Why are there a lot of misinformed and frankly uneducated Catholics that frown upon orthodox Church teachings and Traditions that were otherwise belov

[Convert3]

conversion doesnt happen because of literal tongues spoken at the mass. conversion happens OUTSIDE of the mass.

Conversion is a process that includes both the mass and learning outside the mass. I went to mass first with friends long ago. I went again for years with a Catholic wife. If it were in Latin I doubt I would have gone, and simply gone to my Protestant service. I formulated questions about what I heard in mass that wouldn’t have been asked if in Latin.
It’s been my experience on this forum that the folks who go to Latin mass are more outspoken and condescending to OF mass goers. If I had seen this conflict before I converted, it may not have happened. One thing that drew me to the Catholic Church in my parish is the lack of people being judgmental as I saw in Protestant churches. People work together and help each other without any competition, pecking orders or politics that I saw in the Protestant churches.
I’ve learned on this forum I’m quite fortunate at my parish, but in RCIA, mass, speaking with parishioners and from the good people on this forum, I’ve learned a lot about the truth of the Catholic Faith.
My advice to you, which you can take or leave, is to speak more positively about your love for the Latin mass, rather than taking a negative attitude to those who prefer the OF mass. We are all Catholic and love Jesus our Lord.

 

[Dovekin]

The “”“Greatest”"" Generation failed to catecize their Boomer kids, who in turn failed to catecize their kids.

As others have said, this is not an accurate statement of what happened. The “Greatest” Generation was not very well catechized either, if we look at the number of Italian, German, Spanish etc. Catholics who supported brutal and oppressive regimes.

America (at the barrel of the gun) spread its errors throughout the world of modernism and secularism, which in turn lead to a great disrespect for the Church and her Traditions.

Benedict XVI described it a little differently:

In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church’s faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its limit, stubbornly proposing to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, it seemed that there was no longer any milieu open to a positive and fruitful understanding, and the rejection by those who felt they were the representatives of the modern era was also drastic.

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution.
Christmas address to the Cardinals 2005

 

[Jen95]

AltarSoldier:

clearly the said person doesnt really know the true meaning behind the gestures, prayers and the reason behind alot of what happens on the altar during EF.

Or, maybe, they don’t like it? It’s not always about not being pious.

Don’t like “it” what? The true meaning behind the gestures and prayers? I don’t think that’s what you meant, but can you explain what you meant?

 

[Jen95]

Latin Mass and many old traditions were utterly abandoned in the mid-1960s. There was a lot of pain for a lot of people, and younger people are astonished when they find about so many things that were abruptly changed then.
Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
The question: “Is liturgy distinct from theology?”
The Church didn’t used to think so. I wonder when that changed…hmm…

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi - Crisis Magazine

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

My specific dislike for the Latin mass comes from not celebrating in the vernacular. When I celebrate in the OF, I praise God in the language of my soul. When the consecration occurs, I understand and meditate on the words. I can’t do that in Latin mass. I’m disconnected; just an observer. I can’t worship at a deep level because of the language barrier.

People can have a similar opinion of the TLM. It isn’t always because they’re less pious or less in-tune with their faith.

 

[Jen95]

So the Church should give up using a liturgical language, which she saw the benefits of using for over a millennium, so people in the Information Age, the people with the most education in human history, can hear the liturgy in their “heart language”?
Okay…

 

[Gingersnaps4]

conversion doesnt happen because of literal tongues spoken at the mass. conversion happens OUTSIDE of the mass. the mass is supposed to give us resolve and strength to do the conversion when we step out into the world. You can go to mass every weekend but have no interest or strength to defend the Faith or educate. No different than “Faith Without Works Is Dead” -James 2:17

so to answer your question it would have made virtually no difference. It would have been the same with or without the vernacular changes. The only difference now is you have 2-3 different congregations that never meet going to worship in their own tongue than having the majority of them in the same room under one tongue. This is the beauty of the latin mass most seem to overlook or not take seriously

Not true. My family of 6 converted in 2017 and I really doubt we would have if the mass could never be heard in English. I don’t think my husband would have been open to the change.

 

[Convert3]

What’s wrong with having both?

 

[Emeraldlady]

I personally hate how some clergy and laity are so open to embrace sudden changes in the Church but are too hesitate and need I say ignorant to study their sacred God given roots. it seems with each passing generation Catholics are becoming more and more passive and indifferent to their faith.

I don’t know where you are getting your information but my uncle went through seminary in the late 50’s and early 60’s and it had been growing more and more evident to the Church that Catholics had become institutionalised and heavily dependent on the ‘institution’ to do everything for them. But because the world was rapidly changing especially since the end of WWII, the new generations were experience alternative ‘gods’ and the last gen of institutionalised Catholics were at a loss to properly evangelise through the family. Something in the way the Church evangelised had to change… hence the need for Vatican II.

I was blessed to have had parents who were very involved in the Church, Mum being a primary school teacher and the sacramental co-ordinator for that school for nearly 2 decades. So Mum was naturally a catechist in the home life as well. But her witness was less about perfecting the things that more rightly belonged to the clergy like rubrics etc but with striving for the core Scripture virtues and values. That model has proved fruitful in my own home as well because my children (one I’m still working on) have stayed close to the Church and found meaning in the moral teachings.

I would ask you to consider the source of your information regarding the ‘ignorance’ of clergy and Vatican II. Don’t believe everything you hear from those detractors. It doesn’t serve faith, hope and love at all.

 

[Jen95]

Most people don’t have the option of both.

 

[Jen95]

Why were they at a loss to properly evangelize through the family? Tis Bearself (post 8) made a point of saying how effectively her family raised her in the faith, and I’m sure she wasn’t the only one. I fail to see why the Church had to change.

 

[Annie]

America (at the barrel of the gun) spread its errors throughout the world of modernism and secularism, which in turn lead to a great disrespect for the Church and her Traditions

The US remains the most religious of the developed nations. Modernism, humanism, secularism all came from Europe, where there are barely any practicing Catholics at all.

Admittedly, Woodrow Wilson was extremely mistaken in his views, but for the most part, the US has been trying to replace tyranny with democracy,

 

[ewohdrol]

Sigh.

Oh please. I hate this old argument. I have a full understanding of the gestures and meaning behind the traditional mass. I was raised in it. Yet I dislike it and attend the NO. I diskike this implication people ‘just don’t understand’.

The saints had NO OTHER CHOICE but to attend latin from a certain point (remember the original masses were certainly not in latin). If they had a choice…who knows what their preference would be.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Why were they at a loss to properly evangelize through the family? Tis Bearself made a point of saying how effectively her family raised her in the faith, and I’m sure she wasn’t the only one. I fail to see why the Church had to change.

That is what happened. Catholic parents depended very much on their children learning the faith through schools. As happens in institutionalisation, is that people lose the capacity of their own part in sustaining the institution. It was actually a pretty predictable consequence that a whole generation almost en masse slipped away.

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

Why were they at a loss to properly evangelize through the family? Tis Bearself made a point of saying how effectively her family raised her in the faith, and I’m sure she wasn’t the only one. I fail to see why the Church had to change.

That is what happened. Catholic parents depended very much on their children learning the faith through schools. As happens in institutionalisation, is that people lose the capacity of their own part in sustaining the institution. It was actually a pretty predictable consequence that a whole generation almost en masse slipped away.

Hmmm, so are you saying that there way a point that the Church was not “institutionalized”, as you say? When would that have been, I’m trying to figure out? Maybe the 1890s, because presumably there was a point when the parents of Baby Boomers were not “institutionalized”. Let’s the Church wasn’t institutionalized 1890-1930, then became “institutionalized” from 1930 on? After all, if the Church was institutionalized before 1930-ish, wouldn’t it be a foregone conclusion that the Boomers’ parents themselves would have fallen away too?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Says who? You?

So the Church should give up using a liturgical language, which she saw the benefits of using for over a millennium, so people in the Information Age, the people with the most education in human history, can hear the liturgy in their “heart language”?
Okay…

I didn’t say it should be given up. Don’t put words in my mouth. I was just countering the erroneous assertion that only the uneducated dislike the TLM. I dislike it because the vernacular just works better for me to worship in. You don’t have to like it, but you cannot tell me that I’m not worshipping in an inferior manner just because you like Latin more than me.

 

[Irishmom2]

Really? I distinctly remember answering as a child…

 

[Irishmom2]

Oh really… source for that is…?

 

[ewohdrol]

Well

Implying that people who obey post-V2 teaching are ignorant, claiming that incense is more important than charity and acting as if trads are better than all other devout Catholics will put people off. It wasn’t until I met a group of nice, reasonable, devout trads that I started warming up to the idea of the TLM. Even now I stumble across attitudes like some of those expressed in this thread and wonder why I made that decision.

Well said.

I grew up in the TM. I will never go again. The arrogance and lack of charity was astounding. The judgement for others rife. The final straw for me was the glee others felt when discussing if someone was in hell due to their choices.

It was a cruel outlook and for someone like myself who is naturally quite soft and kind - a hard and lonely place to grow up.

It is a shame because I can see the beauty in it. Especially the music and chants. But the attitude of the majority is a turn off for me.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Can you give me any specific mentions? Just saying “Oh it’s um, the saints” is not at all persuasive. Furthermore, why would a saint make a definitive judgement on how someone else should worship within the bounds of the Church? Anyone worth their weight in dirt knows that not everyone worships the same.