Ecumenical elements necessary to attract Protestants to Catholic Church?

[RyanML]

Yup, and the altar is between the Celebrant and the congregation at that time, so that we ALL face it.

We ALL face the altar in an ad orientem celebration. It is the ancient tradition of Holy Mother Church in both Eastern and Western rites, for everyone, priest and laity, to worship facing east or at least “liturgically east”. This would obviously require the priest to face the same direction as the congregation.

Pope Pius XII specifically condemned returning the altar to a “table-form” and nowhere does Vatican II mandate that the priest celebrate Mass facing the people. In fact, the current rubrics envision the priest with his back to the people when the Missal calls for him to “turn and face the people”. And I feel quite confident that our Holy Father would back me up on this given the fact that he just renovated the private papal chapel taking out the “table altar” and restoring the traditional altar. He also supports the traditional liturgy and requires that when people receive communion from him that they receieve in the traditional manner.

What is most recent? Mediator Dei or Vatican II? And no one said “eliminate it.”

They don’t contradict one another.

Simplification of Vestments

I think simple vestments would be a sign of humility before God, a good thing. We are New Testament people, not Old.

So the old Testament priests weren’t humble when they approached the Holy of Holies dressed in beautiful vestments?

And the idea that we are “New Testament people, not Old” is not Catholic. The Catholic faith is the fullfillment of the Covenant, not a repudiation of it. Therefore the priesthood and the worship of the Church and the Sacrifice that She offers is a fullfillment of the priesthood , worship, and Sacrifice of the Old Covenant. The Church has always desired to worship God in beauty and majesty and has decreed that it should be this way whenever possible.

Is the lack of reverence due to communion in the hand, or a change in peoples’ attitudes or approach? Reverting may not cure that problem. Plus, one can still receive on the tongue. I see it every week.

I did not say that communion in the hand caused the problem of irreverence nor did I say that returning to communion kneeling and on the tongue is the cure all. If we reintroduce traditional liturgical piety with good catechesis, then we will be going in the right direction.

That is another topic entirely, but I still stand on allowing women to serve in ALL the capacities available to the laity.

I just don’t see the point of female altar servers. The idea use to be that serving the altar introduced a young man to the idea of priesthood and whether God might be calling him to that vocation. Women can not be priests or deacons so I do not see a point to having them serve at the altar as if they could.

Retained, yes, but not exclusive.

I never said exclusive anything. But I know of only one parish in our diocese that uses a very limited amount of Gregorian chant and latin. That’s hardly “pride of place” as the Council called for.

Little real substance to your counterpoints, other than a reliance on Pius XII.

I am quite confident that I am in Pope Benedict’s camp on these issues, as well as Pope Pius XII and a multitude of other pontiffs. That’s substance enough for me

 

[chaunceygardner]

Wow! I touched some nerves.

Not to belabor all of this, since it appears to be drifting away from the original questions, but my general response is that, despite what many believe, the church does change. We can refer back to what earlier Councils and Popes said, which is just fine. Councils and encyclicals build on past decisions of earlier Popes and the Bishops in council. But to set what one Pope or Council said or did vs. another seems to be divisive, not unifying.

Perhaps we need to accept that what is tradition to YOU is not tradition to me, or to someone else. There are millions of Catholics who only know “today’s” liturgy in their native language and consider it THEIR tradition. Whose tradition should we follow? Perhaps there is room in this universal church for more than one way to worship God.

God guides the Church through the Holy Spirit. Who can say that Vatican II and the changes it wrought were not guided by that Spirit? Pope John XXIII did, after initially worrying about what was driving his recurring thoughts about calling a council. He finally accepted it as the Holy Spirit speaking to him. Perhaps we should humbly and reverently do the same.

 

[Cat]

I just want to say a word about Gregorian chant.

I play piano, and have played for a number of different choirs, soloists, and choir directors. I’m very much in demand as an accompanist for all kinds of music, especially children’s and teenaged choirs, and I know a lot of music directors and musicians, especially classically-trained directors and musicians.

Gregorian chant is not easy to learn or do.

I know, I know, many of the traditionalists on CAF will disagree with me, claiming that they learned it as children.

That’s wonderful.

But their past doesn’t change the facts of the present day and age. It’s a hard genre of music to sing. Many choir directors know little or nothing about it, and so it’s hard to find a musical director who can teach other people. (If you do find such a director, chances are good he/she is not working as a volunteer in the Catholic church, but working as a paid staff person at a Protestant church. Musicians gotta eat, you know.)

And nowadays, so many people went through public schools in the U.S. where music was eliminated as a class due to budget cuts. So people didn’t learn how to sing correctly, and many people can’t even sing the simple hymns and folk songs in the Catholic hymnal, let alone Gregorian chant. The majority of people in the U.S. do not read music, and many people cannot sing well by ear, either.

In fact, many people in the U.S. have not learned how to carry a tune! I personally, along with other musicians, blame rock music listened to by young children for this, as the polyphony of the music makes it difficult for a small child to hear a melody line and mimic it.

**I think that in the U.S. in general, we have a population that is essentially very ignorant when it comes to music. IMO, that is the main reason we don’t have Gregorian chant in the Catholic Mass. No one knows how to do it. **

And when the Traditionalist claim, “That’s nonsense!”, they aren’t helping the situation at all. Gregorian chant really isn’t something that people can just stand up and do without some training, but how can they be trained when there are no teachers? This isn’t just modernism and I’m not just a secret-Protestant here–I’m telling you the truth. Go ahead and disagree, but I think if you took an honest look and put aside prejudices, you would discover that I am correct.

In churches where there is Gregorian chant, SOMEONE is teaching people how to do it.

Perhaps if the Catholic Church would consider paying musicians…

 

[Ockham]

The posting by “Cat” is a wonderful window into what she and her family observed and felt as they attended Mass for the first time and came into the Catholic church. It should act as a sign to those who worry that the changes in the church brought about by Vatican II are problematic.

Thus the problem with anecdotal evidence. For every one Cat convert we have lost ten born-Catholics.

The “spirit of Vatican II” changes are not what the council participants intended. That fact alone is problematic. The results speak for themselves. We are a Church in decline.

As Pope Paul himself said, Vatican II opened a window and the smoke of Satan blew in.

 

[diggerdomer]

T
As Pope Paul himself said, Vatican II opened a window and the smoke of Satan blew in.

I’ve heard this quoted but have not been able to find the source. Does anyone know where Paul VI said or wrote this? Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

Of course I converted because of the theology. However, I would not have investigated the theology had I only attended the OF. I would have had no reason to.

This is where I find it so interesting how people come to conversion. I found the OF to be awe inspiring, because it is so recognizably Jewish that it inspired me to reread the Jewish laws on worship and sacrifice. One thing led to another and another, as I said before. What I found most helpful in the OF was that the rites in the liturgy are very simple and easy to recognize for their Jewishness. Anyone who is familiar with a seder looks at an OF mass and can point out to all the elements that come from the seder. Many of those elements are also present in the EF, but they are not as obvious because of elaborate nature of the EF. I don’t say this in a negative way. Elaborate can be good and in the case of the EF, it is good.

One notion that I think we should dispel from our minds is that Pope Benedict XVI is going to do away with the OF. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that some people believe that he is heading in the direction of exchanging the EF for the OF. I don’t think that’s the case. I think he wants to make sure that the rubrics that govern the EF are more clear and that they are followed more judiciously and that any modifications or exceptions are approved by the local conferences of bishops and not by the individual celebrant. In the case of religious men who have priests in their orders, any modifications must be approved by the Major Superior and must be in keeping with the universal law as well as with the charism of the religious community. That is not the same as making the mass of 1963 the ordinary form and the current ordinary form the extraordinary form.

For one thing, he is very conscious of culture, reason, and the religious traditions of religious orders. He specifically mentions religious orders in the Motu Proprio and liberates them from the obligation of celebrating the EF, but places that choice in the hands of the Major Religious Superior. I thought that was a short, but interesting sentence. He is recognizing that religious superiors of men are truly Ordinaries, even if they are not priests or bishops. Therefore, they have an authoritative voice over the celebration of liturgy in their houses and in their chapels and churches. By “their” he means those that they own, not owned by a diocesan bishop.

I do not believe that he is going to change the OF to make it look like the EF. He is going to push for clearer rubrics, as I said and for greater fidelity to those rubrics. If he truly wanted to promote the EF as the official form he would use it himself in public, which he never does. He would also not have restricted its use during the Easter Triduum, which is the highest holy day of the Christian calendar.

Just my thoughts. I am speculating here, along with everyone else.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I personally didn’t require ecumenical outreach to come to Catholicism. In fact, it was a careful study of Medieval and Early Church Catholic practice that most fascinated me.

However, I do appreciate the English Mass a lot, I must say. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t also be glad to practice the Latin Mass, if the Church called for it. I’m in a somewhat awkward position, because I appreciate some things about Vatican II and other things seem to me wrong (like the new religious freedom teaching and the somewhat vague statement on scripture infallibility), or bad decisions (like Host in the hand and some other things). But I do appreciate the English. It intensifies my ability to worship God in the Mass, when I understand it.

 

[Ockham]

I’ve heard this quoted but have not been able to find the source. Does anyone know where Paul VI said or wrote this? Thanks.

www.google.com

 

[DorianGregorian]

First I will respond to the claims made about how the mass is more “ancient.”

Firstly, we don’t know exactly the mass Jesus said, except what is in the Gospel (and that it was probably in Aramaic). The people who claim that the Church is now more like it was in ancient times have nothing to base their claims off of. I can tell you though that they were not playing guitars on the altar while waving their hands in the air.

The current mass dates to 1969. However the EF mass dates back to Pope St. Gregory the Great (c.640 AD). This Missal was based off of the earlier traditions as described by St. Justin the Martyr in his First Apology c. 145. The use of Latin dates to about the reign of Pope Saint Victor I who was from Africa, a part of the Roman Empire which spoke Latin rather than Greek. Also as the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff was recognized, Latin naturally became the language of the Church. The current EF of the Mass is from the Missal of Pope St. Pius V. Between 1570-1962 the mass changed very little, the 3 biggest changes were those of St. Pius X who reformed the Office (not the mass). Pius XII who suppressed some Octave days (because they were often overlapping, for example the Octave of one Saint would often fall on the Feast day of another.), and the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon by Bl John XIII (who by the way did not sign a single document which came out of Vatican II). Notice however that even Bl John XXIII never even considered changing the Liturgy that much. Even Abp LeFevbre celebrated the 1962 liturgy, and scorned those who said it should be celebrated to the 1958 Missal.

At any rate the Gregorian Rite is based off of the earliest traditions of the Church, very much from the Liturgy of St. James (the oldest complete Liturgical text), and can certainly be considered Ancient. Where does the OF mass base it’s texts off of? The personal thoughts off of Abp. Bugnini under the observation of 6 Protestant ministers. (Also while they did not officially add to the Liturgy, they were in close contact with one another. This is in all business situations). The myth of the new mass being closer to that of the ancients is often argued by the Charismatics, who have nothing to do with sacred Tradition. The facts simply do not support this argument.

Secondly, in regards to the comments on vestments and ceremonies:

These are not simply added, as the above argument shows they date back to the early Church. The Vesting of a Priest symbolized his authority. The Copes and their respective colors symbolized the Liturgical season, the Maniple symbolized the Robe of Christ, the Crosier of a Bishop symbolized his authority. Even the way we prayed symbolizes many things. We make the Sign of the Cross (in the west) with our thumb and ring fingers joined to symbolize the dual nature of Christ. We kneel as a sign of humility, we strike the breast because of the humble plebeian before the Altar, we Genuflect on the Left knee to Bishops to respect their human authority, we genuflect on the Right before Christ in the Real Presence to respect his Absolute authority. We are before the Eucharist in adoration on both knees because it is from the Benedictine way of Prayer, and a layman never uses the orans position at the liturgy. The use of Incense was symbolic of offering our prayers to above (the smoke rises to Heaven).

Vatican II over-simplified the Liturgy because they wanted to make the Liturgy more appealing to non-Catholics. Of course the OF Mass is Catholic, but only the minimum requirements. It’s like the EF Mass meets the “you must be this tall line.” While it’s Catholic, it still might not be a good idea to ride this ride.

As far as the abolition of the decorations and gold on the Altar. This is a Puritan idea, however even St. Francis of Assisi, the most faithful spouse to lady poverty, never spared the gold on the altar.

Here is a source of the quote attributed to Paul VI: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html

Roman numeral II, paragraph #8:
da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio
(Rough translation) From a fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God.

He was speaking of the liturgical freedom from the 1970 Missal. After the drastic changes made, Priests on the local level said, why not this or that? This is how we’ve ended up with guitars and trumpets on the altar along with some outrageous homilies that go against tradition and catechism.

(Speaking as a music major) on Gregorian chant:
It is very difficult even to somebody who reads modern choral music (and I am not a vocalist, I am a brass player). The staff is only four lines as opposed to five, and it is written in modes instead of keys. In addition rather than treble and bass clefs being used, there are instead ‘fah’ and ‘doe’ clefs. Also there is no stable pulse which makes it very difficult to do as more than a small group, which means it’s difficult to conform with VIIs emphasis on the people speaking during the liturgy. It’s really so different from modern music, it’s almost as if a different planet developed it. No such music could be devised except under the direction of a higher power, and great Gregorian Chant truly is angelic. This is why it was performed by Monks, only they had the patience and discipline to learn it so well!

I could write pages and pages on Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde, but I could not sing two lines of Gregorian Chant in public without turning red in the face and walking away in shame.

Back on to the Theology I’d like to make a final point. Most of the objections to the EF mass came from, you guessed it, Protestants! [False] Ecumenical Catholics in their attempts to be friendly are willing to sacrifice truth for numbers. Jesus never said being Catholic would be easy, but we have traditions dating 2,000 years old that we shouldn’t be monkeying around with.

Laus Deo

 

[JReducation]

I’ve heard this quoted but have not been able to find the source. Does anyone know where Paul VI said or wrote this? Thanks.

I have no idea when or if he really said this. But it seems to me that it is one of those statements that are often quoted out of context. Pope Paul VI was a great supporter of Vatican II. He was also a loyal disciple of Bl. John XXIII. The original statement by Bl. John XXIII does mention opening the windows and clearing out the air. I’m going to speculate here that if Pope Paul VI said this, he is not blaming Vatican II for the problems that crept in. But he is using metaphor, such as John XXIII used metaphor.

Whenever you begin a process of self-reflection and you begin to ask yourself questions abotu your identity, your mission, your trajectory and your future, you create crisis. Eric Erikson once said that the definition of crisis is change. I truly believe that. Changes are not easy for anyone, especially for a large family as the Church. Changes bring with them good and also things that are not so good.

I would dare say that if Pope Paul said this, he is speaking in this context. Everytime you open the windows to clear the air, you’re also going to let in smog from the outside. It’s almost inevitable. So you have two choices, you live with the same air without ever circulating it or you take your chances and deal with the pollution that may come in when you ventilate your house.

There has certainly been pollution. But this is not to say that the air within the Church did not need to be circulated. There were many things that needed to be taken care of and the Council started us on that track. I believe the biggest thing that needed to be addressed was the Church’s role in the modern world. That had not been discussed in centuries. Prior to Vatican II, the Church had exercised the same role as it does now, but in a very different style, because the world looked to the Church for guidance and for stability.

With Modernism man began to look at his own progress for guidance and stability. The Church needed to remind itself and society that it has a role to play in the modern world, that man’s achievements are not the center of the world, but gifts for the good of humanity and that the Church is willing and desires to continue to provide man with guidance and stability in the modern world of technology and other advances. Man needed to hear that the Church was not opposed to progress, but that her message belongs in this new era as much as it did in the Holy Roman Empire.

This was a wonderful statement that the Council made. Of course, in the self-study, there will always be polutants that creep in. We have to deal with them as we discover them. There is no reason to panic, only reasons to act with faith and courage.

Fratenally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[psr13]

It also gets me when people say that now people are actually involved in the Mass instead of how it was with the EF. When I go to the OF, I don’t see people really into the Mass. They are just waiting for the time to give a response. People read the bulletins, talk to each other, come in very late, and leave very early. I do not come across those things at the EF. My husband is sadly like this, too. Every time we go to an OF, he wants to leave early. The entire time he is very distracted and not really paying attention. However, when we go to the EF, he is really into everything. He has never once asked to leave one early. He prays to himself at communion when he isn’t receiving. This is typical of the differences I see. I do see active participation in the OF, but it isn’t people wanting to be there and really paying attention.

 

[japhy]

The current EF of the Mass is from the Missal of Pope St. Pius V. Between 1570-1962 the mass changed very little, the 3 biggest changes were those of St. Pius X who reformed the Office (not the mass). Pius XII who suppressed some Octave days (because they were often overlapping, for example the Octave of one Saint would often fall on the Feast day of another.), and the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon by Bl John XIII (who by the way did not sign a single document which came out of Vatican II). Notice however that even Bl John XXIII never even considered changing the Liturgy that much. Even Abp LeFevbre celebrated the 1962 liturgy, and scorned those who said it should be celebrated to the 1958 Missal.

The Holy Week liturgy, however, did change (sometimes dramatically) during the 1950’s. I have not examined them closely (although AJV has), but some of them seem more laudable than others.

 

[JReducation]

It also gets me when people say that now people are actually involved in the Mass instead of how it was with the EF. When I go to the OF, I don’t see people really into the Mass. They are just waiting for the time to give a response. People read the bulletins, talk to each other, come in very late, and leave very early. I do not come across those things at the EF. My husband is sadly like this, too. Every time we go to an OF, he wants to leave early. The entire time he is very distracted and not really paying attention. However, when we go to the EF, he is really into everything. He has never once asked to leave one early. He prays to himself at communion when he isn’t receiving. This is typical of the differences I see. I do see active participation in the OF, but it isn’t people wanting to be there and really paying attention.

I see both. I see people who are unfocussed and I see people who are very devout. I can’t make such a generalizaion. Right now I’m assigned to work with a parish that has seven masses every weekend. The Church seats about 800 and all the masses are full.

We have a Life Teen group of about 500 - 700 teens and I see them every Thurs night in the church on their knees in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

On Saturdays we have two priests who come to hear confessions, because the line is too long for one priest. Confessions have to be finished in an hour, because the two priests are also brothers (religious brothers) and they have to leave to go to community recreation. They can’t remain more than an hour. If we had only one priest, he would have to leave before half of the people got to confession. Their rule mandates that they have to be with their community at a certain time. If they move the time for confession to an earlier hour it’s more difficult for people to get there and then go back later for Saturday evening mass. So it takes two to hear as many confessions as possible within one hour.

We also have the usual crowd of people who talk when they walk into the church, which we find very distracting and the usual crowd who rushes to the doors after communion, which is equally distracting and inappropriate. The brothers have made it a point of reminding people that this is inappropriate. But some people are worse than kids. And unfortunately, you can’t spank them. What is most interesting is that the group that is most guilty of these distractions is the over 50 group, at least in our parish. I understand it to a certain extent. Many of them live alone and are lonely. They see their friends only at church. We have tried to help by having a breakfast after mass in the parish hall. Then we have the same crowd who is nervous about getting home, because many of them depend on rides to get to and from church. It’s not a perfect situation. But we do the best we can with what we are given.

Last night I heard a talk by Fr. Mitch Pacqua and he was talking about his distraction phenomenon. He made an interesting point. He reminded us that years ago parents and grandparents disciplined their kids to face forward in school, church and other public gatherings. And he was asking where that discipline had disappeared to. I really wondered that myself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DorianGregorian]

It also gets me when people say that now people are actually involved in the Mass instead of how it was with the EF. When I go to the OF, I don’t see people really into the Mass. They are just waiting for the time to give a response. People read the bulletins, talk to each other, come in very late, and leave very early. I do not come across those things at the EF. My husband is sadly like this, too. Every time we go to an OF, he wants to leave early. The entire time he is very distracted and not really paying attention. However, when we go to the EF, he is really into everything. He has never once asked to leave one early. He prays to himself at communion when he isn’t receiving. This is typical of the differences I see. I do see active participation in the OF, but it isn’t people wanting to be there and really paying attention.

It’s not that people don’t involve themselves at the EF, they do it in different ways.

Before VII there was a clear line between Clergy & Laity. The Priest offered the Sacrifice (compare the offertories between the EF and the OF). The Canon was pronounced in Silence so that the people could meditate, pray, and reflect on what they were about to receive, the Blessed Sacrament, the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God made Man! Now however the Canon is pronounced loudly, and in general there is much less reverence when receiving the Blessed Sacrament. I set for myself a fairly high standard (which I understand is also a practice followed in the East), but the Church standard is to be free of Mortal Sin, and not receive it unworthily.

However I don’t believe that VII was all bad. The documents in of themselves are not contrary to tradition, but they have been interpreted by some without keeping in mind the Precedents.

I know also that many [T]raditionalists argue against the Permanent Diaconate. However this is one of the few things that were around in Ancient times that was revived. There have been Married Deacons and Priests in the ECC since the beginning of the Church. While the subject of Married Priesthood is more controversial, the Diaconate is a very noble vocation, the eyes and ears of the Bishop.

In truth the OF mass as celebrated by HH Pope Benedict XVI, is beautiful. The timeless Latin tongue, the reverence for Christ in the Real Presence, it is a shame that many Priests do not follow his example.

Laus Deo

 

[chaunceygardner]

Thus the problem with anecdotal evidence. For every one Cat convert we have lost ten born-Catholics.

You don’t like anecdotal evidence but you throw out a statistic without evidence. And even if it is correct, that does not mean that people left the church due to a change in the liturgy or some other result of Vatican II. The best way to find out is to ask them. You may be surprised at the answers you would get.

The “spirit of Vatican II” changes are not what the council participants intended. That fact alone is problematic. The results speak for themselves. We are a Church in decline.

People keep saying the changes were not what the council participants intended. How can that be? Who was in charge of the changes? Did the Vatican contract it out to Protestants and agnostics? It seems like the Curia and those in charge of such things in Rome have always been generally conservative. How could that happen without something being done about it? That statement makes no sense at all.

As Pope Paul himself said, Vatican II opened a window and the smoke of Satan blew in.

I would be very careful before attributing a statement like that to a Pope without giving us the proof. Logically it is questionable, since Paul VI had the power to end or change the direction of the council after John XXIII was gone. It sounds to me like this was made up or altered by someone to fit their own agenda.

 

[Contarini]

I can tell you though that they were not playing guitars on the altar while waving their hands in the air.

They probably did hold their hands up. Most ancient people did when praying. Obviously they didn’t have guitars–they didn’t have organs either. Would you argue for strictly a capella music in worship?

The ancient Hebrews, on the other hand, did use instruments–and among them were stringed instruments which may well have been in the guitar family!

The current mass dates to 1969. However the EF mass dates back to Pope St. Gregory the Great (c.640 AD). This Missal was based off of the earlier traditions as described by St. Justin the Martyr in his First Apology c. 145.

The reformed liturgies reflect the basic structure described by St. Justin far more clearly than does the Tridentine Mass. And that’s all St. Justin gives–a basic structure. No Eucharistic canon is given–in fact, we’re led to believe that the “presider” (St. Justin’s word, which is where those evil liturgical reformers got it) prayed extempore. Is that what you want to see?

Also as the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff was recognized, Latin naturally became the language of the Church.

Latin never became the language of the Eastern Church. Latin was the language of the Western Church because it was the language of the Western Empire.

At any rate the Gregorian Rite is based off of the earliest traditions of the Church, very much from the Liturgy of St. James (the oldest complete Liturgical text), and can certainly be considered Ancient. Where does the OF mass base it’s texts off of? The personal thoughts off of Abp. Bugnini under the observation of 6 Protestant ministers.

That’s just silly. You traditionalists are obsessed with these “Protestant ministers,” but the reason the “New Mass” looks like new Protestant liturgies is that everyone was looking at the early Church. I’m not claiming that they got everything right or that their modern ideas didn’t shape how they interpreted the early texts. But the early liturgies were obviously the major source–Hippolytus in particular.

The facts simply do not support this argument.

Go read Hippolytus for yourself (the Eucharistic canon is in chap. 4) and compare with the “new” liturgies. Then come back and tell us with a straight face that there’s no connection.

Secondly, in regards to the comments on vestments and ceremonies:

These are not simply added, as the above argument shows they date back to the early Church.

No, the "above argument’ didn’t show anything of the sort. You then go on to show lots of nice symbolism, and I have no problem with any of it. But you haven’t shown where it all comes from. Liturgical colors are largely medieval. You’re right that some of the vestments go back to relatively early times–I don’t know which ones, to be honest.

We kneel as a sign of humility, we strike the breast because of the humble plebeian before the Altar, we Genuflect on the Left knee to Bishops to respect their human authority, we genuflect on the Right before Christ in the Real Presence to respect his Absolute authority. We are before the Eucharist in adoration on both knees because it is from the Benedictine way of Prayer,

But Eucharistic adoration is a development of the High Middle AGes.

and a layman never uses the orans position at the liturgy.

Not in your relatively late tradition. You have not shown that this was true in the early Church, as you imply.

Vatican II over-simplified the Liturgy because they wanted to make the Liturgy more appealing to non-Catholics.

You have no evidence that this was the only or primary reason.

As far as the abolition of the decorations and gold on the Altar. This is a Puritan idea, however even St. Francis of Assisi, the most faithful spouse to lady poverty, never spared the gold on the altar.

What about St. Bernard?

It’s really so different from modern music, it’s almost as if a different planet developed it. No such music could be devised except under the direction of a higher power

What I wonder would you say of non-Western music? Or is it demonic? This line of argument is ridiculous. Gregorian chant is different from modern music because centuries of development have taken place in the Western musical tradition. (By the way, I love Gregorian chant and am not denying that it’s utterly glorious.)

I could write pages and pages on Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde, but I could not sing two lines of Gregorian Chant in public without turning red in the face and walking away in shame.

My Protestant wife, on the other hand, chanted the Exultet quite successfully at the last Easter Vigil (in the Episcopal Church). It’s all a matter of what you are used to.

Back on to the Theology I’d like to make a final point. Most of the objections to the EF mass came from, you guessed it, Protestants! [False] Ecumenical Catholics in their attempts to be friendly are willing to sacrifice truth for numbers. Jesus never said being Catholic would be easy, but we have traditions dating 2,000 years old that we shouldn’t be monkeying around with.

But you haven’t shown that they are 2,000 years old. Your reference to ST. Justin is weird, since he doesn’t actually give a Eucharistic prayer and what he does say fits the Novus Ordo (and liturgical Protestant worship) much better than it does the Tridentine Mass. Your historical argument just isn’t there.

Edwin

 

[Cat]

Thus the problem with anecdotal evidence. For every one Cat convert we have lost ten born-Catholics.

The “spirit of Vatican II” changes are not what the council participants intended. That fact alone is problematic. The results speak for themselves. We are a Church in decline.

As Pope Paul himself said, Vatican II opened a window and the smoke of Satan blew in.

ALL Christian churches in the U.S. are in decline. It’s not just the Catholic churches. Protestant churches are working overtime to try to draw in numbers, and many of them are closing down or cutting back drastically on their programs.

Even the megachurches (Saddle Back, Willowcreek, etc.) do not generally make new converts to Christianity to build up their numbers. They get their great numbers from OTHER churches, who then decline and often, sadly, die.

So a lot of Protestant “growth” is actually Protestant “shuffling” of bodies.

I honestly don’t think it’s liturgy changes that causes Catholics to leave the Church. I do think, from what I’ve read, that a lot of Catholics were confused by the liturgy changes. I’m not sure it was well-explained, and a lot of Catholics must have thought, “Hey, if the Church was wrong about the way Mass was done, then what else is it wrong about? Perhaps it’s wrong about everything. I can’t trust the Catholic Church anymore!.”

Understandable.

OTOH, I know many MANY elderly Catholics who DIDN’T leave the Church, but stuck it out and continue to stick it out, clinging to Jesus and His Church in spite of all the confusion and controversies and sins and scandals, and they are good, strong, faith-filled Christians with an enthusiastic love for Jesus that reaches out to people who don’t know Him. I admire these Catholics. I want to be like them.

I think it’s the evil in this world, especially in the U.S., that tempts the Christian until he/she gives in. This happens in Protestant churches, too–the Protestant gets caught up in some sin and realizes that his/her lifestyle is inconsistent with their church, and so they give up church instead of the sin.

I suspect that a LOT of Catholics who leave the Catholic Church do so because of divorce issues, or issues of fornication (shacking up). I know personally of many Catholics who’ve left because the Church takes a stand against homosexual practices. And I personally know several Catholics who’ve left Catholicism because they are pro-choice (I’m guessing that they or someone close to them has undergone an abortion, and they don’t want to face the fact that it’s a sin).

A lot of Catholics are looking for any little reason to leave the Church because they prefer to be in charge of their own life instead of submitting to God and His Church. So if the music doesn’t suit them, or someone says something nasty to them in the lobby, or the parish won’t allow them to book the fellowship hall for a family party–they are mad and they leave in a huff.

I think a LOT of Catholics use the “pervert priest” scandal as a good-sounding excuse to leave the Church, not because they are truly concerned about pervert priests, but because they want to live life on their terms instead of the Lord’s terms.

And I wouldn’t underestimate the number of converts to Catholicism. In the last ten years especially, a number of prominent evangelicals have either converted to Catholicism, or have softened their anti-Catholic rhetoric and now include the Catholic Church in their list of truly Christian churches. The evangelical magazine Christianity Today includes the Catholic Church in their “list,” and often features articles about Catholicism or by Catholic writers.

It’s a start. Several hundred years of separation and a wall of invincible ignorance won’t fall down overnight. I am glad that the Catholic Church decided to become pro-active and make themselves more accessible to Protestant seekers.

 

[GodIsGracious]

It’s a start. Several hundred years of separation and a wall of invincible ignorance won’t fall down overnight. I am glad that the Catholic Church decided to become pro-active and make themselves more accessible to Protestant seekers.

I don’t disagree with this.

Understand that there are those of us who want SOME access to the old Mass but we don’t get that and are dismissed as trying to be superior, or trying to exert our own authority,etc. etc. When that’s not the case at all. If I were to go to my local area parish … well, I’d endure the Mass for communion, but I tell you, it did keep me away for a long time. I’m lucky I have another parish to go to. But, as many others, I do have a ways to go.

I think many complain because WE feel like we’ve been left out in an effort to get others in. Part of why I left was because of how the Mass was changing over the course of just a small period of time (for me, in the 80’s alone.)

I hope you and others can understand that.

 

[JReducation]

I’m getting so tired of people saying that the Church is in decline. Such a thing is theologically impossible. The Church will never decline or cease to exist. The number of adherents to the Catholic faith may be in decline in some countries and are up in other countries. Let’s speak correctly.

The allegation that someone made about St. Francis and gold in church is a mistake. I know, because I’m a Franciscan. We did not have churches during Francis’ lifetime. Our brothers attended mass at the local parish. We have never been an order of priests. From the beginning we admitted priests as religious brothers. Thus you read titles such as: Brother Leo (priest), Brother Elias (priest), Brother Juniper (layman), Brother Giles (layman), Father Francis (layman).

What Francis taught was that special care should be taken with the sacred vessels. The brothers were not allowed to own any and still are not allowed to own any. When a Franciscan brother is ordained he is not allowed to have his own chalice and paten as is the custom in the Catholic Church. Why not? Because his primary vocation is to be a lesser brother. Priesthood is his ministerial role in the Church. Brotherhood is his way of life in the Church. Even today, we own very few churches. Many of our houses do have chapels or oratories. And in those we do have sacred vessels, which we care for with great reverence. But we do not have gold all over.

The Poor Clares, the Secular Franciscans and the Third Order Regular follow the same principles of poverty when it comes to the celebration of the Eucharist. The vessels must be dignified, but simple and conform to the rules of the Church. Therefore, they are made of precious metals as the Church requires. Some have more ornate vessels than others, because they are donated or the property of the local diocese, such as the Poor Clares on EWTN. Let us speak clearly and tell things as they truly are.

In those parishes where our friars serve, the parish and everything in it is owned by the diocese, not by the Franciscans. Therefore, the friars use what the diocese makes available.

To be continued

 

[JReducation]

Conclusion

As to music, the Franciscans and the Discalced Carmelites have had a tradition of using both Gregorian chant and Laudas at mass. Francis wrote Laudas in Italian, which he played on a mandolin. They were sung at mass by the brothers. The most famous ones are: All Creatures of Our God and King, which is a rewrite of the Canticle of the Creatures and Regina Coeli. The Canticle of the Creatures was written and sung in Italian, the Regina Coeli in Latin. It was borrowed from an older version sung by the Benedictines.

St. Teresa of Avila wrote songs and sang them in Spanish at mass using a guitar. Other hymns were also written and used with a guitar, not all by St. Teresa. One of the most famous hymns written and sung with guitar is Silent Night.

The Benedictine tradition never allowed the use of an organ in their liturgy. That came much later. Gregorian chant was not to be sung with organs. Organ music was introduced long after Gregorian music.

If you visit a Church in a Carthusian and a Cistercian abbey, it is whitewashed. There is nothing in it except the altar, crucifix, tabernacle and the liturgical furniture needed for the celebration of the mass. The did not have the ornate Churches that were common in the rest of the Latin Church. They were beautiful on the outside and very simple on the inside.

If you visit a Capuchin Franciscan chapel or oratory, it is whitewashed, with chairs or benches and no kneelers. Look at the chapel of the Franciscans of the Renewal. It is bare. So is the chapel of the Missionaries of Charity. The chapel of the Franciscans of the Eternal Word (EWTN) is very simple without much ornamentation. Yet, you find a great deal of reverence in those chapels.

Let us also remember that the liturgy is not only the mass. It is also the Divine Office. Most monastic houses pray the Divine Office in a chapter hall that is bare with only a lectern and a crucifix. Franciscans and Missionaries of Charity have never had a chapter hall. They pray it in the chapel. But they do not chant it. The privilege of chanting the Divine Office, in the Franciscan family, was only given to the Poor Clare nuns.

It was Vatican II that gave the Franciscan men and the Secular Franciscans permission to chant the Divine Office, if they want to do so. That is decided by each fraternity. Prior to Vatican II, they could not chant the office. That privilege was reserved for certain orders. That’s why the rule of St. Francis says that “the brothers shall RECITE the hours.” We have to be careful to say things the way that they really are.

As to the decline, that’s a matter of location. We have a birth of new religious communities in the United States and other countries. We also have the revival of older religious communities. One of the problems that parishes are facing is that the older religious communities are reviving. As they revive, many of them no longer serve in parishes, because it is not part of their charism. This has caused a great hardship to bishops and laity alike. Many dioceses do not have enough secular (diocesan) priests to cover parishes that were once staffed by religious men.

Some orders of religious men, such as Benedictines and Franciscans are not ordaining as many friars and monks as they did in the past. This has been done to preserve the lay nature of the religious order. In some regions the number of men to be ordained is controlled by the Major Superior. In other regions the constitutions prohibit ordination. Also, the more monastic religious communities such as Franciscans and Benedictines are placing all of their new friars and monks in ministries that are consistent with the founders. For example, Fr. Benedict’s community does not take on parish ministry. They do street ministry. The Franciscans of the Eternal Word are contemplatives and do not do parish ministry. The Franciscans of Peace do not allow friars to be ordained. The Franciscan Friars of Life do not allow friars to be ordained. The Conventual Franciscans are more focused on brotherhood than parish life. The Capuchin Franciscans are more focused on the poor and social ministries than parish life.

The Benedictines and the Carmelites are recovering their ancient practice of contemplation and prayer. The Carthusians are getting more vocations, but they do not allow their priests to celebrate mass in the presence of the laity, because they want to protect their monks from contamination with the laity. They celebrate their mass in hiding, though they celebrate it for the intentions of the Church and the salvation of the faithful. But their religious houses are getting many vocations thanks to EWTN’s promotion of their way of life and a movie that was put out called Into the Silence.

We have to be careful to put all the facts on the table. Not everything was done by Vatican II. Many things came about from the rebirth of many religious traditions that came from hundreds of years ago and had been abandoned or sacrificed to meet the needs of parishes. Not everything has an ecumenical reason. Much has to do with traditions with which the laity is not familiar.

I will concede that those of us who are religious and who are priests are at fault for not sharing with the laity our charisms and our histories. This has added to the element of surprise and confusion when something appears out of nowhere and it looks like something new. That should not have happened. The laity should be educated in the reasons for these changes, especially where religious orders and religious congregations minister to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF