How important are these traditionalist issues to you?

[mburn16]

Another might be the retention or at least allowing as an option of certain liturgical practices the traditionalists don’t like, such as versus populum.

I think its worth a friendly reminder that “ad orientem” and “versus populum” are not exclusive of each other. “Ad orientem” simply means “eastward”. While not necessarily common before VII, there are plenty of examples of “ad orientem” that nonetheless faces the congregation. A number of Italian churches are designed this way, and any church that has a round sanctuary (such as the National Shrine of the Little Flower mentioned earlier in this thread) necessitates that the Priest will face at least SOME of the people.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

A good example would be the narrow interpretation many traditionalists assign to “Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus”. Another might be the retention or at least allowing as an option of certain liturgical practices the traditionalists don’t like, such as versus populum.

If one reads the GIRM, the Ordinary Form rubrics were written in that the priest is facing ad orientem, with rubrics of when to turn and face the people. Versus populum was written as a permitted option, but what ended up occurring is Versus populum taking over and literally almost no OF Masses celebrated ad orientem. Further, it’s actually many priests who are starting the promotion of celebrating Mass ad orientem because of of the psychological factor it has on the priest and his role as the priest offering sacrifice to God, rather than the psychological impact of facing an entire congregation of people and the feeling of needing to keep them entertained. Priests have said it time and again after they’ve celebrated Mass ad orientem just once- it changed the way they offered Mass.

The laity who complain about ad orientem tend to be be of the “back towards the people so they can’t see what’s going on” variety, and are unwilling to try to understand that it’s everyone facing the same direction, towards the risen Christ all offering their own sacrifices according to their royal priesthood while the priest offers the Paschal sacrifice to God.

 

[OraLabora]

If one reads the GIRM, the Ordinary Form rubrics were written in that the priest is facing ad orientem, with rubrics of when to turn and face the people. Versus populum was written as a permitted option, but what ended up occurring is Versus populum taking over and literally almost no OF Masses celebrated ad orientem. Further, it’s actually many priests who are starting the promotion of celebrating Mass ad orientem because of of the psychological factor it has on the priest and his role as the priest offering sacrifice to God, rather than the psychological impact of facing an entire congregation of people and the feeling of needing to keep them entertained. Priests have said it time and again after they’ve celebrated Mass ad orientem just once- it changed the way they offered Mass.

The laity who complain about ad orientem tend to be be of the “back towards the people so they can’t see what’s going on” variety, and are unwilling to try to understand that it’s everyone facing the same direction, towards the risen Christ all offering their own sacrifices according to their royal priesthood while the priest offers the Paschal sacrifice to God.

Well I think the surprise that may come out of any “Vatican II” clarification on ad orientem is that versus populum does have a tradition prior to Vatican II in some orders, and as such it will be allowed to survive.

What I’m trying to say is to not expect that any sort of “clarification of the Council council” will be a simple case of rubber stamping all of traditionalists desires and elimination of their pet peeves.

I’m really not trying to argue ad orientem vs versus populum. I’ve been to both (Ordinary Form). Ad orientem wouldn’t work where I attend Mass as it is a concelebrated Mass in a religious community of which 20 or so of the monks are priests. It’s also a tradition in some communities to celebrate v.p. because of the non-ordained monks in the choir stalls, and the community dimension is important to them. Again, imposing homogenized solutions on everyone is no a solution.

I’m also aware of the situation in Italy, in some cases it’s a geographical coincidence (St. Peter’s being the most famous).

Most monasteries now celebrate the OF Mass and it is concelebrated so that a.o. simply wouldn’t work for them. You’d have to mandate the end of concelebration, which would necessitate in the return of many side altars with Masses going on at the same time, which would result in a need for massive redesign of some of the newer churches (and there are many).

The best one could hope for is that a.o. would be mandated but that many, many indults would be needed. One has to be realistic and practical.

 

[Corki]

Just an informal poll for curiosity’s sake. Copy/paste this list and rank them from 0/3 (“don’t care at all”) to 3/3 (“extremely important to me”). Any comments or qualifications are welcome. This list assumes you are a Latin-rite Catholic, so feel free to make any adjustments relevant to your rite if you are not but want to participate

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al.
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc.
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.)
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc.
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II
t) anything else you wish to add

God bless!

a - 2
b - 0
c- 3
d - 0
e - 3
f- 3
g - 2
h- 1
i - 3
j - 3
k - 3
l - 1
m - 3
n - 3
o - 3
p - 2
q - 1
r - 3
s - 3

 

[jwinch2]

Hopefully, a well-informed lay Catholic would know all that, including most traditionalists, I would hope (and think).

I would be far more interested in the Vatican clarifying the misinterpretations of freedom of conscience, an explanation of how conscience is formed and how crucial prayer is in the development of that conformed conscience, as well as what are the fixed, absolute doctrines and what exactly the word absolute means. (It’s always an education to discover how many people do not understand the term “absolute.”)

It would also help to illuminate the limits of “participation of the laity.” Many people do not understand that to mean participation in the lay ministries of the Church, or even participation (as licit) in liturgy, but rather to mean “participation” in criticism and rejection of moral doctrine, selectively. I am not being sarcastic or mocking. I am being accurate & truthful. “Participation,” to many modernist Catholics, means licence to accept & reject, IOW to bind and to loose, on their own.

Like you, Ora, I am not in favor of “a Catholicism of fear,” but I actually agree with a number of CAF’ers who regret the absence of the discussion of sin, including at homilies. The reason I say that (and they probably say that), is that a small minority of Catholics avail themselves of spiritual resouces outside of their one weekly Mass opportunity. If they never read enough, watch enough, etc., to understand how pervasive sin is in all of our lives (esp. the Capital Sins), then they tend to have a narrow view of their own culpability and their accompanying abundant opportunity for healing and growth.

I’m grateful and relieved to be confronted by my sins: it brings me into the confessional for spiritual healing, more often. Most Catholics do not think enough of the many ways we sin (rejecting others, ignoring others, being indifferent to others) and the many sins of omission we commit. Too many think that only virtually criminal acts should bring them to the confessional, or cause them to examine their lives. We all should be examining our lives daily for the many ways we let sin control us, casually. It often takes others to give us that wake-up call. Priests being so familiar with the many variations of sin, and perceptions of sin due to being confessors, can be excellent communicators in this regard.

So I don’t see it as an opportunity for terror but an opporunity for intimacy: knowledge, acknowledgement, repentance, and appropriate dependency on Grace.

Well stated in my view.

I agree with your reasoning for wishing to hear more preaching in regards to sin. I find that too many, including myself from time to time, believe that Heaven is the wide and easy path and Hell is the narrow gate when it is obviously the opposite. It can be done politely and with kindness. For example, before Christmas our pastor in talking about the parish reconciliation services told the entire community that for anyone who didn’t show up he would be sending their name to Rome so that they could start the process of declaring them immaculately conceived. The group laughed. The next week he said something similar except this time it was to call Rome so that they could start the Canonization process. Again, everyone laughed. But you know what, he got his point across and the penance service was packed. At the penance service itself, he opened with a reading and then preached about the influence of sin in our lives. It worked out very well.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well stated in my view.

I agree with your reasoning for wishing to hear more preaching in regards to sin. I find that too many, including myself from time to time, believe that Heaven is the wide and easy path and Hell is the narrow gate when it is obviously the opposite. It can be done politely and with kindness. For example, before Christmas our pastor in talking about the parish reconciliation services told the entire community that for anyone who didn’t show up he would be sending their name to Rome so that they could start the process of declaring them immaculately conceived. The group laughed. The next week he said something similar except this time it was to call Rome so that they could start the Canonization process. Again, everyone laughed. But you know what, he got his point across and the penance service was packed. At the penance service itself, he opened with a reading and then preached about the influence of sin in our lives. It worked out very well.

Right. Preaching about sin, hell, confession, etc. on a semi-regular basis (ie once a month for a few minutes or so) is not a bad thing. This does not make Catholicism a “religion of fear.” I think it is worse to never mention these things at all than it is to talk about them too much. Talking about just how great the Faith is is a good thing, but we humans need balance. We are subject to human limitations and so we need to be taught from many angles. Sometimes a knock in the head is a good thing. Talking about sin and hell is not bad. How it is done is a semi-prudential decision, but it must be done.

 

[Spencer3096]

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 3
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently 0
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 3
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 0
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. 2 I would definitely like to see the OF include at least the Last Gospel (even though it’s technically outside of the Mass). As for the EF, 10 since all of them are required.
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 2.5 The Church has over 1500 years worth of written music, so why does it seem like we’re stuck in the 70s sometimes?
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 10+
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails 1 Both standing and kneeling can be reverent, and this seems to be culturally dependent.
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 2
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 3
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 2.5
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 1
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. 3 I often wonder why this isn’t the case right now:shrug:
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 2
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 3 at least
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 3 as long as it’s done in charity.
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 2
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 3
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II 2.5 Abstinence, definitely. I’m not so sure about the older fasting rules, though.

 

[Baelor]

I would appreciate some expounded perspectives on architecture and art. Surely those saying that traditional architecture and art are 3/3 in importance cannot believe that only older architectural styles are permissible and innovation of any kind is bad, so what “traditional” elements are essential and where can one continue to innovate, as all those who developed now-traditional forms of architecture did in their own times?

For example, someone mentioned the cruciform floor plan.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would state internal challenges are the big thing to address.
…Popes should be able to count on firm support - not backstabbing and whisper campaigns.

They should also be able to count on support from outside the Vatican: the ordinary pew Catholic, and religious orders of men and women. There should not be Catholic pastors attacking the Pope, nor heads of religious orders calling him vile names. This was once completely unheard of. Anyone doing that would have considered themselves completely estranged from Roman Catholicism and would understand that to continue in the practice of the faith meant a conversion back to obedience/submission and a trip to the confessional. !

5) Look at the lapsation rate of Catholics, especially in the west, which is (in my opinion) mainly down to poor (or no) catechesis. The excuse for catechesis I received was a joke. The only thing I remember from religious education in high school was an exercise of writing a mock letter to an imaginary gay friend, to tell them it was OK to be gay.

There was no intellectual presentation or explanation of Catholic morality whatsoever. Then, the teachers seemed surprised when I showed no interest in my nominal faith (at the time) and asked not to participate in certain activities (such as a trip to Rome when Archbishop Thomas Winning was made a Cardinal). I couldn’t have been less interested, at the time - and no wonder.

I’m not surprised.

Many ordinary Catholics are frankly ill-equipped to defend the faith against secular attacks. They do not properly understand Church teaching - because it has not been explained to them - and so have no answer when (eg) secular people say our attitude toward homosexuals is hateful or intolerant.
We clearly say “This is what Catholicism teaches and why - take it or leave it”.

I will say this again, as I have said often: The New Evanglization is not difficult without a revolution in catechesis (child and adult). It is impossible without a revolution in catechesis. The New Evangelization will utterly fail in the West (Europe, Canada, the U.S.) without major catechetical surgery. Preferably Yesterday.

I do not regard the growing gap between secular western attitudes and Christian attitudes as a particular challenge, over and above “spreading the gospel”.

The only thing I disagree with in your post. The reason it is difficult relates directy to insufficient catechesis! If you have no idea that the Church’s moral doctrines on sexuality and everything else are not open for debate, then you will be constantly juggling between secular language and theological language, and feel it is necessary to negotiate and compromise between two uncompromisable realms. Normally, this means The World is going to win every time. They are more present, more persuasive, they are motivated to convert, and their omnipresence makes it very hard to resist them. If you think that any doctrine is up for discussion (or even just “some” are), the secular world will win most every time.

Among those self-identified Catholics on CAF who contribute to political discussions and apologetics discussions, most think that Faithful Citizenship need not apply to them, and many of them go further to state that it is mandatory to separate whatever religious convictions they do have from civic involvement. That’s precisely opposite of what the bishops’ document says, but those Catholics were “catechized” by a modern secular ‘belief’ system to which they are attached and for which they vigorously argue. So the first order of the day is Catholic literacy. Because most modern Catholics are unacquainted with Church documents, they argue with those who are literate, and deny that there could be such documents or published doctrines.

When it comes to Christian approaches to abortion, or homosexuality or whatever - “haters gon’ hate”. The only challenge for us here is to have the courage to be faithful, not to give in, or seek to appease our critics.

But the way to develop courage is consciously, affirmatively, through prayer and the sacraments. As I’m sure you know (!), it has always been true that the path to conversion is the narrow path; the path to lukewarmness is the wide path. It has normally only been through the consistent effort of the Christian, through daily prayer, devotion, and regular sacraments, that the narrow path is entered.

So catechesis must be married with a renewed spirituality that goes far beyond the yawning, indifferent once/week Catholic. That understanding should be part of a new catechesis. The nominal Catholic is not a terribly effective one. When I have been that way, I have been asked even by my friends “if I’m still practicing any more.” Because it becomes somewhat transparent when you’re semi-committed or ambivalent.

And that means that opportunities for personal spirituality must be made more inviting, more frequent, more routine, in parishes and dioceses. It tends to be that the minority (the already converted) go to those, but spirituality should be a part of the catechetical journey, which truthfully is lifelong, for all of us, no matter how classic and authentic our own catechesis was. And we are all called to continual conversion. That’s straight from the Vatican.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well stated in my view.

I agree with your reasoning for wishing to hear more preaching in regards to sin. I find that too many, including myself from time to time, believe that Heaven is the wide and easy path and Hell is the narrow gate when it is obviously the opposite. It can be done politely and with kindness. For example, before Christmas our pastor in talking about the parish reconciliation services told the entire community that for anyone who didn’t show up he would be sending their name to Rome so that they could start the process of declaring them immaculately conceived. The group laughed. The next week he said something similar except this time it was to call Rome so that they could start the Canonization process. Again, everyone laughed. But you know what, he got his point across and the penance service was packed. At the penance service itself, he opened with a reading and then preached about the influence of sin in our lives. It worked out very well.

Thank you for sharing, Jason. Combining your story with my concerns, I have read the occasional Catholic poster on CAF discuss how Church doctrine can simply not be error-free because members of the magisterium – as well as the Pope – are sinners. Apparently it has not occurred to such folks that for sinlessness to be a condition of authentic doctrine, there would be Zero doctrine in the Roman Church. Zero. Only Mary and Jesus could have ever proclaimed doctrine, and since neither had an immortal human life, that cancelled that!

Good for your pastor, by the way. Not enough of those. Our pastor makes light of the community reconciliation sevice, apologizes for it, and pairs it with a “party” every time, which I find patronizing and treating the adult congregation like children.

I want to add that it’s not that I have no interest in the OP’s list, but i.m.o. liturgy is very much allied with catechesis and spirituality, so they tend to go together. Any forced return to traditional Masses in my region (except where they are joyfully embraced already, by demand of the congregation) would be met with complaints and departures, because of the whole misunderstood notion of “lay participation.” I want great sacred music and reverential liturgies and spiritually gutsy homilies, no matter what positions and orientations and habitats people use. One of the greatest celebrants I ever knew was someone who used an unattractive church hall because that’s all he had, but his spirituality was unmistakable, his services were packed, and the congregants were pious, much more so than on your typical Sunday. He catechized while preaching, by the way.

 

[jwinch2]

They should also be able to count on support from outside the Vatican: the ordinary pew Catholic, and religious orders of men and women. There should not be Catholic pastors attacking the Pope, nor heads of religious orders calling him vile names. This was once completely unheard of. Anyone doing that would have considered themselves completely estranged from Roman Catholicism and would understand that to continue in the practice of the faith meant a conversion back to obedience/submission and a trip to the confessional. !



I’m not surprised.

I will say this again, as I have said often: The New Evanglization is not difficult without a revolution in catechesis (child and adult). It is impossible without a revolution in catechesis. The New Evangelization will utterly fail in the West (Europe, Canada, the U.S.) without major catechetical surgery. Preferably Yesterday.

The only thing I disagree with in your post. The reason it is difficult relates directy to insufficient catechesis! If you have no idea that the Church’s moral doctrines on sexuality and everything else are not open for debate, then you will be constantly juggling between secular language and theological language, and feel it is necessary to negotiate and compromise between two uncompromisable realms. Normally, this means The World is going to win every time. They are more present, more persuasive, they are motivated to convert, and their omnipresence makes it very hard to resist them. If you think that any doctrine is up for discussion (or even just “some” are), the secular world will win most every time.

Among those self-identified Catholics on CAF who contribute to political discussions and apologetics discussions, most think that Faithful Citizenship need not apply to them, and many of them go further to state that it is mandatory to separate whatever religious convictions they do have from civic involvement. That’s precisely opposite of what the bishops’ document says, but those Catholics were “catechized” by a modern secular ‘belief’ system to which they are attached and for which they vigorously argue. So the first order of the day is Catholic literacy. Because most modern Catholics are unacquainted with Church documents, they argue with those who are literate, and deny that there could be such documents or published doctrines.

But the way to develop courage is consciously, affirmatively, through prayer and the sacraments. As I’m sure you know (!), it has always been true that the path to conversion is the narrow path; the path to lukewarmness is the wide path. It has normally only been through the consistent effort of the Christian, through daily prayer, devotion, and regular sacraments, that the narrow path is entered.

So catechesis must be married with a renewed spirituality that goes far beyond the yawning, indifferent once/week Catholic. That understanding should be part of a new catechesis. The nominal Catholic is not a terribly effective one. When I have been that way, I have been asked even by my friends “if I’m still practicing any more.” Because it becomes somewhat transparent when you’re semi-committed or ambivalent.

And that means that opportunities for personal spirituality must be made more inviting, more frequent, more routine, in parishes and dioceses. It tends to be that the minority (the already converted) go to those, but spirituality should be a part of the catechetical journey, which truthfully is lifelong, for all of us, no matter how classic and authentic our own catechesis was. And we are all called to continual conversion. That’s straight from the Vatican.

I could not agree with your post more than I do. Catechesis and spiritual formation are two things which the Church needs, and needs desperately. We were having a conversation recently in our parish about needs and the topic of catechesis came up over and over again. Of course, I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, I also suggested that we needed solid spiritual instruction.

There are two sides of the same coin. Side one = How does one love what one does not know? Side two = Loving God more will make someone want to know more about him and what he teaches.

We need to attack the problem from both angles in my view.

Peace,

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al.
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass

0 - Obviously, I’m not a traditionalist. (Not that you said non-traditionalists could answer.)

j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc.

2 - Morality yes, hellfire preaching no. Historical evidence in my country has proven the latter ineffective.

k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations

0 - Sorry, this smells like the Catholic brand of KJV-onlyism

l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar

0 - Rating is self-explanatory at this point.

m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.

3 - Don’t need to be a Trad to oppose any liberal fad.

n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II

3 - If it means less squabbling on Traditionalist matters, yes please.

o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism

3 - They already do. Unfortunately, their communication and PR skills seem lacking as far as my own country’s bishops are concerned.

p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error

2 - Sure, just don’t make the Spanish mistake. Want to convert people? Don’t be a conquistador.

q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.)
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc.

2 - I’m not sure I’d suggest this for newer buildings but old ones deserve to have their historical significance preserved.

s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II

0 - My family’s eating habits are out of whack as they are. Fasting would medically be ill-advised in our case.

 

[vames]

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem - 0

b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently - 0

c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin - 0

d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity - 0

e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. - 1 → Asperges on Sundays at the main Mass is just fine

f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music - 2 → but not at the price of suppressing local traditions (ex. in Brazil)

g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue - 0

h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails - 0

i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass - 1 dressing nicely, 0 wearing veils

j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. - 3 stressing the reality of sin, 0 threatening people with hellfire

k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations - 3 for accuracy, 0 if liberal means only “you” instead of “thou”

l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar - 1 → not many; perhaps about some of the old Octaves?

m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. - 0 (not before the Church solves the problem of clergy sexual abuse)

n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II - 3

o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism - 2 → they do it already

p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error - 0

q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) - 0

r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. - 1

s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II - 0 (this is convincing enough, without making anything obligatory)

t) anything else you wish to add
→ discouraging the promotion of unapproved apparitions - 3
→ discouraging imported practices like “healing of the family tree” or speaking in tongues during regular masses - 3
→ rediscovering the value of silent moments and silent prayer in the church (during and after masses) - 1

 

[tradcathconvert]

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 3
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently 3
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 2
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 1
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. 3
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 3
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 3
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails 3
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 3
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 3
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 3
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 2
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. 3
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 3
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 3
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 3
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 3
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 3
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II 3

 

[OraLabora]

Right. Preaching about sin, hell, confession, etc. on a semi-regular basis (ie once a month for a few minutes or so) is not a bad thing. This does not make Catholicism a “religion of fear.” I think it is worse to never mention these things at all than it is to talk about them too much. Talking about just how great the Faith is is a good thing, but we humans need balance. We are subject to human limitations and so we need to be taught from many angles. Sometimes a knock in the head is a good thing. Talking about sin and hell is not bad. How it is done is a semi-prudential decision, but it must be done.

I think though, if the notion is sin is taught in the absence of a path to inner conversion, it’s a lost cause. The latter will make us want to avoid the former. Frequent confession alone won’t do it, unless you happen to hit upon a very good confessor (as I did) who understands the need for inner conversion (alas he has retired).

When I just viewed confession as a few minutes of confess-get absolution-do penance, invariably I’d be back week after week confessing the same thing. It’s when the notion of inner conversion kicked in that the cycle was broken (it doesn’t mean I no longer confess!)

Much of that happens outside the confessional.

But that’s subject for a whole other thread, perhaps more appropriate for the “Spirituality” forum where the theme of conversion comes up more frequently

 

[Jennet]

Good question!

3s - Extremely Important To Me
a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al.
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II

2s - Fairly Important To Me
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc.
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error

1s - Nice, But Not Essential To Me
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.)
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc.

0s - Not Important To Me
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity

The importance of most of those I have rated as 2s would vary, depending on how the issue was handled. As some have already said, preaching the reality of sin is one thing I would regard as very important, but spouting hell-fire and damnation is quite another. Also, whilst I believe head-coverings for women at Mass are very important, dressing “nicely” is very subjective. Personally, I’d prefer “clean, neat, and sober”.

 

[wxornot]

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 0; not part of the tradition I belong to
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently 0
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 3
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 0
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. 0
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 3
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 0
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails 0; this wouldn’t work in monastic settings
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 1; dressing neatly yes, veils, -10 except maybe when the Pope presides
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 0 I am completely against a Catholicism of fear.
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 2
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 0; I like the current balance; you need ordinary days so feasts don’t lose their meaning, and to give a regularity to life; those who regularly pray the Liturgy of the Hours may understand
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc. 1; I would reserve that for the most notorious cases
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 3; long overdue; but traditionalists should be prepared to not always hear the answers they want
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 3
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 0 this will not foster dialogue
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 0 I like modern architecture for churches
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 0 Benedictine; prefer plain
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II 1 encouraged maybe, obligatory not so much
t) anything else you wish to add 3 I feel very strongly that the bishops and Holy See make traditionalists aware of the fact that their view of “traditions” in the Church tends to want to homogenize the Church to look like a snapshot of what parish life looked like at a specific moment in time, at the expense of other long-established traditions such as monastic, mendicant, etc., all of which should be allowed to influence the Church. This is probably due to the fact that these traditions are not well-known by the laity; RCIA and other programs should bring these traditions back to the people so they have a deeper understanding of where the Church came from, and what “traditions” really means.

Too many people are stuck in what THEY see is the correct way to celebrate the Mass. They have forgotten that over 2000 years much has changed. They focus on what the remember “from the good old days”. As one person said…we are there to worship and receive the Eucharist.

 

[archi1]

Hello to all!

My take:

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem
100/3, to my mind THE most important factor. Historically, the liturgical crisis started there (early 1950s).

b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently
1/3

c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin
2/3 for the musical parts (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus).
0/3 for the rest.

d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity
minus 1/3: why would one want FEWER responses from the laity???

e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al.
1/3

f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music
2/3

g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue
2/3

h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails
2/3 for the kneeling and:
3/3 for the altar rails (because there needs to be a visible separation between the nave and the sanctuary)

i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass
1/3

j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc.
2/3

k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations
2/3

l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar
1/3

m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.
2/3

n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II
2/3

o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism
2/3

p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error
1/3

q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.)
2/3

r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc.
2/3 (in my mind traditional = medieval or older)

s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II
t) anything else you wish to add
2/3

Blessings.

 

[clem456]

Just an informal poll for curiosity’s sake. Copy/paste this list and rank them from 0/3 (“don’t care at all”) to 3/3 (“extremely important to me”). Any comments or qualifications are welcome. This list assumes you are a Latin-rite Catholic, so feel free to make any adjustments relevant to your rite if you are not but want to participate

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem 0
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently** 0**
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin 0
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity 0
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al. 0
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music 2
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue 0
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails** 0**
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass 0
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc. 0
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations 3
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar 0
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.** 0**
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II 3
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism 3
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error 0
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.) 1
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc. 2s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II 2
t) anything else you wish to add

God bless!

 

[Megan7]

Just an informal poll for curiosity’s sake. Copy/paste this list and rank them from 0/3 (“don’t care at all”) to 3/3 (“extremely important to me”). Any comments or qualifications are welcome. This list assumes you are a Latin-rite Catholic, so feel free to make any adjustments relevant to your rite if you are not but want to participate

a) celebrating Holy Mass with the celebrant facing ad orientem
b) celebrating Holy Mass with the Canon recited silently
c) celebrating Holy Mass with the ordinary in Latin
d) celebrating Holy Mass with few responses from the laity
e) celebrating Holy Mass with the Asperges, Psalm 42, Secret, Last Gospel, et al.
f) celebrating High Mass with chant and/or traditional hymns instead of modern music
g) only permitting Holy Communion to be received on the tongue
h) only permitting Holy Communion to be received while kneeling on altar rails
i) that dressing nicely and wearing veils are more encouraged when celebrating Holy Mass
j) that homilies more clearly stress the reality of sin, Hell, etc.
k) that ‘liberal’ translations of the Bible are discouraged/banned compare to more ‘conservative’ translations
l) restoring many suppressed feasts/vigils to the Roman Calendar
m) that the Holy See and bishops excommunicate politicians that support abortion, same-sex “marriage”, etc.
n) that the Holy See and bishops make specific clarifications on many teachings of Vatican II
o) that the Holy See and bishops (more) aggressively condemn religious and moral indifferentism
p) that ecumenism efforts be more stressful of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that all others are in error
q) that church exteriors be in more traditional art forms (Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.)
r) that church interiors have more traditional altars, art, statues, etc.
s) that fasting/abstinence on Fridays is required/encouraged as they were before Vatican II
t) anything else you wish to add

God bless!

Thanks for the thread