican 11 although it has been burried under all the “negative” .

If you would stop trying to convince people of all the BAD that Vatican 11 did and start trying to see some of the good, You may even change your mind on it too.

I don’t mean to be so blunt, but sometimes I feel it is necessary.

 

[Auntie_M]

QUOTE=Brennan Doherty;3967277]And how on earth do you know the disposition of so many Catholics during pre-conciliar times? Are you omniscient? I have a missal from pre-conciliar times and it certainly does an excellent job of teaching the “whys” of the Mass. Did things like the pre-conciliar Baltimore Catechism or the book “This is The Faith” really not teach the why’s of the Faith? That’s certainly not my impression of them, or any pre-conciliar catechism I’ve seen.

And wouldn’t it have been de rigeur to teach Latin in most Catholic schools in pre-conciliar times (not to mention even many public schools)?

Well, one thing I can say, at least we’ve one (or two) upped the pre-concilar Church in that nowadays not only do many Catholics not even know the whys of the Faith, many don’t even the whats.
God bless. ** END QUOTE**

DEAR BRENNAN
And HOW do YOU know the dispositions of so many POST-CONCILIAR Catholics? Are YOU omniscient?

Gosh, I thought I left “Do as I say do, not as I do” a long time ago.

I really don’t know of ANY convert who went to a Catholic school!

And Latin was NOT a requirement for graduation.

Brennan, I am so glad you have your “Pre-Conciliar” missal. Cause When I converted, I converted to worship and learn and LISTEN not sit and read during the whole mass. I can read at home.

 

[Auntie_M]

This is MY Defination of a TRADITIONAL Catholic

1. Very dedicated Christian
2. Loves going to mass
3. Adhers to all the Catholic Church teaches, (even when they disagree)
4. Honors the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, as Papa of the Church
5. Would NEVER separate themselves from the one true Church or put themselves in a position to be separated.
6. Believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is still in charge of HIS Church. That Nothing will prevail against her.
7. Being Loyal and Obedient to His Church

That is a Catholic. Period

There is NO such thing as a “Traditionalist” or a “Modernist” and NO reason why ANYONE should want to divide the ONE TRUE CHURCH in any way whatsoever.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

QUOTE=Brennan Doherty;3967277]And how on earth do you know the disposition of so many Catholics during pre-conciliar times? Are you omniscient? I have a missal from pre-conciliar times and it certainly does an excellent job of teaching the “whys” of the Mass. Did things like the pre-conciliar Baltimore Catechism or the book “This is The Faith” really not teach the why’s of the Faith? That’s certainly not my impression of them, or any pre-conciliar catechism I’ve seen.

And wouldn’t it have been de rigeur to teach Latin in most Catholic schools in pre-conciliar times (not to mention even many public schools)?

Well, one thing I can say, at least we’ve one (or two) upped the pre-concilar Church in that nowadays not only do many Catholics not even know the whys of the Faith, many don’t even the whats.
God bless.

DEAR BRENNAN
And HOW do YOU know the dispositions of so many POST-CONCILIAR Catholics? Are YOU omniscient?

Gosh, I thought I left “Do as I say do, not as I do” a long time ago.

I really don’t know of ANY convert who went to a Catholic school!

And Latin was NOT a requirement for graduation.

Brennan, I am so glad you have your “Pre-Conciliar” missal. Cause When I converted, I converted to worship and learn and LISTEN not sit and read during the whole mass. I can read at home.

Hi Auntie M,

First off, I don’t talk about the “disposition” of anyone, whether pre or post Vatican II. By disposition I mean what is going on with them interiorly, as when you said,

“People just sat in mass, some saying the Rosary, some “trying” to follow along with the priest, some not even paying attention, and some just being there because that was what was expected of them to do.”

So I would be suspicious of any blanket statement about people’s dispositions regardless of the time period.

And by the way, unless someone is mentally defective (as you are not), one can learn enough Latin to follow along with the Mass and thus not have to read (and nothing wrong with reading anyway).

Schools may not have “required” Latin to graduate, but I think it’s a safe bet to say that many Catholic schools would have taught Latin to students prior to Vatican II, and even some public schools.

I think it is fairly common knowledge (and not just among traditionalists) that catechesis, for the most part, has been awful for the past forty years. Thus many Catholics don’t know the “whats” of their faith, much less the whys, because it was never taught to them. Or if they are aware of some of the “whats” many just ignore them and do what they want (i.e. contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, etc.).

It’s pretty much a given nowadays that if you want to learn the Catholic Faith you can’t necessarily rely on homilies or Catholic schools or colleges. You have to learn it on your own. That is why places like Catholic Answers exist. I dare say that such wasn’t the norm prior to Vatican II where people could at least learn the whats and also some of the whys through things like the Baltimore Catechism.

God bless.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This is MY Defination of a TRADITIONAL Catholic

1. Very dedicated Christian
2. Loves going to mass
3. Adhers to all the Catholic Church teaches, (even when they disagree)
4. Honors the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, as Papa of the Church
5. Would NEVER separate themselves from the one true Church or put themselves in a position to be separated.
6. Believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is still in charge of HIS Church. That Nothing will prevail against her.
7. Being Loyal and Obedient to His Church

That is a Catholic. Period

I like this definition.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

There is NO such thing as a “Traditionalist” or a “Modernist” and NO reason why ANYONE should want to divide the ONE TRUE CHURCH in any way whatsoever.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is MY Defination of a TRADITIONAL Catholic

1. Very dedicated Christian
2. Loves going to mass
3. Adhers to all the Catholic Church teaches, (even when they disagree)
4. Honors the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, as Papa of the Church
5. Would NEVER separate themselves from the one true Church or put themselves in a position to be separated.
6. Believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is still in charge of HIS Church. That Nothing will prevail against her.
7. Being Loyal and Obedient to His Church

That is a Catholic. Period

There is NO such thing as a “Traditionalist” or a “Modernist” and NO reason why ANYONE should want to divide the ONE TRUE CHURCH in any way whatsoever.

I guess you need to tell that to Pope St. Pius X:

1. But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[cothrige]

I am assuming you are a cradle Catholic.

Bad assumption.

But the point I was making is that IF people don’t know what the mass is all about…they WILL not appreciate it and may even get bored. Today’s Catholics are better educated on the mass. They do understand more of what is going on. You can believe this or not, that is your right. But IF you talk to alot of OLDER Catholics, (as I have), they were not as educated in the whys of the mass, and the mass (although they loved it) was, to some, just a place to go and say their Rosary. I NEVER said ANYTHING LIKE a “mark against the mass”.

Please, I can talk for myself, do not put words into my mouth simply because YOU don’t approve.

I think you have misunderstood the phrase. In an argument one lists reasons to support position A and generally reasons against position B. Your position seemed to be for the OF over the EF, and I saw your illiteracy position in terms of that. How did the purported illiteracy of the previous generations really say anything about the Mass? In other words, how was the Mass responsible for this or so affected by it that this illiteracy could affect how we view the Mass today? How is it relevant to a question of the Mass?

But, if it troubles you, let me clarify, and you can just go back and look at my post with this wording which was what I was asking.

“If what you say is true, why would that -]be a mark against the Mass/-] make the Mass responsible or affect it?”

I [a]lso, I hate to burst your bubble, but the Protestants DO study in classrooms, ever heard of “Sunday School”. This is a time BEFORE “preaching” when they study the Bible.

Yes, I used to go. But, it proves nothing. I didn’t generalize as you are, and said “some circles” which was to indicate that I was not making a sweeping statement of all non-catholics, but only some. And in many churches I have been in the entire “worship” service is a bible study. Maybe you have not been in these, but I promise you they exist. That is not worship. Listening to a lecture may be informative, but it is not worship. Sunday worship is the Eucharist and when that is rejected then it often becomes replaced with bible teaching, which while very useful is not itself worship.

The real issue too is that the Mass is not meant to be this kind of education. It is a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary, and as such is the way we unit ourselves with our High Priest’s perfect act of worship which is necessary for our redemption. The more you understand what is going on the better, but it is not the reason for what we do.

I do hope you are not judging “some Protestant circles where worship has been abandoned”. I personally grew up in the Protestant churches and I NEVER saw worship being abandoned.

What I am saying is that Sunday worship, in some circles, has been abandoned, not overall worship of God. The context should clarify for you on that. No need to be defensive about how I view our Protestant friend’s feelings about God.

They don’t have the fullness of faith as the Catholic Church does, but they try with what they have. I personally, NEVER talked to a Catholic before I went to the first mass. Never was “invited” to “come and see”. I knew absolutely Nothing about the Catholic faith, and IF I had to sit and listen to a language I didn’t understand, I am sure I would NOT have converted.

I don’t think this was the point you were making, which seemed to be about how illiterate the previous generations were and how that was either caused by the Mass or impacted it. I said that if you mean to say that the Latin Mass caused this then I would have to disagree. If you meant that this illiteracy kept them from understanding the missal then that would no longer be a problem since people are literate now.

There is some good that came out of Vatican 11 although it has been burried under all the “negative” .

I disagree. It has not been buried. Much good has come, and much bad, though I would suggest that the bad is not from the Council but is merely a black mark against this generation and how they have undermined the will and mind of the Church since then. Though, in the end, I still maintain that we actually have it good compared to how most of the Church acted and believed during the Arian troubles.

If you would stop trying to convince people of all the BAD that Vatican 11 did and start trying to see some of the good, You may even change your mind on it too.

What was that about putting words in people’s mouths? Just where did I argue that Vatican II was bad? I don’t recall saying any such thing at all.

I don’t mean to be so blunt, but sometimes I feel it is necessary.

Blunt is fine, when called for. I don’t see how you can actually have come to any such conclusion that I have said this and can’t help but feel that you have some idea of what people think and just automatically start posting with that in mind. In any case your charge is false.

 

[ethelzguy]

This is MY Defination of a TRADITIONAL Catholic

1. Very dedicated Christian
2. Loves going to mass
3. Adhers to all the Catholic Church teaches, (even when they disagree)
4. Honors the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, as Papa of the Church
5. Would NEVER separate themselves from the one true Church or put themselves in a position to be separated.
6. Believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is still in charge of HIS Church. That Nothing will prevail against her.
7. Being Loyal and Obedient to His Church

That is a Catholic. Period

There is NO such thing as a “Traditionalist” or a “Modernist” and NO reason why ANYONE should want to divide the ONE TRUE CHURCH in any way whatsoever.

Amen, Brother Ben…

:clapping: :tiphat: :bowdown2:

 

[cothrige]

There is NO such thing as a “Traditionalist” or a “Modernist”

So, there are no traditionalists? With all they have suffered we can now just dismiss that they are even there? How considerate is that, given all the massive overwhelming benefits we have everyday and how little they have in comparison? We have hundreds of Masses in any town at our choosing. They drive sometimes hundreds of miles for one per month. I read here that they seek to end the OF and make only their Mass available, and how bad that is. Of course this ignores that it was the traditionalists who actually had their Mass banned, and not us. They have been marginalized for years, and now we can just wave them away with our hand.

I feel this above post reflects just what traditionalists have heard for years. Go away, you don’t even exist. And if you do then you are a divider and not worthy of consideration.