"... if some of the more die hard traditionalists just take their frustrations out on Vatican II and use it as a source of blame for all that they find unsatisfactory in their own spiritual life."Kat,Just saw this on your blog and would like to comment on it.I and my wife and my Mom and Dad are "die-hard traditionalists" as you put it, and have been in contact with many good and long suffering traditionalists [in silence much of the time] for years now. I have spoken to my parents and my wife, and others, on more than one occasion, and I have come to the conclusion that really the only thing that we find unsatisfactory with our spiritual lives is the lack of parishes that offer the traditional sacraments on a daily basis. ie; 40 Hours Devotion, Traditional Benediction and Exposition, Catechism, etc., ways to adore Almighty God in more sensual powerful ways.This is something that we long for and pray for daily. I have studied the roots and origins of the Second Vatican Council for a while now, and without going into a lot of detail, this Council was the end product of much desire and behind the scenes manipulating and manuevering by many in the Church who hijacked the "Liturgical Movement" of the 19th cent., an movement so beautifully pushed forward and expounded on by Dom Prosper Gueranger in the 19th century as a great means to explain the liturgy to man.To adapt man to the Liturgy, and not what happened in the 20th century and culminating with the 2nd Vatican Council, where the Liturgy and the Church were adapted to man, as opposed to Dom Gueranger hoped for.You see Kat, Vatican II itself was not "the source of blame for all that is unsatisfactory in Catholic spiritual lives", but rather was the visible "iceberg" if you will, the end product of a deliberate endeavor to decimate the Churches "Lex Orandi" [way of prayer]I am not just spouting opinions here, Kat, but these words are based on cold hard facts.There is much documentation to back up all of this.I am sure that you have heard of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the primary architect of the New Mass and the Concilium that implemented the reforms after the Council: here is a quote from his seminal work:"We must strip everything from the Catholic Mass that represents a stumbling block to our protestant brethren"Do you fathom what this means!The man that had full authority from the Holy Father, to demolish the Traditional Latin Mass, de facto, blatantly and without beating around the bush declared that the Sacred Mass which had nourished thousands upon thousands of canonised saints should be stripped away.So Kat when you make a statement like you did above, I charitably would like to inform you that you need to really research the bigger picture and put your words in the correct context.Yes, many find their spiritual lives unsatisfactory, but this is precisesly because our beloved Church allowed scheming and uncharitable men to take away from us, you and I, much of what is extremely fulfilling in our Liturgy.
I wish Vatican II as a topic of discussion would go away. I get tired of listening to baby boomers bang on about it day after day and hour upon hour, either good or bad. I wish they'd be happy watching reruns of M*A*S*H and Good Times on TVLand and listening to their old 45's of Chicago and Styx and let the rest of us get on with the liturgy as written.
Kat,Vatican II is kind of like Fort Sumpter. It's hard to say that the Civil War was caused by that alone. But its a pivotal moment, a point of no return. For the last 40-odd years, a group of dinosaur liberals have been using it as a rallying point to advance liberal ideas. They managed to hijack the council and insert all kinds of ambiguous language that allowed that hijacking. And it allowed a rot that had set in years ago to be uncovered, not unlike discovering one day that the wall behind the tiles in the shower stall has been disintegrating for years. I am a traditionalist, but not quite a die-hard. I am very much in favor of the Holy Father's Hermeneutic of Continuity. But that phrase only exists because ambiguities pregnant in the documents of the council were used to usher in the Silly Season by a coterie of knaves. That is the era I grew up in, the one you, by the Grace of God, missed since your conversion was in the reasonably recent past. For those of us who suffered through clown masses and vapid catechism and being told that everything lovely and sacred "went out with Vatican 2", it's easy to put the blame on the Council.I don't blame the council, as some do, but it's an easy target, a Fort Sumpter moment.(I do think I know the sort of folks you're referencing though in your veiled comment. The answer is no, those people exist in every environment. We have them in my EF parish where we have more than we could possibly imagine to nourish the spiritual life. We had them in my Anglican Use parish. We had them in my normal ol' OF parishes. It's just a personality type.)
I think you might be on to something in a general sense. While not a "die hard" traditionalist, I have long been attracted to more traditional forms of piety. Lately, I find myself backing away from some of those practices (while still holding them in high regard) because I am beginning to ask myself if I am using them as a way to cover up my own personal flaws and sins. In short, being (somewhat) traditional makes me feel like I'm "in" and "right". I'm now stepping away (perhaps temporarily) from some "tradition" in order to be more open to the "me" underneath and what I really am in God's eyes.
Cruise the Groove, I wouldn't go after Kat so hard. You used the phrase "traditional sacraments" when you talked about Exposition, etc. There are only Seven Sacraments, and no one is likely to receive more than two on a daily basis.
There were abuses from Vatican II, but there were abuses from Trent too. So, it's not the council; it's the person. Vatican II has produced saints - Bl. Teresa, JP thr Great & tens more. So, how bad can it be?
what Ben said. and Rick too. It is not the council, but the individual... you know the ones. There are never happy and feel the need to "charitably" critique every perceived minor offense. I said "some" trads btw, folks. Not all. I don't feel the need to re-word my statement as suggested.
To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a Mass is a Mass is a Mass. I'm 66 and grew up, with 12 years of Cathoic education, before V.II began. I think Cruise's and Ringmistress' points are well taken; as I saw lots of things change after 1964 -- some folks got the idea that since the liturgy was changed, everything was up for grabs.I don't like everything I see in some parishes, (and there's one where there are enough illicit things to make me wonder if the Mass is valid) but see statement 1. By the way, my very favorite private devotion is the old Stations according to St. Alphonsus Liguori which we did when I was in grade school (see my blog for last Lent). Bless you all.
MissjeanevilTraditional Sacraments and other salutary devotions.Sorry if I ran these two together.Thank you for correcting me.True happiness is always found in being in the state of sanctifying grace, which I pray I always am in.True Charity is present when one loves Almighty God above all things and his neighbor as himself for Gods sake and lives the Spiritual and Corporal works of Mercy which Spiritual work includes "instructing the ignorant".Tis good, tis good.
No matter what form of the Mass you go to, no matter what Rite, you're going to experience spiritual dryness at some point in your life. So if you change your devotional practices out of the impression that it will solve your spiritual dryness, you're likely to get a shock when it doesn't, or when it comes and goes just like it did in the old parish. It's like the old Irish poem about how there's no point going on pilgrimage to Rome if you don't already have God at home. Of course, it's generally a good thing to deepen your devotional practices in whichever way you find prudent. But realistic expectations prevent disappointment and bitterness.
I also can’t help but wonder if some of the more die hard neoconservatives just take their frustrations out on traditionalists and use them as a source of blame for all that they find unsatisfactory in their own spiritual life.
On one occasion I saw a person with a Latin alias post a comment on Youtube: "I would never go to a mass like that" (the mass had guitars a blazin'). I think this kind of "spirituality" may be what The Crescat was referring to. From my experience this wasn't unprecedented, though hopefully still rare.
Indeed some personality types are attracted to different types of religious expressions as "props" and masks for their psychological issues. We get that in spades with converts to the Orthodox Church from other traditions. Unfortunately "dysfunctional zeal" is often mistaken for piety by a lot of people, including our clergy who recieve them and ordain them.
Oh, I think so. Not all of them, to be sure. In any group, there are always some people who think that they have found the one, right way of doing anything and that therefore they are better than everyone else... and this is true, I think, even when they HAVE found the best or only way of doing whatever it is. The problem is them, and their insecurities. The trick for the rest of us is to evaluate things without reference to that group of folks. If you let the people who are obviously (or not so obviously) grabbing on to something because they are insecure and have an unhealthy need to be right about everything turn you off to something that is good and true, you are the one who loses in the end.But sometimes those people can make it VERY hard...
Post a Comment