Arkansas Bishop Taylor's comments on the Year of Faith and Vatican II

[Cat]

I would like to point out that it was probably that ghetto mentality that made people keep the faith. The cultural aspect was extremely powerful and undeniable, and I believe it is something that we need to get back quickly. American culture is so vanilla.

I find it sad that a teenager/young person who hasn’t lived long enough to know much of life feels qualified to pronounce that American culture is “vanilla.”

Baloney.

What does that even mean–“vanilla culture?” It sounds like something from a movie.

Vanilla is actually pretty darn tasty. There are a lot of recipes that call for vanilla, and just a little drop or two adds a lot of flavor. It smells good, too.

The longer I live, the more I realize that I know very little. Perhaps in realizing that, I have learned a lot after all.

The bishops are the apostles appointed by the Lord Jesus Himself.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I find it sad that a teenager/young person who hasn’t lived long enough to know much of life feels qualified to pronounce that American culture is “vanilla.”

Baloney.

What does that even mean–“vanilla culture?” It sounds like something from a movie.

Vanilla is actually pretty darn tasty. There are a lot of recipes that call for vanilla, and just a little drop or two adds a lot of flavor. It smells good, too.

The longer I live, the more I realize that I know very little. Perhaps in realizing that, I have learned a lot after all.

The bishops are the apostles appointed by the Lord Jesus Himself.

What is American culture? TV, fast cars, divorce, contraception and abortion, lots of clothes, big houses, money, a never ending desire for power, greed, a worship of technology, these are the things which are the hallmarks of our popular culture. That great American principle of self-reliance is almost dead, and where we can still find it, it has been bastardized and turned into a way to validate greed without guilt. Certainly there are many Americans who do not live like this, but if my own work/school experiences tell me anything, then it is quite prevalent in this little southern town, and I can only imagine about elsewhere.

I remember the other day I was having a conversation with a friend, trying to talk to him about religion in more philosophical terms. I was explaining that Catholicism is very other-focused: a focus on other people and on Christ, with the right attitude and belief, leads to the sanctification of the self. He thought that was “stupid” because, him speaking, “I would rather spend my time making money and spending it.” I find this to be a common attitude among my peers, and I blame it in large part on their parents and, in turn, a complete and utter failure of religious authorities to preemptively do much about it.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not bitter. American culture has been actively and passively allowed to be convoluted and it disgusts me, yes, and I find there to not be much of worth or virtue in American culture anymore, yes, which is what lead me to call it vanilla (maybe dirt-flavored would be better). But I would rather do something about it than mope, and I see this New Evangelization thing as being the first attempt. Christ will save the Church, but that is no reason for us to be complacent and not do anything ourselves.

By my comment about the ghetto mentality of the Church, I meant to show my view that, in my opinion, just when it would have been best to build the walls thicker and taller (against the quickly self-destructing and debasing culture), we ripped them down.

Maybe I’m a bit misguided, I don’t know.

 

[ProVobis]

Others have suggested that had Vatican II and the reform of the liturgy happened in the 1930s or '40s, we would never even be discussing it today. I think there is a lot of truth in that.

A case can be made that the serious reforms of the liturgy started right after the big war, if not before. They were first manifested in the Holy Week reforms in 1955. Maybe someone can correct me with some previous (to 1955) changes.

 

[Baelor]

What is American culture? TV, fast cars, divorce, contraception and abortion, lots of clothes, big houses, money, a never ending desire for power, greed, a worship of technology, these are the things which are the hallmarks of our popular culture.

And yet pockets of light exist in that culture, which is the case throughout history. I cannot even imagine a culture that was actually completely dominated by morality (note that this is distinct from being nominally in support of the Church).

That great American principle of self-reliance is almost dead, and where we can still find it, it has been bastardized and turned into a way to validate greed without guilt.

Self-reliance was always a sham; the country was never self-reliant in the first place.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And yet pockets of light exist in that culture, which is the case throughout history. I cannot even imagine a culture that was actually completely dominated by morality (note that this is distinct from being nominally in support of the Church).

I know! There are, as I said, pockets of people, both Catholic and non-Catholic, which have not given in or, if they had, realized their waywardness and corrected their paths. This is the inspiring part. But before we fix something–and the New Evangelization is our first real attempt–we have to recognize a problem in the first place. In the USA, I think one of our first steps is to start to recognize that American pop culture is pure and utter trash and we must have no faith in it.

 

[TEPO]

What is American culture? TV, fast cars, divorce, contraception and abortion, lots of clothes, big houses, money, a never ending desire for power, greed, a worship of technology, these are the things which are the hallmarks of our popular culture. That great American principle of self-reliance is almost dead, and where we can still find it, it has been bastardized and turned into a way to validate greed without guilt. Certainly there are many Americans who do not live like this, but if my own work/school experiences tell me anything, then it is quite prevalent in this little southern town, and I can only imagine about elsewhere.

I remember the other day I was having a conversation with a friend, trying to talk to him about religion in more philosophical terms. I was explaining that Catholicism is very other-focused: a focus on other people and on Christ, with the right attitude and belief, leads to the sanctification of the self. He thought that was “stupid” because, him speaking, “I would rather spend my time making money and spending it.” I find this to be a common attitude among my peers, and I blame it in large part on their parents and, in turn, a complete and utter failure of religious authorities to preemptively do much about it.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not bitter. American culture has been actively and passively allowed to be convoluted and it disgusts me, yes, and I find there to not be much of worth or virtue in American culture anymore, yes, which is what lead me to call it vanilla (maybe dirt-flavored would be better). But I would rather do something about it than mope, and I see this New Evangelization thing as being the first attempt. Christ will save the Church, but that is no reason for us to be complacent and not do anything ourselves.

By my comment about the ghetto mentality of the Church, I meant to show my view that, in my opinion, just when it would have been best to build the walls thicker and taller (against the quickly self-destructing and debasing culture), we ripped them down.

Maybe I’m a bit misguided, I don’t know.

I think that was a good response, but what America once was is not what it ever will be again. Things change, generations die, and new people move on to new things. If youre not willing to swim, you’ll surely sink like a stone… (But I know you’re a swimmer. )

Realistically though, can we really believe that our culture is any less virtuous now than it was in previous generations? After all, the situations that we face today are only the results of what previous generations have created… All that we have is only the fruit of their labors.

Where those who came before us may have succeeded in some aspects of the virtues, they surely lacked in some as well… in these times it’s the same -except that certain other virtues are favored, while different ones are neglected.

If you really look back into history with an open mind, you’ll surely find that the world before us was a very scary place… It always has been, and those who deny this are only fooling themselves.

 

[TheExorcist]

What are you talking about?

He’s talking about the fact that you are in the Traditional Catholicism forum, a board dedicated to “Discussion of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Catholic Rite”. As such many of us on this forum belong to the “few faithfuls” that “call themselves traditionalist”. Please to not treat the term Traditionalist as if it’s a hiss and a byword. Thanks to groups like the FSSP, ICKSP and the Canons Regular of St John Cantius this form of the Roman Rite is becoming more and more prevalent, thanks be to God. Prevalent enough to have an entire forum dedicated to it.

Blessings

Charles

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I’m amazed this kind of attitude still persists. We exist to fulfill God’s purpose. We must try to become fit to enter Heaven. Mass is bringing Heaven to Earth. It’s contradictory to try to make Mass more mundane i.e. more populist and then expect people to still feel religious awe at it.

That’s why so much more catechesis is needed, as the Mass doesn’t show what we believe as well as it used to. So Catholics are now more ignorant.

After the great revolution in the 60’s relgious and clerical numbers have declined sharply, so there are fewer to cathecise the laity properly. So lay people do it. Error piles on error; the spiritual children of the revolutionaries now think our doctrines and practices are malleable, if they know them at all.

This is a mix toxic to fidelity. To denigrate the previous system that made many saints, especially in the light of current situation, is peculiar, to say the least.

Forget OF vs EF or Traditionalism vs Liberalism. What actually works? Whose dioceses are thriving and whose are closing schools, churches and seminaries?

If you live near a cathedral or monastery you’ll be all right. If you live in a rural or suburban parish, watch the numbers. Time, money, probability: numbers break even the mightiest.

 

[TEPO]

I’m amazed this kind of attitude still persists. We exist to fulfill God’s purpose. We must try to become fit to enter Heaven. Mass is bringing Heaven to Earth. It’s contradictory to try to make Mass more mundane i.e. more populist and then expect people to still feel religious awe at it.

That’s why so much more catechesis is needed, as the Mass doesn’t show what we believe as well as it used to. So Catholics are now more ignorant.

After the great revolution in the 60’s relgious and clerical numbers have declined sharply, so there are fewer to cathecise the laity properly. So lay people do it. Error piles on error; the spiritual children of the revolutionaries now think our doctrines and practices are malleable, if they know them at all.

This is a mix toxic to fidelity. To denigrate the previous system that made many saints, especially in the light of current situation, is peculiar, to say the least.

Forget OF vs EF or Traditionalism vs Lineralism. What actually works? Whose dioceses are thriving and whose are closing schools, churches and seminaries?

If you live near a cathedral or monastery you’ll be all right. If you live in a rural or suburban parish, watch the numbers. Time, money, probability: numbers break even the mightiest.

What happened with the kids in the sixties was that their parents had some problems I think… We’re all merely the products of our upbringings and our surroundings, so whatever happens is a result of something that went on prior.

Just the same, it’s not an issue of poor Catechesis that were facing today (everyone knows the rules), it’s an issue of doing whatever we want and trying to survive in this goofy world our parents built for us.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Just the same, it’s not an issue of poor Catechesis that were facing today (everyone knows the rules), it’s an issue of doing whatever we want and trying to survive in this goofy world our parents built for us.

I disagree. Choosing to do right is an issue, yes, but it flabbergasts be, truly, how ignorant of Church teaching many people are even in my own parish.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Tadghe et al. You have to have lived at the time the Bishop was growing up to understand that in his day and earlier in American history Catholics did have a ghetto mentality. It was certainly extant in my boyhood in the 40s and 50s. And though it took me a long time to get used to the Mass in English I much prefer it today, and for the reasons the Bishop stated. I sometimes attent the Tridentine Mass and still appreciate it but still prefer the vernacular. Remember that Sts Cyrl and Methodius pleaded with the Pope of their time to allow the vernacular to be used to evangelize the Poles, etc. And when approval had been implimented they had great success with the Poles. So I think you need to rethink your appraisal of the Bishops comments.

 

[TEPO]

I disagree. Choosing to do right is an issue, yes, but it flabbergasts be, truly, how ignorant of Church teaching many people are even in my own parish.

Yes, those people are probably ignorant of Church teachings because they don’t want to learn and their parents don’t care to teach them. How do we know that things weren’t this same way, say 950 years ago? Or 200 years ago? Or 60 years ago?

 

[OraLabora]

A case can be made that the serious reforms of the liturgy started right after the big war, if not before. They were first manifested in the Holy Week reforms in 1955. Maybe someone can correct me with some previous (to 1955) changes.

This is true. Serious reform of the liturgy in fact started under Pius X. First of all with the release of the Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum in 1908, and then with the reform of the Divine Office in 1910 which was a very radical break with tradition in that part of the liturgy.

In 1948, Pius XII started the Pian Commission with the goal to study the liturgy including simplification of the Divine Office. This commission for the reform of the liturgy was headed by none other than… drumroll… Annibale Bugnini, he who is so severely accused of destroying the liturgy post-Vatican II. I believe this was the commission that led to the Holy Week reforms of 1951 and other minor reforms to the liturgy in the 50s. In that time most Octaves were removed from the liturgy as well as First Vespers for most feasts, in addition to many rubrical simplifications. Liturgical reform was thus well under way under Pius XII.

Vatican II accelerated the pace, but did not start the process of reform. For example the notion of simplifying the Divine Office for secular clergy and greater lay participation was a question already undertaken by the Pian Commission but eventually implemented after Vatican II.

A really good (if dry) account of all this can be found in the book “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell.

A really good study of the Liturgy of the Hours for instance will reveal that the Roman Breviary of 1962 was very far from “Traditional” (in 1962 its basic form was only 52 years old), and many of the radical changes that many think happened post-Vatican II had their precedents set in 1910 (examples: splitting the psalms in nearly equal lengths with new antiphons with no musical tradition for the new sections, splitting up the “Laudate” psalms at Lauds, to name a couple). Many of the 1910 changes caused quite an upheaval. And unlike in 1970 when the LOTH allowed the continued use of the 1962 Office especially by elderly clergy for whom learning a new Office was too heavy a burden, in 1910 Pius X forbid completely the use of the previous traditional Office (that had its roots in monastic tradition), except for monastics who could continue to use the Benedictine Office.

Our nostalgia for a certain era sometimes make us forget that change, sometimes radical change, is not something new to Vatican II.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Nothing comes out of nothing and the Church deals in decades. The 60’s are just where the tsumani came ashore.

Are were reformed enough, yet?

 

[ProVobis]

…but still prefer the vernacular. Remember that Sts Cyrl and Methodius pleaded with the Pope of their time to allow the vernacular to be used to evangelize the Poles, etc.

Was Old Church Slavonic really a vernacular, like Old English? Why didn’t the Pope allow all the Masses be said in the local tongue at the time then? Or why didn’t Trent, for that matter? Is there something magical about the 20th century that leads everything to think that only national tongues can make the liturgy work better?

As a historical note, Trent used the word “vulgar.” I was reading somewhere that it wasn’t until Vatican II, where the word “vernacular” was actually made popular, though it’s been in use since the 16th century. And FWIW in some circles the term has actually grown to be offensive to some.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular

 

[larsont7]

Wow, so much to comment on this, but I’ll just take the Bishop’s first item:

1. I invite you to consider what a blessing it is to be able to participate fully in the Mass, which was not the case prior to Vatican II.

This is a fallacy, as those who attend the EF can participate just as fully as in the OF, only in a different role. The Mass is the ultimate Sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered to Almighty God by the priest (alter-Christi), and the laity’s role in participating is to witness and partake of this miraculous event. The Mass is not and should not be about what I do, but what the priest is doing up on the altar.

In the past much of the laity prayed the rosary privately during Mass, especially prior to the introduction of the “dialogue” Latin Mass in the 1950s, and very few people went to Communion on any given Sunday.

I’m sure there were many people who prayed the Rosary privately during Mass back then, but there are those who still do it now in the OF (I have witnessed it, in fact). Even so, as long as the laity are there to witness the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I see nothing wrong with praying a Rosary during Mass. Personally, at the EF I go to, I follow along with everything the priest does in my missal, as do most in my parish, so this argument doesn’t even hold water.

As for the few people receiving Communion on any given Sunday, I don’t see how the form of the Mass should affect that. The only reasoning I see is that in the past, priests were less afraid to talk about mortal sin and receiving Our Lord unworthily in the Sacrament. Nowadays, since priests rarely talk about sin (in my experience in the OF), nearly everyone receives Holy Communion. Whether everyone is in a state of grace or not is only for God to decide, but with the number of unmarried cohabitating Catholic couples I know, I find this hard to believe.

In those days it was very much the priest’s Mass and only the priest and altar boys had liturgical roles–and only they could even hear, in Latin, much of what was going on–because a lot of it was whispered. That was the reason for the bells: to alert people that the priest had reached the Consecration and so they should interrupt their rosaries and other devotions and now direct their attention to the altar. So first, I invite you to consider what a blessing it is to be able to participate fully in the Mass-- thanks to Vatican II!

First of all, it IS the priest’s Mass, as he is the one confecting the Sacrament at the altar. We are witnesses. As for liturgical roles, I think it was wise to only have altar boys fill those (not counting deacons, subdeacons, etc), as being an altar boy was a way to encourage vocations to the priesthood.

To the “whispering” part, again, a simple missal is all you need to follow along. It’s not rocket science, after all, and anyone who knows how to read can follow along. I would argue that many who attend the EF participate “more fully” than many in the OF. Just because the Mass is in the vernacular, and people may be responding to the priest’s cues, certainly does not mean they are necessarily paying attention to what is going on. Participation is Mass is dependent on each individual and how much we bring to the Mass, not what language it is in or how many “duties” we get to perform during Mass.

I pray the good Bishop considers what he has written, as I believe it is offensive to anyone who cherishes the EF that Pope Benedict XVI has even encouraged to be more widespread.

 

[ProVobis]

Our nostalgia for a certain era sometimes make us forget that change, sometimes radical change, is not something new to Vatican II.

True, and it wasn’t just the liturgy. Ecumenism, collegiality, salvation outside the Church, etc. were also considered and established to some extent well before Vatican II.

 

[nordskoven]

In 1917 Our Lady of the Rosary appeared at Fatima, Portugal, warning of Hell, immodesty, and Russia spreading her errors. She requested the daily Rosary for peace; 5 First Saturdays of reparation for affronts to the Immaculate Heart; “Penance”; and the episcopal consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart for the conversion of that nation and as the “only” means to a period of peace.

The “traditional” Church embraced much of Fatima’s message. Eight Jesuits survived the Hiroshima explosion. Here’s the account of one of them, Fr. Schiffer:

Fr Hubert Schiffer, a German Jesuit, was one of these survivors, aged 30 at the time of the explosion, and who lived to the age of 63 in good health. In later years he travelled to speak of his experience, and this is his testimony as recorded in 1976, when all eight of the Jesuits were still alive. On August 6 1945, after saying Mass, he had just sat down to breakfast when there was a bright flash of light.

Since Hiroshima had military facilities, he assumed there must have been some sort of explosion at the harbour, but almost immediately he recounted: “A terrific explosion filled the air with one bursting thunderstroke. An invisible force lifted me from the chair, hurled me through the air, shook me, battered me [and] whirled me round and round…” He raised himself from the ground and looked around, but could see nothing in any direction. Everything had been devastated.

He had a few quite minor injuries, but nothing serious, and indeed later examinations at the hands of American army doctors and scientists showed that neither he nor his companions had suffered ill-effects from radiation damage or the bomb. Along with his fellow Jesuits, Fr Schiffer believed “that we survived because we were living the message of Fatima. We lived and prayed the rosary daily in that home.”

It is optional to believe and practice the Fatima message. Imagine if we believed what was said at Fatima. “Russia will spread her errors…” leading to the “annihilation” of nations unless Russia was consecrated by the bishops to the Immaculate Heart. Requested for 1929, it was not done. The first bloodbath was Stalin’s holocaust in the Ukraine, mass starvation of kulaks/farmers after crops were seized. One will not look at a World War II movie, one will not view a mountain of skulls in “The Killing Fields” without thinking the Church could have prevented all this and will suffer much for not doing so as Christ’s later prophecy to Sr. Lucia stated.

So the format of the liturgy is not at issue, is it? Roman Catholics had the Tridentine Mass. Lips enunciating Latin were professing obedience, but hearts were far from God’s will–optionally. So how did this lovely liturgy fail to foster the humility needed to love, honor and obey the Immaculate Heart and her requests?

I’m not trying to derail this thread, I’m using this singular event and the Church’s response as a touchstone, a benchmark to gauge the state of the divine union.

 

[TEPO]

Nothing comes out of nothing and the Church deals in decades. The 60’s are just where the tsumani came ashore.

Are were reformed enough, yet?

In my opinion, which is all I have to offer but is surely worth sharing, the Holy Church on earth is Gods distributor of the cure for death, which is Gods Holy Sacraments and the Holy sacrifice of the Mass… It’s the path to heaven.

So why do we want to go to heaven in the first place…?
because its the most pious place to worship? No…
Because it seems to be the proper thing to do? No…
Because everyone else is doing it? No…
Because people tell us to? Nope.
Because we hate sin? Maybe.

But mostly, we probably want to go to heaven because we love God, and we want to be in “friendship” with Him. We want to work with Him and take part in His eternal plan, which is All Good. So why would accepting the 2nd Vatican Counsel be considered anything other than working together with God -right here, right now…? He tells us what He wants (ecumenism), and we’re then given the choice to either work with Him, or not…

So when people talk about reform, I say there is no reform… There are just new choices to be made, but these choices require us to “let go” of some of our baggage -much like we’ll have to let things go when we pass on and our bodies expire. We could let go of the traditions that keep us from fulfilling His plan or we can still cling to them if it’s too much to bear -none of us having to fear that we are in the wrong either way. There can be several forms of the Holy Mass, and a whole sea of opportunities to work with Him… We’ve been given options!

So when a Bishop says that the pre-Vatican 2 church was a little ghettoish, we shouldn’t get offended by that, because In the ghetto, there aren’t many options… It’s just a very basic ‘do what you have to do to survive’ lifestyle… Today we’ve been given options to build on. My goal is to help build a bridge with the Anglicans… I’d love more than anything to resurrect the old Sarum Rite that was practiced in Western Europe… I’d love for the Anglicans and Episcopalians to reunite with the CC, and have their own unique Masses again, and maybe even their own Cannons just like the Eastern Churches have. Here in Orange County, there is a Church being built that offers a variation of the Old Sarum Rite, which is extremely reverent like the Latin Mass, except it’s spoken in English. The parishioners and priests are made up of ex Anglicans and ex Episcopalians now in Full communion with the Pope.

 

[TEPO]

Was Old Church Slavonic really a vernacular, like Old English? Why didn’t the Pope allow all the Masses be said in the local tongue at the time then? Or why didn’t Trent, for that matter? Is there something magical about the 20th century that leads everything to think that only national tongues can make the liturgy work better?

As a historical note, Trent used the word “vulgar.” I was reading somewhere that it wasn’t until Vatican II, where the word “vernacular” was actually made popular, though it’s been in use since the 16th century. And FWIW in some circles the term has actually grown to be offensive to some.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular

A thousand years ago in England, St. Osmund established the Sarum Rite, which was a unique form of the Mass that was spoken mostly in the local tongue of English (some prayers were still spoken in Latin though)… The Mass consisted of 12 altar servers, and was created based on a combination of the Latin Mass blended with The English culture… Very unique and reverent Mass!

Of course it’s been extinct now for over 500 years, however there are currently efforts in place to revive that form of the Mass…

JFYI….