N
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Before Vatican II, the Mass was in Latin. At my Catholic school, they still taught Latin in High School. After Vatican II, these were the only changes:
New smaller altar in front on the larger one.
Priest faced the congregation.
Mass was in English.
Nothing Else Changed.
Oh yes, they wanted guitar Masses and some attempts were made to bring contemporary music into the Mass, “Let It Be” by the Beatles being one I recall. All of the changes were started by small groups of dissidents within the Church, and were magnified by certain social changes on the outside. The big problems occurred when Humanae Vitae was published in 1968. The problem: The Pope told Catholics - no artificial birth control, which included The Pill. If Catholics actually listened to the Pope, it would jeopardize the sale of millions of birth control pills. Can’t have that. By 1970, some priests and nuns began leaving the Church. I invite everyone to read this TIME magazine article:
time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19700223,00.html
1968 Hippies yelling Free Love! Don’t trust anyone over 30!
1973 Abortion legalized and topless go-go bars and adult bookstores are everywhere. It’s all OK. It’s legal.
One commentator wrote about the confusion in Catholic seminaries in the 1970s. I heard a priest on Catholic Radio talking about how those about to become priests were not getting the full teaching of the Church regarding contraception. They were told to tell their parishioners that it was a matter of personal conscience, which was at variance with what the encyclical said. Today, that is changing.
It was the so-called Sexual Revolution combined with the Freedom the Hippies wanted, along with a desire for change, that cast anything traditional about the Church in a bad light. Some priests and nuns bought the line that was being sold about “change.” Catholics were lied to by a few outside groups. I was there. I thought these people were sincere. I thought their ideas for improvements had some merit or, at least, promise. By 1970, the promised Woodstock Nation did not arrive.
Today, some, including some on this forum, insist that the Church change to become more relevant and/or progressive. Progressive about what? Change what? These people want the Church to embrace certain popular ideas. They insist that if the Church does not meet their defined standards and enact the changes they think are necessary, it will become irrelevant.
But if you examine what they want, it often boils down to: old is bad, new is good. While the Church does respect some differences between cultures regarding worship, it is now turning to more traditional, more reverant forms of worship. The experiment of the guitar Mass or party Mass is over.
For years, Modernists have been bothering the Church to become more “modern” as defined by them. The same problem persists today.
Peace,
Ed
New smaller altar in front on the larger one.
Priest faced the congregation.
Mass was in English.
Nothing Else Changed.
Oh yes, they wanted guitar Masses and some attempts were made to bring contemporary music into the Mass, “Let It Be” by the Beatles being one I recall. All of the changes were started by small groups of dissidents within the Church, and were magnified by certain social changes on the outside. The big problems occurred when Humanae Vitae was published in 1968. The problem: The Pope told Catholics - no artificial birth control, which included The Pill. If Catholics actually listened to the Pope, it would jeopardize the sale of millions of birth control pills. Can’t have that. By 1970, some priests and nuns began leaving the Church. I invite everyone to read this TIME magazine article:
time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19700223,00.html
1968 Hippies yelling Free Love! Don’t trust anyone over 30!
1973 Abortion legalized and topless go-go bars and adult bookstores are everywhere. It’s all OK. It’s legal.
One commentator wrote about the confusion in Catholic seminaries in the 1970s. I heard a priest on Catholic Radio talking about how those about to become priests were not getting the full teaching of the Church regarding contraception. They were told to tell their parishioners that it was a matter of personal conscience, which was at variance with what the encyclical said. Today, that is changing.
It was the so-called Sexual Revolution combined with the Freedom the Hippies wanted, along with a desire for change, that cast anything traditional about the Church in a bad light. Some priests and nuns bought the line that was being sold about “change.” Catholics were lied to by a few outside groups. I was there. I thought these people were sincere. I thought their ideas for improvements had some merit or, at least, promise. By 1970, the promised Woodstock Nation did not arrive.
Today, some, including some on this forum, insist that the Church change to become more relevant and/or progressive. Progressive about what? Change what? These people want the Church to embrace certain popular ideas. They insist that if the Church does not meet their defined standards and enact the changes they think are necessary, it will become irrelevant.
But if you examine what they want, it often boils down to: old is bad, new is good. While the Church does respect some differences between cultures regarding worship, it is now turning to more traditional, more reverant forms of worship. The experiment of the guitar Mass or party Mass is over.
For years, Modernists have been bothering the Church to become more “modern” as defined by them. The same problem persists today.
Peace,
Ed
B
bryan123459
Guest
I remember well the advent of the “guitar Mass.” I graduated from high school in 1970. I was disappointed to see Latin go. However, I never encountered secular songs at Mass–just a lot of bad music. I do remember “The Sound of Silence” being used as a discussion-starter in religion class.
Even as a child, I loved the Latin high Mass–Gregorian chant an polyphonic Masses, such as Victoria’s, were an important part of my life.
I am so pleased that the new English Sacramentary that is in the approval process will include all of the Gregorian chants for the Mass cycles. I read the introductory material–the English translations and modern notation appear to be well-done, respecting the accent, rhythm, and “word painting” in the chant.
Just a side note–if you use acronyms, not everyone will know what you are talking about: TLM, HMC, NO, OF?
Even as a child, I loved the Latin high Mass–Gregorian chant an polyphonic Masses, such as Victoria’s, were an important part of my life.
I am so pleased that the new English Sacramentary that is in the approval process will include all of the Gregorian chants for the Mass cycles. I read the introductory material–the English translations and modern notation appear to be well-done, respecting the accent, rhythm, and “word painting” in the chant.
Just a side note–if you use acronyms, not everyone will know what you are talking about: TLM, HMC, NO, OF?
N
nice2000
Guest
I just now read the article. I totally agree on this statement in the article.
“But whether their departures are public or private, the vast majority are in honest rebellion against what they feel is an authoritarian, outmoded church organization that unfairly limits their freedoms and responsibilities and frustrates their desire to serve God by serving man”
The leaving of the priests and nuns goes to prove that some things must stay traditional. It is not good to modernize everthing. Ever since Vatican II we have been going downhill.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You can not take the leaving of religious and priests to be caused totally by the change in the Mass or Vatican II. That is the logical fallacy known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
That is because A happened before B, then A must have caused B.
A lot of other things where going on in society during that time.
I also disagree that “Ever since Vatican II we have been going downhill.”
Its things like this, criticizing a valid Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church that make people leery of “traditionalists”.
I hope you can see an answer starting to form brotherhrolf, it is the actions of some who claim the title of traditionalists that make some object to traditionalism, especially when other traditionalists do not call them on it.
B
bryan123459
Guest
You make an excellent point. Vatican II represents a great moment in our church’s history; even so, I do miss the time-tested liturgical tradition that included Gregorian chant and polyphonic Mass settings. I am so happy that the new English Sacramentary will include all of the Gregorian chants for the three-year Mass cycle–in English with modern music notation. It is high-time that the Sacramentary catch up with the Vatican II mandate regarding the primacy of place of Gregorian chant in liturgy.
I am doing my own small Gregorian chant project, starting with Compline–more on that at fresnocatholicworker.wordpress.com
E
edwest2
Guest
It is commonly implied here that Vatican II itself caused problems. It did not.
Prior to the release of Humanae Vitae, a priest was being coerced to sign a letter denouncing it. He refused. He posted about it on this forum a while ago.
The goal was to destroy the family and not preserve it as Humanae Vitae wanted to. The Pope predicted sexual promiscuity, and it happened. The so-called Sexual Revolution took care of that, along with a media that increasingly sexualized the culture.
Freedom from marriage, Church, mom, dad, priests and nuns.
The Pill.
Adult Bookstores and topless go-go bars.
Abortion legalized.
TV and movies getting worse and worse.
No-Fault Divorce.
Profanity and partial nudity on ABC in the 1990s. Shock jocks, and the internet.
And where is the Catholic family today? Did we ask for any of this? And high priced lawyers were paid a lot of money to insure this “freedom” occurred.
God help us.
Ed
Prior to the release of Humanae Vitae, a priest was being coerced to sign a letter denouncing it. He refused. He posted about it on this forum a while ago.
The goal was to destroy the family and not preserve it as Humanae Vitae wanted to. The Pope predicted sexual promiscuity, and it happened. The so-called Sexual Revolution took care of that, along with a media that increasingly sexualized the culture.
Freedom from marriage, Church, mom, dad, priests and nuns.
The Pill.
Adult Bookstores and topless go-go bars.
Abortion legalized.
TV and movies getting worse and worse.
No-Fault Divorce.
Profanity and partial nudity on ABC in the 1990s. Shock jocks, and the internet.
And where is the Catholic family today? Did we ask for any of this? And high priced lawyers were paid a lot of money to insure this “freedom” occurred.
God help us.
Ed
T
TraditionRising
Guest
Except when receiving the Blessed Sacrament
At that moment we should keep our hands to ourselves 
T
TraditionRising
Guest
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\Bishop, you have not said a bloomin’ thing in opposition. Yet, you stand in opposition. \
**I’m thoroughly bewildered now.
How can I not be opposed to you, yet “stand in opposition” at the same time?
In the words of Richard Nixon, let me make one thing perfectly clear:
I want you and me and everyone to have beautiful, moving, reverent Liturgies–and yes, stirring and exciting ones, too.**
**I’m thoroughly bewildered now.
How can I not be opposed to you, yet “stand in opposition” at the same time?
In the words of Richard Nixon, let me make one thing perfectly clear:
I want you and me and everyone to have beautiful, moving, reverent Liturgies–and yes, stirring and exciting ones, too.**
F
Frbrendan
Guest
Brotherhrolf, I admit that I suggested that you join an Eastern Catholic Church. I was joking. Forgive my tasteless joke. I did put a smiley there, to let you know that this was a lighthearted suggestion.
However, I have not told you to shut up. Rather, I have told you to open your mouth…in prayer! The more you pray, and the more others around you who agree with you pray, the closer you will get to God answering your prayers.
Forgive me. I am a monk, and as such, prayer is always my first (serious) suggestion.
However, I want to state once and for all that I am not objecting to traditionalism. Prayer is traditional, too.
T
TraditionRising
Guest
Fr, I think Brothehrolf was speaking to fellow Roman Catholics, not our Eastern brethren. And I agree, we should shut up and let our Holy Father guide us through this.
N
Nowhere_Man
Guest
Probably because he is in the same situation as most people: the closest EF mass in communion with the pontiff is a very, very long ways away. In my case, the closest valid EF is an hour and a half away, and it takes half a tank of gas to get there.Brotherrolf, you can talk to me.
But in all fairness, I will then say this: why not just get thyself to the TLM or EF or old Mass, or whatever?
J
Jacafamala
Guest
No, I thought he said he has one closer, but not a High Mass, not a sung Mass. I really want him to just go to the Low Mass. I think he’ll be happier there.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
We must always keep in mind that the Church is not always about what we want or about how we feel.No, I thought he said he has one closer, but not a High Mass, not a sung Mass. I really want him to just go to the Low Mass. I think he’ll be happier there.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
From the ensuing comments, I did not phrase my question as precisely as I perhaps should have.
Over the years on this forum, I have remarked that we (the laity) were not given the opportunity to voice our objections to the changes in HMC that really picked up speed after 1967. We submitted to the magesterium and either kept our mouths shut or, sadly, in many cases, ceased attending Mass altogether. One of the good things about this forum is that it does allow us a voice.
It is hard to condense my thoughts into a concise nugget that will satisfy everyone. It is my observation after reading and posting on this forum for several years that there are proponents of traditional Catholicism (some strident and condescending) and then there are those who never miss a chance to make off-putting comments about deeply held beliefs and emotions.
It was my intent to try and determine what it is about traditional Catholicism that sets some people on edge. It is almost as if some are frightened by it. I am not advocating a return to the church of my childhood. I believe I have made that very clear. I lament the loss of so many Catholic traditions and practices and I have to believe the Holy Father believes the same. If he didn’t, he would not have issued the Motu Proprio. I took that as a recognition that for the first time in 40 years our voices were heard.
I simply wanted to know what it is about traditional Catholicism that sets you on edge.
Over the years on this forum, I have remarked that we (the laity) were not given the opportunity to voice our objections to the changes in HMC that really picked up speed after 1967. We submitted to the magesterium and either kept our mouths shut or, sadly, in many cases, ceased attending Mass altogether. One of the good things about this forum is that it does allow us a voice.
It is hard to condense my thoughts into a concise nugget that will satisfy everyone. It is my observation after reading and posting on this forum for several years that there are proponents of traditional Catholicism (some strident and condescending) and then there are those who never miss a chance to make off-putting comments about deeply held beliefs and emotions.
It was my intent to try and determine what it is about traditional Catholicism that sets some people on edge. It is almost as if some are frightened by it. I am not advocating a return to the church of my childhood. I believe I have made that very clear. I lament the loss of so many Catholic traditions and practices and I have to believe the Holy Father believes the same. If he didn’t, he would not have issued the Motu Proprio. I took that as a recognition that for the first time in 40 years our voices were heard.
I simply wanted to know what it is about traditional Catholicism that sets you on edge.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\I simply wanted to know what it is about traditional Catholicism that sets you on edge.\
**Nothing about traditional Catholicism does so.
Triumphalism does, however.
Comparing the best of the EF to the worst of the OF, as if all OF masses were that way, sets me on edge.
Finally, because of our health, and especially Fr. Brendan’s, we cannot always attend the Divine Liturgy in the parish that is truly the healthiest spiritual environment we have ever known–like this morning, for example. (Fr. Brendan fell at the parish Christmas party after the Liturgy.) It brings home to us just how PRECIOUS the Eucharistic Sacrifice is. Therefore, when people complain about what they CAN get to, it likewise sets me on edge.
Btw, brotherhrolf, I assume you help with your parish’s music ministry?**
**Nothing about traditional Catholicism does so.
Triumphalism does, however.
Comparing the best of the EF to the worst of the OF, as if all OF masses were that way, sets me on edge.
Finally, because of our health, and especially Fr. Brendan’s, we cannot always attend the Divine Liturgy in the parish that is truly the healthiest spiritual environment we have ever known–like this morning, for example. (Fr. Brendan fell at the parish Christmas party after the Liturgy.) It brings home to us just how PRECIOUS the Eucharistic Sacrifice is. Therefore, when people complain about what they CAN get to, it likewise sets me on edge.
Btw, brotherhrolf, I assume you help with your parish’s music ministry?**
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Yes. I no longer sing in the choir but I am part of the Ministry to Alienated and Inactive Catholics and I assist in preparing our high school students for Confirmation.
BTW, I attend a reverent NO cathedral parish in which the choir routinely sings chant as a choral prelude as well as sacred motets in Latin and from the English Renaissance composers. We just got a new rector this summer but our previous rector wanted me to form a schola early this year. I told him I would serve and I would sing but I do not have a solid musical background. I am adopting Fr. Brendan’s suggestion and am praying that once our new rector gets settled in (I know he has a good voice and has always been a supporter of the choir - he was assistant at the cathedral for five years back in the late 80s) plans will be back on and I will either serve or sing in the schola.
BTW, I attend a reverent NO cathedral parish in which the choir routinely sings chant as a choral prelude as well as sacred motets in Latin and from the English Renaissance composers. We just got a new rector this summer but our previous rector wanted me to form a schola early this year. I told him I would serve and I would sing but I do not have a solid musical background. I am adopting Fr. Brendan’s suggestion and am praying that once our new rector gets settled in (I know he has a good voice and has always been a supporter of the choir - he was assistant at the cathedral for five years back in the late 80s) plans will be back on and I will either serve or sing in the schola.
B
Bbigam
Guest
I think I understand your question much better now.
Personally, it depends on which “brand” of traditionalism we are talking about.
- Anyone who is a traditionalist by preferring and advocating for use of traditional Catholic devotions, piety, and practices, including wider availability of the EF, and who has a deep concern regarding irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament and rejection of Catholic morality, but works to do everything in obedience to the Holy Father and bishops of the church - great! Go for it! You have my full support. FSSP and ICRSS would fit in here. I have great respect for them and go to an FSSP Mass on occasion.
- Anyone who is a traditionalist by disparaging Vatican II, and the Ordinary Form and people who prefer it, and interiorly or openly disobeys or disrespects the authority of the the Holy Father - I won’t say you’re not Catholic, but this is problematic. It is “traditional” to respect the legitimate authority of the Successor of St. Peter, of Church Councils, and to accept the official liturgies of the Church as valid and licit. SSPX would fit in category 2. I would not normally attend an SSPX Mass.
- Sedevacantists and the like have fully separated themselves from the communion of the See of St. Peter. They are more like Protestants with (possibly) valid sacraments. Big problem. This is not traditionalism in any true sense.
Sometimes I may be on edge when I’m not sure where someone stands - for example, there are people who go to FSSP Masses who have sympathies similar to SSPX.
Does this answer your question?
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
The first option is closest to me. I wish we had and FSSP parish in our area. I have a young friend who is in an FSSP seminary. We have a large SSPX church here. I went once and was horrified to learn that they were not in communion with HMC.
- Status