Why are traditionalist forums so appalling?

[cyberwolf001]

I dunno the Trads can be a little arrogant true, but no worse than on this forum (all areas) difference is the Trads take shots at other Catholics too so now Catholics get a taste of how they appear to othes.

Actully I take that back in the past the Trads have been MORE charitable and nice to me than the “NO” Catholics. We at least have a mutual respect going on.

 

[seagal]

They are persecuted by liberals and conservatives alike for simply sticking to what the Church did for 1960+ years.

Surely you’re not suggesting that the Mass has been handed down from the time of Jesus until Vatican II wholly unchanged? I’m no scholar but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the format had changed quite radically between 33 and 1960, at least as much as from that time until now.

The fact is that the Church has gone through different phases of re-formatting, for better or worse, since it started. She is still the same church, whether we speak Latin, English or Swahili. The Mass is still beautiful. The focus is still the Eucharist.

 

[seagal]

It’s a pet peeve of mine that people come to the Traditional Catholic board & start threads with inflammatory titles such as this one.

Yes, I did. My reply was to Seagal who was bashing the Traditional Catholics here.

I didn’t start this thread. I was responding to the OPs observation that some traditionalists comments are “mean and nasty”.

 

[iluvburpees]

Surely you’re not suggesting that the Mass has been handed down from the time of Jesus until Vatican II wholly unchanged? I’m no scholar but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the format had changed quite radically between 33 and 1960, at least as much as from that time until now.

The fact is that the Church has gone through different phases of re-formatting, for better or worse, since it started. She is still the same church, whether we speak Latin, English or Swahili. The Mass is still beautiful. The focus is still the Eucharist.

There have been changes in the Mass over the centuries, but they were always slow, gradual changes, which truly were for the good of the Church. What is most appalling about the changes Bugnini introduced is the fact that he treated the Mass as though it were just a lump of clay to shape in any way he wished. The worst example of this was the change of the Canon. Tradition and Pope Benedict XIV tell us that Pope St. Gregory the Great was the last of the popes to change the Canon in any way. While there could have been an insignificant word or two added since his time, this is unimportant; what really matters is that there was a tradition of over a thousand years in the Church of keeping the Canon untouched and unchanged. Cardinal Gasquet reaffirms this:
“Our present detailed knowledge of this most sacred part of the Mass goes back certainly 1300 years. And with the exception of one short clause added by St. Gregory it has remained practically unchanged to the present day. This fact, that it has so remained unaltered during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of the veneration with which it has always been regarded and of the scruple which has always been felt at touching so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown antiquity.”

Additionally, the Council of Trent stated that the Canon has no error and that it “contains nothing that does not savor strongly of holiness and piety and nothing that does not raise to God the minds of those who offer the Sacrifice.” It is so sacred and perfect that Trent anathematized anyone who would claim that it contains error or would wish to do away with it. With these ideas in mind, the point is clear: the Canon of the Mass is such a holy and perfect thing that to change it in any way whatsoever would demand a very serious reason. And if there are to be any changes, they should be almost imperceptible, as the changes in the Canon over the centuries have been. Even more importantly, any changes must not give rise to doctrinal problems or ambiguity. Unfortunately, these two provisions were not observed in the forming of the New Mass, and there instead resulted unacceptably drastic and consequential changes.

 

[puzzleannie]

the CAF traditionalist forum is just that, for Catholics who recall and love the traditional ways of worship and practice of the Faith we grew up with, and the hallmark of that traditionalism is love for and absolute obedience to the Pope.

Other forums who steal the Catholic and/or traditional label yet conduct business as OP describes are neither Catholic, since they are schismatics, heretics or worse, nor traditional since their hallmark is rejection of and contempt for the Pope.

stay away. Would you shop for baby food in the aisle with insecticides and poisons?

 

[Lamentabili]

Surely you’re not suggesting that the Mass has been handed down from the time of Jesus until Vatican II wholly unchanged? I’m no scholar but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the format had changed quite radically between 33 and 1960, at least as much as from that time until now.

The Roman Rite has undergone only minor gradual changes since the time of St. Gregory the Great around 500. And that liturgy emanated from the oldest liturgies of all.

Never in the history of the Church had a new rite been constructed from scratch by committee, especially a committee headed by a suspected Freemason and having as its members 6 Protestant heretics.

The fact is that the Church has gone through different phases of re-formatting, for better or worse, since it started. She is still the same church, whether we speak Latin, English or Swahili. The Mass is still beautiful. The focus is still the Eucharist.

The Church never underwent a revolution (not reformatting) comparable to what happened after Vatican II. Nevertheless the Church is still the Church. The Mass is still beautiful in most places only as far as Christ is present and that the supernatural sacrifice occurs despite the often banal, inane, and sometimes sacrilileous production taking place externally. The focus of a great number of modern day liturgies is most certainly not the Eucharist, but rather the congregation.

 

[Chiltepin]

It’s there personality. It comes out in their posts. Half of them don’t attend any Mass, so I have found out. What does THAT tell you?

You know I never thought about that. You might be right. I have an uncle that I pray for who complains about the departure from traditional ways and Catholic culture but also does not attend Mass. TLM’s are available where we live and when I mention that it becomes a rant about organized religion. Some of the gripery could be coming from people who are making excuses to themselves for their lifestyle. I don’t visit these other forums you are talking about because I like this one so much!

Your attitude seems reasonable to me. Just out of curiosity though, **why **should there be more Latin? What purpose does it serve, except to alienate those who don’t understand it?

putting on sociology teacher hat
Language is a major component of culture. The use of Latin songs and Latin prayers was preserving for a time a uniquely Catholic Culture. In the absence of this, Catholic Culture as it was once known is eroding. In using the same language for worship that we do for our secular lives attitudes toward Catholic religiosity have changed greatly.

With the use of the missal people who can read can understand what is being said. After a while you begin to understand what it means without reading along. I see what you are saying and I think that if I ever do have children I would want them to attend both Latin and English masses. I think that growing up with the English Mass is what made me really appreciate the Latin Mass.

I can’t keep the spirit when I’m distracted by donuts being sold in the vestibule, **or even by bad singing **- I’m trying to worship Almighty God.

Good singing is obviously preferable, but I overcome my cringing at “bad” singing and have come to appreciate it. I’ve always thought of singing as a form of prayer and choir membership as a form of stewardship. I’m not in the choir myself and I see that these people have offered their time and talent in that effort and they bring their voice before the Lord who gave them that voice (even if it stinks.)

I may have misunderstood you. Forgive me if I have. I actually might agree with you if you mean singing before Mass. I too wish they would put a sock in it so that people have time for quiet internal prayer.

Loosely Affiliated Rant: I appreciate the sadness that people feel about the changes they have seen in their lifetime. I don’t appreciate it though, when people pull the age card to suggest that the rest of us don’t know what we are missing or could not possibly dislike the changes as much as they. A shift towards traditionalism is possible. The youth grow tired of the way faith is being packaged and marketed to them in silly ways. They could easily seek something more substantial. I think they would be greatly discouraged if all they get is people telling them they just don’t understand how bad things have gotten.

I am a relatively young person(23). I wear a veil to Mass, no matter what sort of Mass. That is out of the ordinary where I live but I rarely get funny looks or have anyone say anything. The only people that have ever reacted negatively to my doing this is some older traditionalists who see it and zero in on me as a sympathetic ear for their gripings. While I listen to such unpleasant lectures, it inevitably includes lines such as “You couldn’t possibly understand, I was alive when…” I see the irreverance at some churches, I know what a Tridentine Mass is like. Maybe as is suggested I couldn’t possibly understand. If I can’t understand, what good will it do to tell me so.

 

[TracyJ]

Your attitude seems reasonable to me. Just out of curiosity though, **why **should there be more Latin? What purpose does it serve, except to alienate those who don’t understand it? And I’m not sure what EF means.

I’m pushing in here because I wanted to say what the term “traditional” means to me,
but, even though I like the Mass the way it is I too regret the loss of the Latin Mass.
Not for religious reasons, though. I just liked the idea that no matter where you went in
the world that the Mass would be the same. Some referred to it as Liturgical Language,
I like that term. It’s not essential…but I think it’s nice.

There are people even here who are very self righteous and anxious to point out the
sins of others, people are downright hateful towards the Gay community. These are also
the same people who think that they’re holier because they want the Latin Mass back!
However, for the most part, I think that the folks here are seekers, I just hoped they’re not
drawn into believing that those posts, the ones who lack charity, are not believed to be
“traditional”.

 

[seagal]

There have been changes in the Mass over the centuries, but they were always slow, gradual changes, which truly were for the good of the Church. What is most appalling about the changes Bugnini introduced is the fact that he treated the Mass as though it were just a lump of clay to shape in any way he wished. The worst example of this was the change of the Canon. Tradition and Pope Benedict XIV tell us that Pope St. Gregory the Great was the last of the popes to change the Canon in any way. While there could have been an insignificant word or two added since his time, this is unimportant; what really matters is that there was a tradition of over a thousand years in the Church of keeping the Canon untouched and unchanged. Cardinal Gasquet reaffirms this:
“Our present detailed knowledge of this most sacred part of the Mass goes back certainly 1300 years. And with the exception of one short clause added by St. Gregory it has remained practically unchanged to the present day. This fact, that it has so remained unaltered during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of the veneration with which it has always been regarded and of the scruple which has always been felt at touching so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown antiquity.”

Additionally, the Council of Trent stated that the Canon has no error and that it “contains nothing that does not savor strongly of holiness and piety and nothing that does not raise to God the minds of those who offer the Sacrifice.” It is so sacred and perfect that Trent anathematized anyone who would claim that it contains error or would wish to do away with it. With these ideas in mind, the point is clear: the Canon of the Mass is such a holy and perfect thing that to change it in any way whatsoever would demand a very serious reason. And if there are to be any changes, they should be almost imperceptible, as the changes in the Canon over the centuries have been. Even more importantly, any changes must not give rise to doctrinal problems or ambiguity. Unfortunately, these two provisions were not observed in the forming of the New Mass, and there instead resulted unacceptably drastic and consequential changes.

Thank you for that iluvburpees. Forgive my ignorance, but if all that’s true (which I don’t doubt), then what happened at the 2nd vatican council? Why the sweeping changes then? Maybe someone can provide a link as to the why’s?

 

[TracyJ]

To me, “traditional” means:

Being able to enter the Church at any time for a quick prayer (where I live the Churches
are locked except in the case of services or cleaning)

Being able to light a candle when I offer a prayer ( many Catholic Churches no longer
have candles)

Girls wearing hats or some kind of head covering ( it’s not essential, but I like the idea
of some outward display of respect, and besides, the veils are attractive)

Eating fish on Friday, no one says that it’s essential that we eat fish, but it’s a healthy
way to get protein and certainly not a sacrifice.

Getting ashes on Ash Wednesday.

Midnight Mass at Christmas

Tantum Ergo and Oh Salutaris…different Churches use different music.

Praying to St Anthony when I lose something.

Always having Mary to run to with my toys when they break, she’s a holy presence
that understands me.

Being proud, but humble when Catholic Charities actually do charitable works.

Going to musicals and plays at Catholic High Schools.

Rooting for Notre Dame no matter who they’re playing AND for St Bonaventure’s no
matter who THEY are playing.

The Franciscans, and their monasteries where people can find peace.

Loving the rosary, praying the rosary, it gives me peace.

Celebrating the Eucharist with my fellow Catholics.

Having a Godmother and a God Child.

My idea of ‘traditional’ doesn’t involve duking it out with other Catholics.

 

[ibkc]

the CAF traditionalist forum is just that, for Catholics who recall and love the traditional ways of worship and practice of the Faith we grew up with, and the hallmark of that traditionalism is love for and absolute obedience to the Pope.

Hmmm, I thought this forum was specifically made to accommodate discussions of the Extraordinary Form and the 1962 missal outside of the Liturgy and Sacraments forum.

 

[iluvburpees]

Thank you for that iluvburpees. Forgive my ignorance, but if all that’s true (which I don’t doubt), then what happened at the 2nd vatican council? Why the sweeping changes then? Maybe someone can provide a link as to the why’s?

Sorry if this is offensive, but is this reply sarcastic?

If not, I’d be happy to discuss this with you. But I honestly am not sure whether your reply was serious (it sounds like it is).

I wrote a 15-page paper for my fall semester in college on Fr. Annibale Bugnini and his reforms of the Mass. Perhaps you’d be interested in reading it?

 

[numealinesimpet]

the CAF traditionalist forum is just that, for Catholics who recall and love the traditional ways of worship and practice of the Faith we grew up with, and the hallmark of that traditionalism is love for and absolute obedience to the Pope.

Point of Order! S. Thomas Aquinas will tell you that obedience has its limits. “Obedience” is due only to legitimate use of authority, not to abuse. Not every teaching or ruling of every pope has been legitimate. Popes Liberius, Honorius and John XXII erred and it was right that they were resisted at the time.

Much of the controversy of the past 40 years has centred around this problem. How many of ‘The Changes’ were legitimate use of authority, and were any actually an abuse of authority?

We must be true to The Church, of which the Pope is the custodian, in the Name of Christ, who the catechism will tell us is the Head of the Church, not the Pope. It is not his to play with destructively. We are not bound absolutely to each and every remark of the pope, otherwise every papal shopping list would be an infallible document.

I am not trying to be flippant, CAFers – Aquinas tells us that there are two sins against obedience: sins of defect, which is straightforward disobedience, and sin of excess – what he calls ‘indolent obedience’ - which consists in complying with an illegal or invalid order. To refuse compliance to such an order is not only justified, but a moral duty – otherwise one is complicit in the sin against justice of the illegal attempt-at-law. It’s all in Aquinas.

I can provide links to where this has been discussed in some detail in other threads of CAF.

 

[seagal]

Sorry if this is offensive, but is this reply sarcastic?

If not, I’d be happy to discuss this with you. But I honestly am not sure whether your reply was serious (it sounds like it is).

No, I’m not being sarcastic. I am serious.

I was around for Vatican II but not old enough to understand what it meant, except no more Latin and the priest was turned towards us for the consecration (which I like BTW). And no more communion rail.

I can appreciate the beauty of the rituals of the Catholic church (except for incense - it stuffs up my sinuses like crazy). I can appreciate beautiful music, even if I don’t understand the words. And I can appreciate what another poster said about going to Mass anywhere in the world and being able to follow along because it’s all in Latin.
This may sound terribly naive, but for me the Mass is all about a community gathering together celebrating the mystery of the Eucharist. Everything else is just human construct and not worth the emotional tirades on this forum, from either side.

I wrote a 15-page paper for my fall semester in college on Fr. Annibale Bugnini and his reforms of the Mass. Perhaps you’d be interested in reading it?

Yes, I would be happy to read it. Thank you

 

[seagal]

To me, “traditional” means:

Being able to enter the Church at any time for a quick prayer (where I live the Churches
are locked except in the case of services or cleaning)

Being able to light a candle when I offer a prayer ( many Catholic Churches no longer
have candles)

Girls wearing hats or some kind of head covering ( it’s not essential, but I like the idea
of some outward display of respect, and besides, the veils are attractive)

Eating fish on Friday, no one says that it’s essential that we eat fish, but it’s a healthy
way to get protein and certainly not a sacrifice.

Getting ashes on Ash Wednesday.

Midnight Mass at Christmas

Tantum Ergo and Oh Salutaris…different Churches use different music.

Praying to St Anthony when I lose something.

Always having Mary to run to with my toys when they break, she’s a holy presence
that understands me.

Being proud, but humble when Catholic Charities actually do charitable works.

Going to musicals and plays at Catholic High Schools.

Rooting for Notre Dame no matter who they’re playing AND for St Bonaventure’s no
matter who THEY are playing.

The Franciscans, and their monasteries where people can find peace.

Loving the rosary, praying the rosary, it gives me peace.

Celebrating the Eucharist with my fellow Catholics.

Having a Godmother and a God Child.

My idea of ‘traditional’ doesn’t involve duking it out with other Catholics.

I can agree with you on almost all of your points, especially the last one. Believe it or not, I lean more toward the traditional than my mother!

 

[TracyJ]

I can agree with you on almost all of your points, especially the last one. Believe it or not, I lean more toward the traditional than my mother!

I do believe you. A lot of younger people have gone back to the old, beautiful traditions.
Lately, in my parish, we have young people, and very old people.

They’re there to pray, not to argue, and many of the young people are lawyers! LOL

 

[PadraigPearce]

I do believe you. A lot of younger people have gone back to the old, beautiful traditions.
Lately, in my parish, we have young people, and very old people.

They’re there to pray, not to argue, and many of the young people are lawyers! LOL

Hopefully over the next couple of generations the Church will be able to recover a lot of what was thrown away in the sixties and seventies. It’s a pretty short period of time in the life of the Church, so hopefully sanity will prevail once again. I read Dietrich von Hildebrand’s book Trojan Horse in the City of God a while ago, and he has a pretty interesting take on the changes, from someone who lived through the changes. His conviction was that Vatican II was necessary to stop the oppressive legalism that had slowly crept into the Church. He doesn’t claim that the Church was perfect before Vatican II, like so many traditionalists do. He says the progressives at Vatican II threw away the excessive legalism and substituted an excessive freedom, in the hopes that it would eventually swing back towards the centre. This is right of of Hegel. Thesis, Synthesis, and Antithesis.
For me, reading all this is like reading ancient history. I might as well be reading about Vatican I. Reading a lot of the posts on here has been informative, though. For years I’ve been trying to find out from my family why they all suddenly stopped going to church in the seventies, and I think it had a lot to do with the constant upheaval they saw there. If everything could change all of a sudden, then they Church lost all it’s credibility, so they stopped going.

 

[chris_molter]

No, I’m not being sarcastic. I am serious.

I was around for Vatican II but not old enough to understand what it meant, except no more Latin and the priest was turned towards us for the consecration (which I like BTW). And no more communion rail.

You may be surprised, but NOWHERE in the documents of Vatican II can you find anything suggesting “no more Latin”, “no more communion rail”, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. Vatican II emphasized Latin having “pride of place” in the liturgy as well as chant.

I’m still waiting for the REAL Vatican II to be implemented

The complexity of Catholic cultural and liturgical changes after the council is amazing and you’ll find TONS of opinions on it online and in print. My recommendation would be to start with the actual documents of the Council itself, especially Sacrosanctum Consilium.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I sometimes look at Angelqueen forum, and another one called Fisheaters, and I’ve learned some interesting info there about church history, liturgy etc. There seem to be some genuinely friendly people on those forums, but I’ve decided I can’t look at them anymore because a lot of people on them are downright mean and nasty. There’s blatant anti semitism, derogatory comments about people who go to the ordinary form of the mass and horrible comments about Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I’ve been to an FSSP parish and found the people there quite lovely and welcoming, so why do trad forums seem to attract such a nasty caliber of people? I guess it’s just like any other internet forum, where you get some nutjobs, but it seems a lot more common on trad forums, with the exception of this one.

PP - you must be blind (or else do not read many threads on this board) if you think that it is free of the polemics you find on any other Trad board. The reason is really pretty simple. Whether your conviction is that the SSPX is justified, or that it is pleasing to God that the Mass be a type of hootenanny, or that a Mass somewhere in between is just fine, you are speaking of, at the end of the day, the salvation of one’s soul.

When you tell someone who attends the OF that their Mass is not pleasing to God, or you tell someone who assists at an SSPX chapel that they are a heretic and their Sacrament is ineffective, you have to expect a fairly visceral response from each.

I am on both boards (Cathcom and AQ) and really enjoy having a good discussion on a salient point. Likewise, when I read a post from the New Member, who on Post #2 declares that the SSPX priests are excommunicated because they believe the pope is invalid, what can you do but just post the response “idiot” and move on?

 

[giuseppeTO]

You may be surprised, but NOWHERE in the documents of Vatican II can you find anything suggesting “no more Latin”, “no more communion rail”, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. Vatican II emphasized Latin having “pride of place” in the liturgy as well as chant.

I’m still waiting for the REAL Vatican II to be implemented

The complexity of Catholic cultural and liturgical changes after the council is amazing and you’ll find TONS of opinions on it online and in print. My recommendation would be to start with the actual documents of the Council itself, especially Sacrosanctum Consilium.

Chris, your post is the most cogent, sane, and unemotional answer to the current situation I’ve seen in a while … elegant and simple. I wish I said it.