A Traditionalist: to be or not to be

…To Be!

Subtitle: one sinner’s journey

Probably, and first off, we Catholics, Traditional, Novos Ordo, or whatever we call each other, are Traditionalists, no matter what one thinks of the other. It has been pointed out, and quite well I’ll add, by some posters to this forum that, and this next phrase is my opinion–and the rest of the sentence is my perspective only-- one of our greatest Traditions is submitting ourselves to the authority of those to whom Jesus ordained, and to their successors: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kindom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:18-19).

One poster made a point that it is not about what we want (the poster was speaking about the reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist), but what He wants. 40-odd yrs ago, Peter’s Successor granted some changes that make some people very unhappy. A couple of years ago, Peter’s Successor granted some other changes–a return to the Traditional Mass–that made others very unhappy. Of course I am focussing my remarks right now on the way in which we are able to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist.

And I am confused. Did not Jesus tell Peter that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?” That which Peter’s Successor has bound and loosed is that we have a choice. Choice comes with a profound responsibility, lest we should forget. And by giving us, the faithful, this choice, the Church takes on a great responsibility to teach us what these choices mean. It has not, in my opinion, succeeded. Because we are yelling at one another.

It is my understanding, and my understanding may be wrong, that the Second Vatican meant “aggiornamento” as a way of making Christ’s Church more understandable to the modern world. To live in the world, yet not be a part of the world. To be an example to the world, yet not sacrifice one iota of the Truth. We have done this before. Listen to protestants and their complaints of the paganification of Christianity by the Church: the feast of the Incarnation, praying to Saints, etc. Protestants are wrong, it is true. They do not, or do not want to, understand the Truth behind these, as they say, innovations. It is obvious, though, and I agree with many posters’ assessments, that the “Spirit of Vatican II” has been perverted. For similar reasons. Those who have perverted the “Spirit” of the Council, either do not, or do not want to, understand. On the other side of the coin, there are Traditionalists who taunt the Liturgy of the New Order as a protestantization of the Mass. Ouch.

I have a huge problem with the irreverence shown at many many Parishes and Masses that I have attended. My problem is that I am unable to worship in peace. Sometimes it is not possible to “fa e fatti tuoi.” Sometimes I am robbed of the experience of Communion with Our Lord, conversation with Our Lord, in His house. Sometimes the roof of the Sanctuary is firmly fixed, and there is no blurring of the line between Heaven and earth, as was meant to be during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I want that back. And I am going to a Traditional Parish, as often as I can to find it. Faccio e faccio i miei.

And I will remember Jesus’ answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor.”


:thumbsup: but then that is just my humble opinion.

Why can’t we just be Catholics?:getholy:

Yes. That is the point of my opening paragraph! :slight_smile:

Because the term “Catholic” alone doesn’t mean a whole lot to a whole lot of people anymore. In fact I don’t know one person outside of this forum where it means really anything.

In the days befoe the “Spirit of V2” was thrown around like a mantra it may have meant more, if I had relied on the people who call themselves just “Catholic” for my experience of the Church I would never have reverted.

I always considered myself quite an open minded liberal, but I often annoy people because they say I am such a retrograde.
I always believed in live and let live, and that are some things that nobody is allowed to mess with. I guess that my list on untouchable “things” is different from a lot of other people.

My problem is that I have to balance my love and reverence for JPII And Benedict XVI with my anger about the Modernist Catholic lies that are allowed to flourish in our Church.

Unfortunately people do disagree.

In the Catholic church you can opt out by saying “all this Tridentine / Novus Ordo stuff is above my head. What does Novus mean anyway?” However you cannot do that and be a thinker, or a social mainstay of the Catholic community. You must come to some sort of conclusion, and decide which groups within the church you will join or support, and which you will ignore.

That is not to say that you have to question the personal sincerity of anyone whose flavour of Catholicism isn’t quite your own.

In regards to the OP, Communion in the hand has not been imposed, but merely allowed. IOW, the Pope has not bound anyone to receive in the hand. The canonical norm in the church is receiving on the tongue, and that is what he has “bound”. Anyone receiving in the hand is only allowed to do so by what is called a rescript, or an indult from the norm. If the pope decided to revoke that rescript tomorrow, no one would be able to receive in the hand because they don’t have a “right” to it.

As to historyb’s comment, i agree. Many catholics frown, nowadays, when you try to highlight the superior aspects of catholicism over generic christianity. It’s like catholics just want to blend in and not be different. In the meantime, fundamentalists are dragging catholics out of the church like crazy because they truly believe that their own brand of christianity is worth converting people to.

My problem is that I know the Church is under attack by organized and patient enemies, and the most dangerous of these enemies are now inside the Church herself.

Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs. Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” — where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.” Full article

Then there’s the thing about the Third secret of Fatima. From various readings I have gotten the impression that a key antecedent to whatever the big chastisement is will be “bishops opposing bishops, cardinals opposing cardinals” and essentially (un)civil war within the Church. Perhaps this is why Pope John Paul II did so many things that perhaps he shouldn’t have: because to not do them would have precipitated what is to follow. Maybe I’m wrong on this theory, but my believing it makes it easier for me to overlook things like the “all religions” prayer meetings in Assisi.

And no: I don’t believe Benedict nor the former pontiff were among the communists who infiltrated the Church in order to rip her apart from the inside – I just want to make that clear.

Prior to 1056 we were all just “Christian” – then there was the distinction between Christian and Orthodox.

After 1517 the Protestants hijacked the name “Christian” and we resorted to calling ourselves Catholics.

And now, “traditional Catholic” isn’t even unambiguous, and it means something different again from “Traditional Catholic” (depending on the capitalization of the “t”).

I don’t care what I’m called in this world, as long as I get the title “Saint” in the next one! :slight_smile:

Traditionalists are just Catholics…it is sad we have to use the adjective before the noun…but it seems of late, that it is necessary, because the true Catholic faith is being hijacked by modernists and liberals who are trying to protestantize it…so it is important to make that distinction…


Would you please explain your intent in using the words “Modernists and liberals,” and explain who the “true” Catholic faith is? To quote you, “it is important to make the distinction,” so maybe we should understand what that distinction in your mind consists of.

I have no need to explain myself…it is evident by reading my posts, what my beliefs are…I can explain to you in further detail if necessary via PM

Dumspirospero–the evacuee :smiley:

Since most of us don’t have time to search all the forum threads and read all your posts, maybe you could briefly enlighten us in this thread so we know who or what it is you are insulting.

Speaking the truth is not an insult…it is simply the truth…if one has to question whether or not my posts are directed at them…then maybe they should evaluate themselves…I am too busy to relist all of my beliefs…take the time to read my posts…there is a wealth of knowledge in them.

A few specifics might help your cause (and speaking the Church’s truth instead of making up your own). Like you, I am short on time and have no use for the “insult and run” type posts (like the first one you posted in this thread…and in many others).

…if one has to question whether or not my posts are directed at them…then maybe they should evaluate themselves…

Thanks, I always feel better about my beliefs after reading one of your posts.

I am too busy to relist all of my beliefs

Thank God for small favors

…take the time to read my posts…

Sorry, I am here for discussion, not for reading polemic rantings.

there is a wealth of knowledge in them.

No, wealth implies value…

Apologies in advance to the moderators - this was just too much fun to pass up…and it was hard to stay as “civil” as I did!

I am a Traditionalist. My conscience was formed before Vatican II. Which is not to say that anyone else’s conscience was formed improperly after Vatican II but that there is a huge difference. There are some who are of an age with me or older than me who post here. The Catholicism in which we grew up is, for better or worse, significantly different from today. That’s not a judgment, merely a fact.

It’s not just a question of liturgy and worship. It is a question of what went on from 1965 through 1970. An entire sea-change in the Church which caused me not to leave HMC in the 70s but to stop attending. If I had not found a reverent NO parish, I would still be “out there”. I could never be a protestant and although I would have considered our Easter Orthodox brethren back in the 70s, I would not do so now.

My high school years were from 1965 through 1969. I was an altar boy up until 1968. I went to a Catholic high school. I regularly spent part of my lunch period before the Blessed Sacrament in the chapel. I could go to Confession on the way home. Daily. A downtown New Orleans church had priests avialable for Confession all during the day. I don’t believe we can say this now.

I had to pass two Catholic churches on my public bus ride home. Catholic piety back then called for you to make the Sign of the Cross upon passing in front of the Holy Eucharist. I wasn’t the only one to do this…and I don’t mean just my fellow students. I don’t believe we can say this now.

Granted, it was part of our culture. New Orleans was and is a predominately Catholic city. Movies and restaurants closed on Good Friday when I was in high school. Make no mistake about it, the New Orleans you see on TV is not the New Orleans of any Catholic I’ve ever known even to this day.

Ride the bus on Ash Wednesday and see the number of people with ashes on their foreheads.

In four short years after Vatican II, we went from piety being accepted as the norm; we went from an almost utter abject reverence for the Eucharist to guitars and music which sounded as if the Beatles could have written it. A wholesale abandonment of that which defined us as Catholic. Do any of you realize that in 1970 with the NO Mass we still received Communion kneeling down and on the tongue only?

Can you conceive being shocked to the core of your being, if the Holy Eucharist fell on the ground? Yes, shock - shock that Our Lord should be profaned. How many of you know today that only Father should pick it up? Or that in 1965 only a priest could distribute Communion. There were no extraordinary ministers.

I’m not trying to convert you to a society and practice for which many of you have absolutely no understanding. The past is water under the bridge. I attend a very reverent NO parish which is quite orthodox. But it is not what I grew up with.

Father has asked me and several other older choir members if we would be willing to form a Gregorian choir. I am assuming he is looking forward to possible actions by the Holy Father. If it means being able to resume the practices of my youth, I answer with a resounding, yes!

Look, I am not trying to “convert” any of you. Y’all want to bang on drums, strum electric guitars, wave your hands all about…be my guest. Just let those of us who remember…an opportunity to resume the faith we practised as children and to accept people of like minds. I really don’t see why a return to the TLM is causing such heart burn.

On another thread… reference was made to a Catholic parish in Tokyo. I googled the parish. They offer Masses in English, French, German, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Chinese…in 1965 it would have been one language - Latin which all Catholics would have understood. Think about that.

Excellent post. Thank you.

Beautifully written.:blessyou:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.