Wow....... I never imagined

[I_Believe]

I stopped going to Mass when I was 15 (cradle Catholic). Hung out with the wrong bunch. Thankfully, after 35 years, I came back to the Church in Dec '06. My life has changed dramatically.

Anyhow, being an adolescent during the Vatican II years, I never understood it’s impact. I do remember hearing my grandmother and the old folks discussing the changes in the Mass, but never paid much attention. I never heard my father discuss it.

Ok, now here I am, a member of this forum, and I now see that Vatican II and it’s results are of great concern for a lot of Catholics.
Especially traditional Catholics. I’m left wondering what I am… a traditional Catholic, a liberal Catholic, or just a Catholic.

I suppose I’m not liberal. I have no problem with the Church’s view on abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, etc. When I returned to the Church, I went to Mass at several parishes around town (at least 15), and settled on one I really feel good about. My parish is run by 6 Dominican priests, all of whom are super It seems a fairly traditional parish. Confession six days a week, two sessions on Saturday. Two Masses m-f, three sat, five on Sunday. Holy hour on Saturdays before noon Mass, and an evening one once a month.

Being away so long, I suppose I wouldn’t know a NO said correctly if I saw one, but I’d guess our priests do it right. According to the “order of the Mass” section in my St Joseph missal, they do. No additions or omissions.

One Mass I attended at another parish had a band. Drums, guitar, keyboards, tambourine… and they were awful lol. The Crucifix was near the front entrance on a side wall
I didn’t like it at all, so again, I guess I’m not liberal.

So, the point of my rambling is this… BESIDES the preference of TM over NO, what makes one a traditional Catholic ?
What is confusing me is the frowning upon of liberal Catholics, vs the frowning upon of the results of Vatican II. I’ll admit, I frown upon the liberal mindset of some Catholics. For example, I find use “the pill” unacceptable. But also, I’m struggling with whether or not I should concern myself with this “traditional Catholic” title.
I have a hunch I’d be much more at ease having traditional catholic friends vs liberal ones, but what about all the fuss ?

The word traditional, to me, means a willingness to carry on tradition. Hasn’t it always been a tradition of Catholics to accept the decisions of Rome ? Voicing concerns and discussing them is fine, but… 40 + years of fighting Vatican II ?

I love old churches, 100 year old prayer books, Latin, and Gregorian chant. I would be fine with my parish offering or changing to (if ok with Rome) the TM. I also am fine with whatever The Holy See decides.

So what the heck am I ? A “traditional Catholic” ? Just a “Catholic” ? A “fence sitter” ?

I do intend to join the Dominican Laity if that helps answer anything… and I talk to Our Lady a lot

… or am I just nuts ?

 

[buffalo]

Conservative or Liberal are two places not to be. Just be orthodox.

 

[lizaanne]

Personally - I feel labeling Catholics is divisive. You are Catholic - period. There is no reason to put yourself into some silly bucket because some feel the need to compartmentalize us.

Just enjoy being back home! Just enjoy the beauty of the Faith, and don’t worry so much about who’s label you have on.

You are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that’s enough.

Welcome home!!!

~Liza

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I suppose I’m not liberal. I have no problem with the Church’s view on abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, etc. When I returned to the Church, I went to Mass at several parishes around town (at least 15), and settled on one I really feel good about. My parish is run by 6 Dominican priests, all of whom are super It seems a fairly traditional parish. Confession six days a week, two sessions on Saturday. Two Masses m-f, three sat, five on Sunday. Holy hour on Saturdays before noon Mass, and an evening one once a month.

I bet you go to St. Louis Bertrand on 6th street, don’t you? I thought I recognized you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In *Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, *Pope Benedict XV stated this:

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

In *Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, *Pope Benedict XV stated this:

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

Thanks for that quote.

 

[batteddy]

So, the point of my rambling is this… BESIDES the preference of TM over NO, what makes one a traditional Catholic ?

Well, first off, it’s not just the Tridentine MASS. The Office, the sacraments, the music and architecture, the fasting disciplines, everything is preferred from then.

There are many differences besides the aesthetics, it is a fundamental attitudinal difference about how to view change, history, authority, and tradition.

What is confusing me is the frowning upon of liberal Catholics, vs the frowning upon of the results of Vatican II. I’ll admit, I frown upon the liberal mindset of some Catholics. For example, I find use “the pill” unacceptable. But also, I’m struggling with whether or not I should concern myself with this “traditional Catholic” title.
I have a hunch I’d be much more at ease having traditional catholic friends vs liberal ones, but what about all the fuss ?

Ah, but the division is not “traditional” vs. “liberal”…on boards like this, the liberals are practically non-existent, and in the Church at large they are dying out. The new dichotomy spoken of is between Traditionalist vs. “Neo-conservative”

I love old churches, 100 year old prayer books, Latin, and Gregorian chant. I would be fine with my parish offering or changing to (if ok with Rome) the TM. I also am fine with whatever The Holy See decides.

Which is a very neo-Catholic attitude. Yes, completely orthodox. I do not question that. But the entire attitude of super-centralized deferrence to Rome and clinging on every word of the modern popes and passionately defending every decision…is a little fascist. Rome has decided this for 40 years. But there were 1960 years where they decided otherwise. We must take those into account to. Okay, so 4 or 5 popes have cozied up to the modern world. 260 did not, and they were of equal authority.

I started out as a neocon Catholic, but the more and more I looked into HISTORY, the more I saw how abrupt a change, how drastic a change, how discontinous and massive a change…happened in the past decades. And with no apparent reason. None at least that outweighs a millenium of tradition, a distinct Catholic culture and “feel” to the religion that was almost entirely lost. It is just so much less…potent now, psychologically. It was a surrender to the modern culture and mindset, a [edited by Moderator] decision made out of fear that if we didn’t change, we would cease to be relevant. Ironically, that is just what happened. And we see the fruits of that. Mass attendence is low, disobedience is high…

Yes, if Rome says it…it must be “okay” (well, not technically, as decisions on the Roman Liturgy are made by the Pope as the latin patriarch and not AS Pope. Not being promulgated universally, but only to one rite, they thus are not necessarily indefectable or infallible…for example, some limited permission has been given in the roman rite to sacramentally use “oil” other than that of olives in some places. I am not entirely sure that is valid…)

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[batteddy]

So, the point of my rambling is this… BESIDES the preference of TM over NO, what makes one a traditional Catholic ?

Well, first off, it’s not just the Tridentine MASS. The Office, the sacraments, the music and architecture, the fasting disciplines, everything is preferred from then.

There are many differences besides the aesthetics, it is a fundamental attitudinal difference about how to view change, history, authority, and tradition.

What is confusing me is the frowning upon of liberal Catholics, vs the frowning upon of the results of Vatican II. I’ll admit, I frown upon the liberal mindset of some Catholics. For example, I find use “the pill” unacceptable. But also, I’m struggling with whether or not I should concern myself with this “traditional Catholic” title.
I have a hunch I’d be much more at ease having traditional catholic friends vs liberal ones, but what about all the fuss ?

Ah, but the division is not “traditional” vs. “liberal”…on boards like this, the liberals are practically non-existent, and in the Church at large they are dying out. The new dichotomy spoken of is between Traditionalist vs. “Neo-conservative”

I love old churches, 100 year old prayer books, Latin, and Gregorian chant. I would be fine with my parish offering or changing to (if ok with Rome) the TM. I also am fine with whatever The Holy See decides.

Which is a very neo-Catholic attitude. Yes, completely orthodox. I do not question that. But the entire attitude of super-centralized deferrence to Rome and clinging on every word of the modern popes and passionately defending every decision…is a little fascist. Rome has decided this for 40 years. But there were 1960 years where they decided otherwise. We must take those into account to. Okay, so 4 or 5 popes have cozied up to the modern world. 260 did not, and they were of equal authority.

I started out as a neocon Catholic, but the more and more I looked into HISTORY, the more I saw how abrupt a change, how drastic a change, how discontinous and massive a change…happened in the past decade. And with no apparent reason. None at least that outweighs a millenium of tradition, a distinct Catholic culture and “feel” to the religion that was almost entirely lost. It is just so much less…potent now, psychologically. It was a surrender to the modern culture and mindset, a cowardly decision made out of fear that if we didn’t change, we would cease to be relevant. Ironically, that is just what happened. And we see the fruits of that. Mass attendence is low, disobedience is high…

Yes, if Rome says it…it must be “okay” (well, not technically, as decisions on the Roman Liturgy are made by the Pope as the latin patriarch and not ASPope. Not being promulgated universally, but only to one rite, they thus are not necessarily indefectable or infallible…for example, some limited permission has been given in the roman rite to sacramentally use “oil” other than that of olives in some places. I am not entirely sure that is valid…)

But fidelity and filial love of the Pope does not mean the butchering of the ancient liturgy was a good decision, a prudent decision, and we certainly must never stop asking “why”?? “Because I said so,” has NEVER been a justification used by Popes. They always laid out, in very simple words (not the puffed up bureaucratic rhetoric you hear today), what their rationale was for the minimum changes they made. Then suddenly…the overhaul the whole thing with their new ideas and pet projects and agendas. The** whole** thing overhauled when for 500 years the biggest change was a carefully revised psalter schema.

It was arrogance. The modernist arrogance that “we know better now”. NEVER assume that we know better now. Defer to tradition, to the authorities of the past, and never dismiss the giants whose shoulders we stand on. They suddenly just decided to basically do a total reworking, when it had been organically growing and building upon past generations for ages. Suddenly, they tear it down completely, salvage what the can, and rebuild it from scratch in a similar (but I get the sense artificially similar) design. Always remember that there was a reason that things were done the way they were, and if there is no good reason to mess with a formula that worked just fine, dont.

But those things have a way of sorting themselves out…for if bad Catholics leave the Church, only the faithful will be left by definition…

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Ok, now here I am, a member of this forum, and I now see that Vatican II and it’s results are of great concern for a lot of Catholics.
Especially traditional Catholics. I’m left wondering what I am… a traditional Catholic, a liberal Catholic, or just a Catholic.

I suppose I’m not liberal. I have no problem with the Church’s view on abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, etc.
So, the point of my rambling is this… BESIDES the preference of TM over NO, what makes one a traditional Catholic ?
The word traditional, to me, means a willingness to carry on tradition. Hasn’t it always been a tradition of Catholics to accept the decisions of Rome ? Voicing concerns and discussing them is fine, but… 40 + years of fighting Vatican II ?
So what the heck am I ? A “traditional Catholic” ? Just a “Catholic” ? A “fence sitter” ?

You’re a Conservative Catholic. Conservatives tend to accept everything that comes from Rome. Liberals tend to see the Church as moving from the poor theological understanding of the past to modern enlightenment, whilst Traditionalists would oppose Vatican II except that, as you mention, there is this problem of climing to be traditional whilst not obeying the Papacy. So traditionalists find various ways of resolving that.

Conservative Catholicism is a safe thing to be. You are not going to go too far wrong by agreeing with the Pope. The central problem is that you are also not contributing to the Church’s process of discernment, unless you happen to arrive at the same conclusions as the Pope through a process of independent thought, which is unlikely.

 

[lizaanne]

In *Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, *Pope Benedict XV stated this:

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

I LOVE this quote!!!

~Liza

 

[mark_a]

I have no problem with the Church’s view on abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, etc.

These are the biggies. All the other stuff is miniscule.

You are a hard core Catholic.

Congratulations!!!

 

[MidnightSun02]

You are a Catholic! It is out of my place to say this but I’ve always believed that Catholics who disagree with a particular teaching or tradition (like the Church’s stand on abortion, birth control, premarital sex, etc) should look for another church to attend (unless one was totally ignorant, finds the truth, and changes their ways).

 

[gmarie21]

I started out as a neocon Catholic, but the more and more I looked into HISTORY, the more I saw how abrupt a change, how drastic a change, how discontinous and massive a change…happened in the past decades. And with no apparent reason. None at least that outweighs a millenium of tradition, a distinct Catholic culture and “feel” to the religion that was almost entirely lost. It is just so much less…potent now, psychologically. It was a surrender to the modern culture and mindset, a [edited by Moderator] decision made out of fear that if we didn’t change, we would cease to be relevant. Ironically, that is just what happened. And we see the fruits of that. Mass attendence is low, disobedience is high…

[Edited by Moderator]

Okay this paragraph bugs me big time. The One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is NOT the One, Holy, Apostolic Western World Catholic Church. The numbers of Catholics are increasing dramatically in Africa and South and Central America. Also, more “traditional” Catholic churches in the Western Hemisphere aren’t “closing shop” but are increasing not only in numbers but vocations. Remember the Pope (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) did say that the future of the Catholic Church would be smaller in number but purer. I believe that that process is happening and that an upswing in converts will begin to increase.

I don’t know too much about Catholic history, but I feel safe enough to say that I’m sure our generation isn’t the only generation that believes that the changes within the Church have been abrupt. That is just as silly sounding to me as those who claim that the rapture is coming. Are there legitimate concerns? Yes, but for one to turn his/her nose away from the One True Church because as an individual he/she thinks that he/she knows better than the Church which God and Christ had given to us is just :whacky:

 

[gmarie21]

I started out as a neocon Catholic, but the more and more I looked into HISTORY, the more I saw how abrupt a change, how drastic a change, how discontinous and massive a change…happened in the past decades. And with no apparent reason. None at least that outweighs a millenium of tradition, a distinct Catholic culture and “feel” to the religion that was almost entirely lost. It is just so much less…potent now, psychologically. It was a surrender to the modern culture and mindset, a [edited by Moderator] decision made out of fear that if we didn’t change, we would cease to be relevant. Ironically, that is just what happened. And we see the fruits of that. Mass attendence is low, disobedience is high…

[Edited by Moderator]

Okay this paragraph bugs me big time. The One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is NOT the One, Holy, Apostolic Western World Catholic Church. The numbers of Catholics are increasing dramatically in Africa and South and Central America. Also, more “traditional” Catholic churches in the Western Hemisphere aren’t “closing shop” but are increasing not only in numbers but vocations. Remember the Pope (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) did say that the future of the Catholic Church would be smaller in number but purer. I believe that that process is happening and that an upswing in converts will begin to increase.

I don’t know too much about Catholic history, but I feel safe enough to say that I’m sure our generation isn’t the only generation that believes that the changes within the Church have been abrupt. That is just as silly sounding to me as those who claim that the rapture is coming. Are there legitimate concerns? Yes, but for one to turn his/her nose away from the One True Church because as an individual he/she thinks that he/she knows better than the Church which God and Christ had given to us is just :whacky:

 

[gmarie21]

I started out as a neocon Catholic, but the more and more I looked into HISTORY, the more I saw how abrupt a change, how drastic a change, how discontinous and massive a change…happened in the past decades. And with no apparent reason. None at least that outweighs a millenium of tradition, a distinct Catholic culture and “feel” to the religion that was almost entirely lost. It is just so much less…potent now, psychologically. It was a surrender to the modern culture and mindset, a [edited by Moderator] decision made out of fear that if we didn’t change, we would cease to be relevant. Ironically, that is just what happened. And we see the fruits of that. Mass attendence is low, disobedience is high…

[Edited by Moderator]

Okay this paragraph bugs me big time. The One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is NOT the One, Holy, Apostolic Western World Catholic Church. The numbers of Catholics are increasing dramatically in Africa and South and Central America. Also, more “traditional” Catholic churches in the Western Hemisphere aren’t “closing shop” but are increasing not only in numbers but vocations. Remember the Pope (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) did say that the future of the Catholic Church would be smaller in number but purer. I believe that that process is happening and that an upswing in converts will begin to increase.

I don’t know too much about Catholic history, but I feel safe enough to say that I’m sure our generation isn’t the only generation that believes that the changes within the Church have been abrupt. That is just as silly sounding to me as those who claim that the rapture is coming. Are there legitimate concerns? Yes, but for one to turn his/her nose away from the One True Church because as an individual he/she thinks that he/she knows better than the Church which God and Christ had given to us is just :whacky:

 

[batteddy]

“And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.”

• St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium.

 

[I_Believe]

I bet you go to St. Louis Bertrand on 6th street, don’t you? I thought I recognized you.

Yes, that’s my parish

Now let’s see, the only one who could possibly know me from my post is… Fr. H ?

Charles

 

[I_Believe]

Conservative or Liberal are two places not to be. Just be orthodox.

I’m leaning that way now … I think .

Thanks,
Charles

 

[I_Believe]

Personally - I feel labeling Catholics is divisive. You are Catholic - period. There is no reason to put yourself into some silly bucket because some feel the need to compartmentalize us.

Just enjoy being back home! Just enjoy the beauty of the Faith, and don’t worry so much about who’s label you have on.

You are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that’s enough.

Welcome home!!!

~Liza

Thanks Liza. I’ll take that advice to heart

Charles

 

[I_Believe]

In *Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, *Pope Benedict XV stated this:

“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

Interesting quote, thanks. Makes sense, and helpful regarding my question(s). I’ll have to google Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum.
Let’s see, Benedict XV was Pope right before the depression. I’m curious what was going on at that time to move him to write this.

Thanks again,
Charles