Of course, I was a mere child but from the first time I remember the Catholic Church, around 4 years old in Atlanta, Ga which would have been around 1957, I have great memories. I’m kind of an idiot savant in that regard. So here goes:
THE PLUSES FIRST:
1. The Mass was awe inspiring, filled with sacred silence before, during and after Mass, a true sense of wonder and awe before the throne of God and a realization that God is God and we aren’t! The mystical presence of God was palpable!
2. People were filled with reverence and constantly praying, not fearful of private devotions going on as the Mass progressed—it was so edifying and a wonderful example.
3. Masses were packed but not everyone went to Holy Communion—they understand the graces of the Holy Sacrifice even if they would not receive Holy Communion at that Mass.
4. There appeared to be discipline among the clergy and the nuns and they tried to set the example in teaching us about Christ, virtue, sin, modesty and immodesty, etc
5. No one complained about their clergy, the bishop or the pope, there was unity and pride in being Catholic with our unique liturgy, devotions, customs and practices, especially fasting, abstinence and ember days, not to mention the strict discipline of the Lenten season.
6. Catholic homes were filled with prayer, devotions and sacramentals.
7. The Catholic Church is the true Church, no if’s, and’s or or’s about it!
8. Catholics knew the basics of the Catholic Church and her 6 precepts. They knew what the Baltimore Catechism taught.
9. Catholics knew what sin was, developed a scrupulous conscience and went to confession regular, many weekly
10. There was a clear Catholic identity, what was and what wasn’t Catholic and the same held true of the distinct identity of the priests, nuns/sisters and brothers/monks.
THE MINUSES:
1. Paternalism, not so much clericalism, was rampant and adults were treated as children
2. Clericalism, meaning not a clear priestly identity or the authority that came with that identity, was an abuse of authority and a haughtiness as it concerned the priestly identity. It was also authoritarianism, meanness and strictness that went beyond correction to abuse. A deference offered to clergy concerning their foibles because they supposedly sacrificed so much, especially sex…
3. There was an unfortunate ignorance about the Scriptures and conversational prayer.
Can’t think of any other minuses…
16 comments:
While I prefer the preconciliar model of the Church to the current debacle, I am not so closed-minded and inflexible that I can turn my head at the problems that existed before we had the Renewed Kumbaya New Church of the Splendid New Advent. Your assessment is fair.
And the numbers? It would appear that the positives far outweighed the negatives--all of which could have been addressed without gutting the Church the way our postconciliar commissars have done.
Actually, my experience of the clergy back then was much more positive. The priests I encountered were generally approachable and some were even fun. We had priests to our home for dinner and other occasions. The only nasty priest I knew was a so-called "liberal", very arrogant and condescending.
Hands down, the Church was in a much better place (at least in the US) and successful prior to the self-inflicted wound known as Vatican II.
Priests and bishops of old and new rites had/have poor spiritual catechesis and formation, unable to pass along spiritual riches of the Church, the new Mass priests approaching zero in that spiritual life and ability to pass it on, old Mass practioners still had the odd holy priest who had a life centered on God and prayer.
Old Mass attendees at least had beautiful rites and churches in which to maybe come to a spiritual life despite no help from most priests/bishops, while new Mass attendees have generally ugly churches and rites and near zero spiritual life or chance of developing one.
Beautiful rites and churches are a wonderful aid to the spiritual life.
Beautiful rites and churches are no substitute for spiritual catechesis and a spiritual life, while they are treated as exactly that by most priests and bishops of traditonal inclination.
A lose/lose situation for all but the smallest and most self-motivated minority of those drawn to spiritual life. And a Church without a spiritual life is what?
It is a Church where the leftists preach and espouse leftist political principles as religion, and them opposed by those who think doing rites the old way will fix everything.
Bob,
I am curious as to the kind of parish you belong to? My pastor is 32, celebrates the TLM and Novus Ordo with TLM sensibilities. He places a great deal of emphasis on proper catechesis and developing a spiritual life. He actually grew our parish during the pandemic.
Father McDonald said..."Can’t think of any other minuses…"
Fathers Joseph Ratzinger, as well as Leonard Feeney, could.
Fathers Joseph Ratzinger, as well as Leonard Feeney, were held in high regard as brilliant theologians.
Speaking generally...
Father Leonard Feeney represented the Church's right-wing. He insisted that the Church during the 1940s and 1950s had fallen into shambles.
Father Feeney insisted that Modernists had seized control of the Church. In Father Feeney's view:
-- The laity had been catechized poorly. -- Countless Catholics lacked the most basic knowledge of the Faith. -- The laity were clueless as to the Mass. -- Seminaries were in shambles...seminarians had received modernistic training. -- Participation in the Ecumenical Movement was destroying the Church.
Father Feeney's had believed that the Churchmen of his time had abandoned Holy Tradition.
=====================================================================================
Father Joseph Ratzinger had insisted that the (Latin ) Church was in spiritual/liturgical collapse. -- He insisted that the Council of Trent had "fossilized" the Roman Liturgy. -- Father Joseph Ratzinger had insisted that the laity were clueless during Mass...not in touch with the Mass...were "silent spectators" who engaged in private devotions.
Father Joseph Ratzinger insisted that Latin had prevented the laity from having been in touch with the Mass.
Father Joseph Ratzinger insisted that the Church was in dire need of major reform.
Fathers Joseph Ratzinger, as well as Leonard Fenney, had attached numerous "minuses" to the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob's parish is probably very much like the majority of parishes in the US. It celebrates Novus Ordo only, no TLM or with TLM sensibilities. Very very few of parishioners have the availability of the TLM. It may not be what most of us desires but we have no choice but go to the NO. But I do know this. The graces that come from the NO are exactly the same as the TLM. God has allowed the NO to be implemented in his Church. If it were not legit He would not have forced his flock to celebrate a false liturgy for worshiping in Mass. We may not all have the chance to attend the TLM but that doesn't make the ones going to the NO any less faithful in worshiping our Lord.
I think the reform of the Mass was well-intentioned, but we have had about 60 years of it and studies that show that those who are active in this Mass, a significant number, maybe upwards of 80% of these active Catholics don’t believe what the Church teaches about the Mass and the Real Presence or other aspects of Sacramental theology, not to mention theology in general and defined doctrines and dogmas.
This is not true of those who attend the TLM. They are orthodox and strive to believe what the Church actually teaches.
The flaw with the Modern Mass is the style of celebration, too wide a swath of music and various idioms of music allowed, the choice to eliminate the propers in about 99.9% of parishes that celebrate the Modern Missal. Then there is the casual, folksy approach to this Mass, standing for Holy Communion, Communion in the hand and hoards of Eucharistic ministers distributing Holy Communion with little to no academic or practical theology concerning this “ministry.”
On top of that, the one point of contact that most parishioners have with the priest in a personal way is at the distribution of Holy Communion. With laity doing this, a person may never have a personal contact with a priest, even in the hospital or at home when receiving Holy Communion.
The demographic sinkhole will end the Novus Ordo. It is widening and spreading with great speed. I take no joy in this but it is a reality we must face. The TLM will continue to grow, albeit slowly, under the current Soviet style regime.
TJM, I have lived all over the USA and much of the world, compliments of my time with Uncle Sam and civilian career. I have attended Latin and modern Mass, good and bad of both, and my observations are exactly that....what I have seen and experienced.
You will not see Latin Mass attendees arguing over doctrines, to their credit. But as far a people wanting to spend time with God, before/after Mass and visiting to pray when there is no Mass, not near the difference one would hope, the difference being essentially zero at modern parishes, and a handtul at Latin parishes. For the vast majority of both, God is an hour on Sunday, with a few more daily rote recitals with traditionalists.
The hugely attended Latin parishes, where daily Masses (now quashed) were full and several Sunday Masses (now quashed) were packed, were all in areas serving tens of millions, or out of the way places where wealthier folk (only) could afford relocation.
Currently, where I live, there is not a decent Mass within an hour drive one-way, them more organized sacrilege all about the Dr. Feelgood priest and all the lay official participants.
While the priest or deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion, it is not who is distributing that is important but the One who is received that is life giving.
Many priests want to withold the chalice from the laity. Most times this has more to do with the idea of EMHC who are seen as infringing on ministry of clerics.
Yet St. Tarsisios, a young man, possibly an acolyte in the Church of Rome carried the Holy Gifts to the sick or those who could not be present at the Sacrifice for just cause.
Yes, I know that we receive "the whole Christ" under either species of bread or wine.
But did not the Lord command on taking the chalice;
"Take this all of you (not "some of you") and drink from it, for this is my blood of the new covenant shed for you and for many for the remission of sins."
Is it more proper to do as the Lord commanded or what (during the time of the Catholic Reformation) was deemed unnecessary since the protestants were allowing the laity to share in what was only a cup of wine? Was this an over reaction to protestant practice?
Yes, even before Trent the chalice was withheld from the laity in most of the Church, but was this out of a super abundance of fear of spilling the chalice or a form of paternalism?
I think I follow the Lord's mandate since He is the Word of God whose words give life.
"You will not see Latin Mass attendees arguing over doctrines..."
One wonders what rite in which language was being used in the liturgy when Martin Luther and Johann Eck, the representative of the Archbishop of Trier, Richard von Greiffenklau zu Vollrads, were arguing over doctrine. Could it be that the so-called TLM is not the preservative it is made out by some to be?
TJM, to be clear, my comments as to not much difference in parishoners as for seeking to be united to God in their entire life and not only an hour Sundays, this is a Western thing...at the moment, anyhow...
churches in Africa are doing quite well with the later Mass....
it all depends on if the people are also being given a spiritual life to go along with whatever rite...if the churches in Africa also end up with priests and bishops lacking any attempt at living united to God, they will not be able to pass this along to flocks, and their churches also will wither and die.
It is that simple. No authentic prayer life equals no authentic church life or churches, only folk going through empty motions and after a while they quit, as there are no answers for them there.
Father Khouri, you are painting with too broad a brush. Various churches in various places and times have had very distinct ways of dealing with the Eucharist. Everything from essentially zero for the laity except at Easter, to only bread, to bread and wine mixed and served with a spoon, to the (my favorite) intinction, has been done. Most all were driven by fear of accident.
As for who does the dispersal, the way most likely to foster the desired devotion is via holy and consecrated hands, or at least consecrated hands since we have a real shortage of holy in the Church and getting to be harder every day to get even consecrated.
As for laity doing the dispersal, that should be reserved as a very last resort. Having laity do this only to shave 10mins from a Mass so that they can feel as an elevated lay member (it is always the same folk despite teachings saying otherwise), and any time saved is then lost as they do their own purification rituals, is just plain trivializing everything.
As for when I am sick, it is a priest I want to see, not some church lady. Priests exist only to confect and disburse sacraments, anything else can be done by laity. But, in fact, priests spend the least amount of their daily time doing this. The rise of mega-church assembly lines only to save priests from conducting numerous Masses, and freeing them to be administrator managers is wrong. Priests should be saying Masses, hearing confessions, counseling, doing spiritual guidance, visiting the sick and dying. I think we would have far more vocations if candidates were taught true spiritual practices and then allowed to do the job for which they were consecrated.
Kavanaugh, if you see Eck and Luther arguing over doctrine after attending a current Latin Mass, you be sure to let us know. The tense was PRESENT tense.
Bobbie - The claim is that the so-called TLM prevents doctrinal confusion, that everyone who attends is clear on doctrine and belief, accepts them wityh no question, and as a result there is no arguing.
Well, the claim is false as history shows.
I celebrated the TLM '62 missal Mass for a year after much training. I learned the NO in the seminary in about 45 minutes. Lex orandi, lex credendi. I could see how there was a rubricism prior to the council. Dot the I or cross the T at the right moment or mortal sin. Nevertheless, we lost a sense of the sacred and the mystery. The vernacular was needed, but not the Kumbaya. Everyone with the priest must pray the Our Father. We have passed through 50 years of mediocrity in formation, liturgy and languages. (I did have bright lights teaching me at times)
Yet, as a child and adolescent, I was blessed to have had the Baltimore Catechism till 5th grade. We had benediction, stations, rosaries in Oct and May, Angelus at noon.
What if (sorry) we had stayed ad orientem with decent translations and not those from 70s ICEL? What if priests had not gone rabid and taken sledge hammers to statues? What if sisters kept the habit on and lived in community? Simply put, the mundane music in circle churches have not done well. And the PILL. People are searching for truth and not for fads. It is possible to bring them the truth.
Post a Comment