Ecumenical elements necessary to attract Protestants to Catholic Church?

[JReducation]

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.

I do understand this. I believe that this is not fair treatment. There has to be an accommodation for all Catholics, within the rules of the Church of course. I do not agree with people leaving the true Church of Christ because the form of the mass changes. That to me speaks of little understanding of Catholic theology and philosophy.

I remained, despite many changes in religious life and in the life of the liturgy, because the Catholic Church’s philosophy and theology was so rational that I could not turn my back on it. The continuity between Judaism and Christianity is so solid in Catholicism that I could not deny the Catholic faith. The philosophy and metaphysics in the Christological arguments of Catholicism are too rational to be ignored. The logic and mathematical precision of Catholic moral theology is like no other moral school in the world. Catholicism is truly a rational faith. That’s why I put up with changes and mistakes, because of pure reason. The Truths of the Cathoilc faith defy anyone to rationally contradict them.

But I also know that not every Catholic has this kind of philosophical and theological background. And that most Catholics are attached to their parish, their liturgy and their religious piety as they have known it for many years. This deserves charity and some accommodation with education too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

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.

“Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration.” religions.pewforum.org/reports#

olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6475&Itemid=48

forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=54662

The problem with ancedotal evidence is its potential distortion in reflecting the whole. The current “Me” generation tends to view everything through narcisstic glasses. The Catholic Church is much greater than any one of us. Practicing a religion is supposed to be about submitting to a will greater than your own. Changing and customizing the Mass is certain proof modern “reformers” got control of the Church post-Vatican II. If you listen to what our pontiff is saying and watch his examples it is clear a misinterpretation of Council documents occurred. While it is very nice and all to hear individual conversion stories, one needs to look beyond their own little world to see the big picture. Taking some time to educate yourself in the subject of the Church and the Council should hopefully improve perspective and develop a sense of place.

 

[diggerdomer]

Changing and customizing the Mass is certain proof modern “reformers” got control of the Church post-Vatican II.

So the Bishops weren’t in control? Who was? How long did this period last until the Bishops regained authority? Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

So the Bishops weren’t in control? Who was? How long did this period last until the Bishops regained authority? Thanks.

Everything that came out of the Vatican came from the Sacred Congregation of Sacraments and Worship. Even if there were communists, Buddhists, and Indian guhrus, the final authority came from the Sacred Congregation at the Vatican, which speaks with the authority delegated to it by the Holy Father.

This does not deny abuses and nutjobs who did some very strange things at the local level. But the mass, as it is found in the Sacramentary and the Lecitonary is fully approved by the Vatican and then the local Bishops Conferences of each nation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

www.google.com

So you don’t know, either? thanks. I did of course try searching Google before posting my questions, and I got so many hits that I just thought maybe someone here would know the specifics (especially someone who cites it as true). Thanks again for the suggestion.

 

[diggerdomer]

Everything that came out of the Vatican came from the Sacred Congregation of Sacraments and Worship. Even if there were communists, Buddhists, and Indian guhrus, the final authority came from the Sacred Congregation at the Vatican, which speaks with the authority delegated to it by the Holy Father.

This does not deny abuses and nutjobs who did some very strange things at the local level. But the mass, as it is found in the Sacramentary and the Lecitonary is fully approved by the Vatican and then the local Bishops Conferences of each nation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you. That’s what I thought.

 

[RyanML]

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

I don’t think any traditionalist seriously thinks that Pope Benedict is trying to replace the OF with the EF. But the Holy Father clearly sees a problem with the way the liturgy has been celebrated since the Novus Ordo was implemented in 1969. He encourages the traditional rites, I think, in hopes that the Western Church will learn from its rich liturgical tradition and leave behind the banal novelties that have plagued us for the last 40 years. This is clear in the fact that he publically celebrates a very reverent and traditional OF Mass with latin and Gregorian Chant, using the “Benedictine” arrangement on the altar which shows more clearly the direction and purpose of our worship and requires that those who receive from him receive kneeling and on the tongue. I think it would be nice if more priests and bishops would learn from the Holy Father’s example.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think any traditionalist seriously thinks that Pope Benedict is trying to replace the OF with the EF. But the Holy Father clearly sees a problem with the way the liturgy has been celebrated since the Novus Ordo was implemented in 1969. He encourages the traditional rites, I think, in hopes that the Western Church will learn from its rich liturgical tradition and leave behind the banal novelties that have plagued us for the last 40 years. This is clear in the fact that he publically celebrates a very reverent and traditional OF Mass with latin and Gregorian Chant, using the “Benedictine” arrangement on the altar which shows more clearly the direction and purpose of our worship and requires that those who receive from him receive kneeling and on the tongue. I think it would be nice if more priests and bishops would learn from the Holy Father’s example.

There is nor arguing that his celebration of the OF is very solemn and very reverent. But you can find that in many places. Don’t be discouraged. Just look around and you will find parishes that are very reverent. You may not find the Benedictine arrangement on the altar, but that’s just one item. But you will find a reverent liturgy with the rubrics correctly followed in many places. It just takes some hunting. Also remember this, everyone goofs up once in a while, but we can’t get so upset that we throw down the towel. Small things are going to happen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RyanML]

There is nor arguing that his celebration of the OF is very solemn and very reverent. But you can find that in many places. Don’t be discouraged. Just look around and you will find parishes that are very reverent. You may not find the Benedictine arrangement on the altar, but that’s just one item. But you will find a reverent liturgy with the rubrics correctly followed in many places. It just takes some hunting. Also remember this, everyone goofs up once in a while, but we can’t get so upset that we throw down the towel. Small things are going to happen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR,

Thanks for the encouragement.

There are several parishes that I’ve visited where the Mass would be considered reverent and solemn, at least on the part of the priest. I still hear a lot of complaints about fellow parishoners. I don’t know what it is, but people just do not realize that church is where we go to pray and worship God. It’s not a fellowship hall. There is a reason why we have fellowship halls

Personally, the priest facing the people has always been a bit of an annoyance to me. It’s like a fly that just won’t leave you alone; it’s not that big a deal but it still bothers me. I don’t know it just reminds me of a protestant service and the priest facing God and the altar just makes more sense to me. I realize that it is allowed for the priest to face the people and so I can only say so much, but I do hope we start to see more of a return to this liturgical practice as I believe it will convey better the idea that the Mass is a Holy Mystery and a Holy Sacrifice offered by all of us, through the priest, to the Most Holy Trinity.

God bless!
Ryan

P.S. - Suggested reading adoremus.org/0405LiturgicalPrayer.html

 

[Ockham]

Just look around and you will find parishes that are very reverent… It just takes some hunting.

Thing is, this is the Catholic Church. Catholic is synonymous with universal. Prior to Vatican II’s Novus Ordo, you could go to any Latin Rite Mass anywhere in the world and be at home. Not so since the changes and the correlation to dwindling attendance speaks for itself.

 

[Ockham]

So you don’t know, either? thanks. I did of course try searching Google before posting my questions, and I got so many hits that I just thought maybe someone here would know the specifics (especially someone who cites it as true). Thanks again for the suggestion.

Your welcome. I also encourage you to do some research and discover the basis for pre-Vatican II liturgy without the incessant “it’s in the GIRM!”

 

[pnewton]

I would like to suggest a new direction to answer the OP. I have scanned through these posts and read much of it. It seems that most of the discussion centers on the liturgy. Like JR said a couple days ago, The liturgy is not what will convert the lost of reconcile our Protestant brothers to the Church. People convert to Catholicism from Protestantism primarily because they come to see the theological truth in having one Church. However many do not even explore this theology because when they look at us, they do not see the Jesus they love.

So, the most important element: we must love Jesus and show our love with all our heart, mind and soul, then love our neighbor as ourselves. If we lift up Jesus in our daily lives, he will draw all men to himself. Gregorian chant, Latin, this form or that will do nothing without charity but be a sounding gong or a noisy symbol. We walk in the love of our Lord and our neighbor, then the channel of communication will open so that the the beauty of the Church and the truth of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church can be realized.

The only other thing I think is an necessary element is the love of Scripture. For many, this is their one encounter with God. If we are to wanting to show the truth of our faith, we must be able to speak the language they know, that of scriptural exegesis.

Our devotion to the Holy Eucahrist will not be understood until after one recognizes Christ’s presence.

 

[JReducation]

The theme that I keep hearing from many people is, “the way we were”. Sometimes we have to be very realistic too. We are not the way we were. We change, society changes, externals change, but faith remains constant. Truth never changes. And that’s the main point that we have to hang on to.

Christ is the eternal Son of the Father who became incarnate, lived, died and rose. That does not change. That reality is what is constant all forms of the liturgy, OF, EF and Eastern.

I believe in something that St. Francis once said to our brothers. We have to be humble enough to offer our discomfort as a sacrifice united to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In his writings on obedience, St. Francis wrote that eve when we knew that the Church or the hierarchy was making a mistake, we must obey. We must submit with a quiet reverence, always rembering that God is pleased more by a perfect obedience than by perfection. Perfection is not the product of man’s love. Perfection comes from God. Our perfect obedience and submission, even to that which we believe to be less than perfect comes from us. It is our gift to God.

Often we believe that one form or the other is the perfect act of worship to God. But St. Francis became the Mirror of Perfection not through the perfection in the liturgical form, but through the perfection that he found in Christ who is truly present in the Eucharist. That perfection is there for us to contemplate, to embrace and to imitate. If the liturgy seems less than perfect, then so much greater is our gift of unity to the obedience and humility of Christ. This simple truth has held the Franciscan family together for 800 years. Today we are more than 1.7 million men and women, religiuos and secular, living a life of faith, detechment, and brotherhood.

In the end, all that matters is Christ and his eternal truth. There will be no liturgy, only the soul and God. I encourage all to put there faith in Christ and to offer the incoveniences that you encounter in the liturgical form that you attend in union with Christ’s sacrifice on the altar. I can tell from personal experience, this has sustained my faith and made me a much happier Catholic. There is nothing that can happen at mass, other than a sacrilege or a bomb, that really takes away from my peace. I’d like to share that peace with everyone on this thread.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Epistemes]

The theme that I keep hearing from many people is, “the way we were”.

For some people, and I have a few individuals in mind as I write this, it seems that the old form is desired because newer and younger Catholics have never really gotten to experience such a liturgy, a liturgy which for centuries many recognizable saints both participated in and highly lauded. The romanticism and aethestics of the Latin Mass are, in many cases, to be desired over and above even the most reverent of Masses which includes acoustic guitars and folk songs as the hymnody. So, for many people, it’s not a matter of of reverting to “the way we were” because it’s in our blood, but because it’s something we’ve never experienced, something which our piety encourages us to experience, something which seems just as essential to our ancient faith as reading the Douay-Rheims, praying the Rosary, and praying the Stations of the Cross, etc. We want to “feel” more Catholic.

 

[Epistemes]

I don’t think any traditionalist seriously thinks that Pope Benedict is trying to replace the OF with the EF. But the Holy Father clearly sees a problem with the way the liturgy has been celebrated since the Novus Ordo was implemented in 1969. He encourages the traditional rites, I think, in hopes that the Western Church will learn from its rich liturgical tradition and leave behind the banal novelties that have plagued us for the last 40 years. This is clear in the fact that he publically celebrates a very reverent and traditional OF Mass with latin and Gregorian Chant, using the “Benedictine” arrangement on the altar which shows more clearly the direction and purpose of our worship and requires that those who receive from him receive kneeling and on the tongue. I think it would be nice if more priests and bishops would learn from the Holy Father’s example.

I think you’re partially right about this, Ryan, but I think it could be refined some: the Holy Father liberalized the rules governing the celebration of the older rite and encouraged its wider use for two reasons: 1.) to extend a hand to the schismatics who prefer the older Mass, and 2.) encourage those who pray the reformed rite to do so with greater reverence.

 

[GodIsGracious]

For some people, and I have a few individuals in mind as I write this, it seems that the old form is desired because newer and younger Catholics have never really gotten to experience such a liturgy, a liturgy which for centuries many recognizable saints both participated in and highly lauded. The romanticism and aethestics of the Latin Mass are, in many cases, to be desired over and above even the most reverent of Masses which includes acoustic guitars and folk songs as the hymnody. So, for many people, it’s not a matter of of reverting to “the way we were” because it’s in our blood, but because it’s something we’ve never experienced, something which our piety encourages us to experience, something which seems just as essential to our ancient faith as reading the Douay-Rheims, praying the Rosary, and praying the Stations of the Cross, etc. We want to “feel” more Catholic.

Yawp.

I was thinking about this thread today and the analogy I thought of was moving to another country. Generally, one moves to another country because onelikes the culture, language, way of life, philosophy, political views, religious tolerances, etc. etc. One then integrates oneself into that country. Generally speaking, the country does not open itself up to accomodate foreigners so they could move there.

Although, the U.S. does do that to a certain extent, and people do come here and try to bend it to their ways. Which, IMO, the liturgical practices in the U.S. are a result of that: opening it up to accomodate others, and others coming in and trying to bend it to their ways.

It’s not about “feeling more” Catholic, it is about BEING Catholic. Not just in our theology, but in the culture we have cultivated for 2,000 years.

 

[Ockham]

I was born and raised in the Church, post-Vatican II. Last year I discovered the Tridentine Mass along with much of our pre-Vatican II culture. To an extent I feel that I was deprived of our rightful tradition and culture and yet its discovery is so rewarding I can only feel eternal gratitude and joy. This year my faith has grown immeasurably and I only wish to share this joy with others. However, I have also discovered there are modern day opponents to this two thousand year old tradition along with others caught inbetween. Hopefully God will settle everything and the gates of hell never prevail against the Church.

 

[JReducation]

I think people come at this issue from different perspectives and they all have legitimacy. As long as we preserve the unity of the faith, the forms of liturgy can be worked about systematically.

I have to confess that the forms of liturgy, EF, OF, and Eastern have never been a focal point for me. I guess I came to the Catholic faith down the same road that Edith Stein came. I was a student of mathematics and I had a passion for logic and truth, just like Edith was a Doctor of Philosophy. I spent years reading Bonaventure, Scotus, Rahner, Teresa, Catherine, Francis, the early Fathers, Gospel commentaries, Aquinas and several other doctors, before I decided to even take a close peak at the liturgy. I had been to mass many tmes, but has not carefully examined it. That was my last stop. I examined it in the light of the Talmud and the Greek Fathers. One day I just sat up and said, “YES. This makes sense.”

Then I sought out the Capuchin Franciscan Friars. I knew them from high school days and I was impressed by their simplicity and their fidelity to their founder. It was as if their lives revolved around every word that came from him. When I went back to them they explained that he was their teacher. From him they learned how to walk in the footsteps of Christ. I needed to turn all that theology and philosophy into a walkway, a daily journey, if you will. This sealed it for me. My love for the liturgy, in all it’s forms was sparked by logic and by the example of Francis of Assisi.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Epistemes]

It’s not about “feeling more” Catholic, it is about BEING Catholic. Not just in our theology, but in the culture we have cultivated for 2,000 years.

I disagree on this point. It *is *about feeling more Catholic precisely because of the culture which was cultivated for over 2,000 years.

You gave a good analogy which I would like to use:

Suppose a person enjoys old-style Russian culture. They’ve read all of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, they’ve read the histories of covering Peter the Great through Nicholas II, they even have a fine collection of Orthodox iconography and matryoshka dolls. Such a person may say, “I would like to visit Russia because it seems like such a beautiful country with a great historical tradition behind it!” Such a person would be disappointed, wouldn’t he, when he arrived and found men and women in business suits, nightclubs, and skyscrapers in downtown Moscow? But this is Russia today. It is still Russia, it still has its rich history and culture behind it, but it has also embraced something more than its past: its embraced the present.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I disagree on this point. It *is *about feeling more Catholic precisely because of the culture which was cultivated for over 2,000 years.

Well, we may then be in disagreement. From my POV,if you’re being Catholic, the feelings can come from it.

You gave a good analogy which I would like to use:

Suppose a person enjoys old-style Russian culture. They’ve read all of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, they’ve read the histories of covering Peter the Great through Nicholas II, they even have a fine collection of Orthodox iconography and matryoshka dolls. Such a person may say, “I would like to visit Russia because it seems like such a beautiful country with a great historical tradition behind it!” Such a person would be disappointed, wouldn’t he, when he arrived and found men and women in business suits, nightclubs, and skyscrapers in downtown Moscow? But this is Russia today. It is still Russia, it still has its rich history and culture behind it, but it has also embraced something more than its past: its embraced the present.

There are neighborhoods who had great culture, friendly neighborhoods, and one could sleep with the doors and windows opened during the hot summers to enjoy a cool breeze.

Those neighborhoods are now in a decrepid state, crime ridden, and have abandoned houses from which drug deals are made. People are literal prisoners in their own homes as they have no where to go. (I am actually thinking of a neighborhood in Detroit that I read an article about.)

This is their present. Should they embrace it?