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

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t really care what the missal says. My problem is that the structure of the TLM makes it impossible for me to worship the way that works best for me. Saying I need to follow the structure I dislike won’t help me like it more.
 
I know you are a recent convert, which shows in your ardent and passionate responses. Welcome to the faith!

But… please be mindful that others have lived through this and had experiences you are yet to witness. You haven’t seen abuses from the traditional population like others. Believe me it happens frequently.

Also remember latin was not the original language of the mass. The TM crowd often avoid remebering that. So the argument with the saints etc is null and void for many of them.

There are some beautiful NO masses with faithful Catholics. Please do not be so quick to dismiss them with such little experience.
 
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.
[/quote]

Well, that’s what happened in the Church from the mid-1960s on, right? Latin was de facto abandoned, in spite of what the Vatican II explicitly stated (although not specifically at the direction of Captain Prudeman)?
Did you know that the ancient Latin Mass (now what we call Extraordinary Form, or EF) was outlawed after Vatican II, and then allowed to be used again thanks to the 2007 document Summorum Pontificum?

 
Did I ever support the ban? No? Then stop acting like I did.
 
40.png
Emeraldlady:
40.png
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? :confused:
There’s a difference between the institution and people becoming institutionalised. Institutions a good things. But ideally they need to guard against institutionalising those in their care. That is why things like orphanages and mental asylums etc fell out of favour. People need to experience their own part in their own life. That applies to faith as well. We are the Body of Christ and Its life is sustained by the Sensus Fidei. The post VII Popes have systematically worked to redress this situation especially by re-distributing the roles in the Church to try and pare back the top heavy bureaucracy that grew up in the Vatican.
 
What are you on about? I can celebrate in English, you can celebrate in Latin. There. 2 masses for people who worship in different ways. It all works and you can stop this ridiculous line of attacks.
 
So, just to clarify, according to you, the Church was not institutionalized before 1930-ish, then it somehow became institutionalized, and the parents of Boomers (let’s call them the GG for Greatest Generation) became incapable of carrying on the faith, because they were too reliant on the Church to teach their children the faith, and it was a foregone conclusion that the Boomers would leave the faith en masse.
How / Why did the Church become institutionalized after 1930 or so? WWII, the rise of mass broadcasting / mass culture, moving to the suburbs after WWII, more people getting higher education with the GI Bill?
None of this still adds up to “the Church must quickly and radically alter Her liturgy beyond recognition”.
 
Last edited:
I do this already. I just find it much easier to do when I can hear the Eucharistic prayer and the other mass parts.

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Sorry.

As for your Devout Life passage, similar to the Catechismal passage, I meditate more readily and deeply when I have something to draw me in. If it’s just Latin and background noise, I have a much harder time getting in a truly meditative state.
If you think everyone has access to a Latin Mass, you’re dreaming.
Listen. My access to English mass doesn’t stop anyone from going to or asking for a Latin mass. I’m done talking to you as you seem to be laser-focused on being as passive-agressive and subtly insulting as possible. You need to realize that my worship and yours aren’t mutually exclusive and you’re not better for worshipping in a language that only exists because of our religion. My spirituality is valid and how dare you insinuate it’s inferior to yours.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that the OF rubrics are less stringent than EF rubrics? They both seem pretty standardized to me!
 
So, just to clarify, according to you, the Church was not institutionalized before 1930-ish, then it somehow became institutionalized, and the parents of Boomers (let’s call them the GG for Greatest Generation) became incapable of carrying on the faith, because they were too reliant on the Church to teach their children the faith, and it was a foregone conclusion that the Boomers would leave the faith en masse.
How / Why did the Church become institutionalized after 1930 or so? WWII, the rise of mass broadcasting / mass culture, moving to the suburbs after WWII, more people getting higher education with the GI Bill?
None of this still adds up to “the Church must quickly and radically alter Her liturgy beyond recognition”.
“The Church became institutionalised” is clumsy wording. It is people that had become institutionalised and that became evident with the changing state of the world after WWII. Without the pulls of a very secularised society and new ‘gods’ calling to people, there would have been no urgency for aggiornamento. But the world was changing so very quickly. There was need for urgent renewal. The drift had begun well before the Council began.

There was also the spread of communism on the horizon through the growth of power in communist regimes. That was a new ‘god’ to have to defend against and Christians needed to be fully aware of just what the threat of communism was to their faith. It was no longer possible for the Church to simply state that communism was dangerous. Christians ourselves had to cultivate a renewed appreciation for the God given gift of true freedom and free will to fully repel the threat to that gift that communism poses.

The fact is that there was urgency for a revival of faith and a sense of being committed and battle ready in ourselves for what was coming.
 
It is just the effects of concupiscence and listening to the influences of the world.
 
“The Church became institutionalised” is clumsy wording. It is people that had become institutionalised and that became evident with the changing state of the world after WWII. But the world was changing so very quickly. There was need for urgent renewal. The drift had begun well before the Council began.

The fact is that there was urgency for a revival of faith and a sense of being committed and battle ready in ourselves for what was coming.
(Cut for space.)

I can’t speak for your country, or even mine, but, you see, my generation in my geographical region of the US was taught well and we were definitely taught to do battle and to protect the Church from usurpers. And guess who the usurpers were! We’d been warned from 1st grade up that the Church would be attacked.

The Vatican II aftereffects certainly felt like an attack. We were taught to be obedient, so most quietly acquiesced. Our monsignor was almost as much in the dark as we were; “Our Sunday Visitor” was our main source of information. Secular newspapers and TV news told us repeatedly that Protestants were sitting in on committee meetings. WHAT? WHY? We worried about that, and our worst fears were realized. Head coverings were the first casualty, followed by an education director, recently out of college, who was foisted upon us by the bishop. The third time Marilou told me not to teach something to the First Communion Class that was straight out of the Baltimore Catechism, I contacted each parent, then left.

Some of the other changes? In a nutshell, Protestantizing about every facet of our Church life: catechism classes became pablum; Latin was ditched and the New Mass, as people called it, had wording changed that tore our hearts; statues disappeared; communion railings disappeared; the stations of the cross disappeared; beautiful altars and domed ceilings that were works of art were destroyed in lieu of concrete and plain paint, and a warehouse look; magnificent organs were replaced by off-key guitars and Peter, Paul, & Mary wannabes; our beautiful, beloved music that floated out from behind us and made it easy for us to join in singing was replaced by campfire songs at the little sideshow up near the altar.

Many side altars, kneeling benches, and confessionals disappeared. So did confession times, and instead of up to three hours, now there often is only 15 min allotted per week (!) and in some parishes, one must call and make an appointment. Well steeped in the every-kid-gets-a-trophy and you’re-ok-I’m-ok, about everybody except we who were shell-shocked traipsed up front to receive Communion in the hand every Sunday because others would wonder why they weren’t receiving. Before Vatican II, nobody paid attention, believing that we all are responsible for our souls, which means abstaining from Communion when necessary. Latin Masses were history, no longer available.

You mentioned a drift. That drift came from seminaries, academics focused upon making a name for themselves, and some of the bishops. It did not start in the pews.
 
Last edited:
Jesus said, “if they hate me they will hate you.”

The world hates the Church and the Church let the world (its ideology) in. Now there are worldly modernists in the Church who sadly hate the Church for what is has always been.

This has confused the laity, thinking they can now have both the world and God.
 
Last edited:
I go to NO Mass. I’ve been to the Latin Mass several times and I’m close with a bishop who is commonly known as a supporter of the Latin Mass (Bishop Alvaro Corrada del Río). I’d like to tell a story about a conversation with him.

My in-laws are extremely traditional (less so now but at this time they were very divisive about Latin Mass goers and “those NO people”). The priest at their church gave about a half-hour homily on the necessity of veils (women should wear veils, the altar has a veil, the Tabernacle has a veil, etc; it’s the beauty of the church). But I still didn’t understand why veils were so symbolically, and therefore actually, important. So I asked the bishop.
When I told him what all the priest had said, he was a bit distressed and said he would not like his priests to do that, because there is so much more of substance to talk about. So he began telling me about the origin of veiling (1 Corinthians where Paul tells the women to cover their heads). This was for the sake of modesty because the wealthy Corinthian women had a serious problem with being ostentatious. That was the reason. He said symbolism is nice, but it’s not virtue. Today in American society ostentatious hair is not really an issue, so veiling is not necessary. In fact, wearing a veil in order to look more devout would be a problem. Similarly, Christian women in Muslim countries uncover their heads in Mass because in Christ they’re not bound by Islam’s arbitrary laws. He went on to say that the liturgy is not written in stone, it’s decided by the Church and is subject to change. What’s important is the Eucharist.
So he restarted the Latin Mass in his diocese because some people wanted it and that is fine and it’s very beautiful. He went out of his way to make sure that priests were trained to do it correctly. But it’s not something to be attached to to the point that you divide yourself from the rest of the Church.
Now that I know this, I see much of the anger and divisiveness from the new traditionalists as being either an over-attachment to material things or being a knee-jerk reaction to some of the injustices that came about after Vatican II. I have nothing against the traditions. They’re great! It’s the way they’re being treated by some that has pushed me away.
Granted, many Catholics who are far left progressives aren’t necessarily thinking about that, but I and many other conservative, but not traditionalist, Catholics do.
 
Last edited:
If you think modern wealthy American Catholics aren’t ever ostentatious, then, I don’t know. Do you have any idea how much some “high-maintenance” ladies spend on their hair procedures alone? 🤣
 
Last edited:
Lol granted. My point is you don’t have women wearing crazy jewels and gems all over their hair in order to distinguish themselves from the poor women. Generally, hairstyles are pretty uniform across economic classes in our society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top