Liturgical abuse!

[Ockham]

The rite of Mass as we all knew it up to the beginning of the Council was the culmination of a gradual and natural development under the Holy Ghost which had lasted for fifteen hundred and seventy years. By the year of Our Lord 1570, at the end of the Council of Trent, it had reached as near perfection as anything on earth could ever be.

“It is,” wrote Father Frederick Faber, “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. It came forth out of the grand mind of the Church and lifted us out of earth and out of self, and wrapped us round in a cloud of mystical sweetness and the sublimities of a more than angelic liturgy, and purified us almost without ourselves, and charmed us with celestial charming so that our very senses seemed to find vision, hearing, fragrance, taste and touch more than ear can give.”

What a wonderful, wonderful, description that is of the old Mass.

1. Pope St. Pius V in 1570, after the Council of Trent, did not devise a new rite of Mass, as is often claimed by those who devised the new Mass in the 1960s. He was content to codify the Roman Missal which existed at that time (the so-called Tridentine Mass) and extend its use throughout the whole Church as a bulwark against the attacks on the Church from the Reformation which was taking place throughout Europe at that time in the sixteenth century. Its prayers and its ceremonies made the Catholic doctrines of Sacrifice and the Real Presence absolutely explicit in accordance with the principle - lex orandi, lex credendi, - the law of prayer is the law of faith, or, what you pray is what you believe. The term Tridentine Mass is a little misleading. Father Adrian Fortescue, England’s greatest liturgical historian, wrote:

“Our Mass goes back without essential change to the age when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as God… there is not in Christendom a rite so venerable as ours.”

AND SO TO THE COUNCIL
5. And so to the Council. We have all been told that Vatican II said this, and Vatican II said that, and it has been used as justification for every novelty introduced over the past 30 years. But what did happen during the Council and what exactly did the Council decree?

…]

It has all been a sorry and catastrophic tragedy which has affected the whole Church, and the people who have suffered the most have been the young. They have been deprived of their birthright and robbed of their heritage, their history, and their traditions.

1. In the Constitution on the Liturgy you will see that there is nothing in it which even hints at such novelties as Mass facing the people, or a vernacular Mass, or Communion in the hand, or extraordinary ministers of Communion. All of these changes have been introduced not for the benefit of the Catholic faithful but because those in control - not your honest to goodness parish priests who probably have more problems than anyone in trying to make sense of all this - but unnamed members of faceless and distant liturgical commissions who have decreed that you are all going to be ecumenical whether you like it or not. The reformers will not change their ways because they are right. It is everyone else who is wrong. And they accept no responsibility for empty churches and empty seminaries other than perhaps they have not explained themselves sufficiently well enough. And so the merry-go-round of more meetings, and more documents, and yet more changes switches into action once again.
2. The new Mass was first celebrated in public in the Sistine Chapel on 24th October 1967 before the Synod of Bishops. Afterwards many of the bishops were very uneasy about what they had seen. Only 71 out of a total of 176 voted ‘Yes’ for the new rite. The rest voted ‘No’ or had reservations. It must also be remembered that the rest of the world’s bishops were not given the opportunity of voting. The fact that their new rite of Mass had been rejected did not deter the reformers because this, in fact, with very minor alterations, became your new Mass.

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

 

[Ockham]

Feb. 23, 2009 (CWNews.com) -

A key Vatican official has called for “bold and courageous” decisions to address liturgical abuses that have arisen since the reforms of Vatican II.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, cites a flawed understanding of Vatican II teachings and the influence of secular ideologies are reasons to conclude that-- as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in 1985-- “the true time of Vatican II has not yet come.” Particularly in the realm of the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith says, “The reform has to go on.”

Archbishop Ranjith, who was called to the Vatican personally by Pope Benedict to serve as a papal ally in the quest to **restore a sense of reverence in the liturgy, **makes his comments in the Foreword to a new book based on the diaries and notes of Cardinal Fernando Antonelli, who was a key figure in the liturgical-reform movement both before and after Vatican II.

The writings of Cardinal Antonelli, Archbishop Ranjith says, help the reader “to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to an immediately following the Council.” The Vatican official concludes that implementation of the Council’s suggested reforms often veered away from the actual intent of the Council fathers. As a result, Archbishop Ranjith concludes, **the liturgy today is not a true realization of the vision put forward in the key liturgical document of Vatican II, **Sacrosanctum Concilium (doc).

Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes:

Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of "active participation."

The Sri Lankan prelate argues that it in order to carry out a “reform of the reform,” it is essential to recognize how the liturgical vision of Vatican lI became distorted. He praises the book on Cardinal Antonelli for allowing the reader to gain a better understanding of “which figures or attitudes caused the present situation.” This, the archbishop says, is an inquiry “which, in the name of truth, we cannot abandon.”

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60291

 

[bpbasilphx]

“It is,” wrote Father Frederick Faber, "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.

---

Obviously, Fr. Faber had never seen the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

 

[Layman]

However, theologically, both “for many” and “for all” all liturgically correct. Christ did die for all. However not all will be saved. It is not incorrect theologically to say that Christ died for all; but it is an incorrect translation of the prayer to subsitute “all” for “many”.

And a translation is not a rubric; the term rubric means red, which is how the rules for liturgical actions are written; they are in red ink.

If Christ said, ‘for the many’, and it was in the old rite, which existed for 1500 years+, then why not say that at the most important point of the Mass?

Which saint ordered these changes? Which of the Heavenly host appeared to request it? Something so drastic should have a divine mandate, surely?

It also suggests disrespect to our spiritual forefathers: “We know better than those old fogies. 1965 years of work by saints and martyrs? Hah! I’ve got a degree in Comparitive Religion from Wyoming University!”.

You can’t have it both ways: either it’s a sacred rite in which you attempt to bring Heaven to earth and meddle with at the risk of incurring Heaven’s wrath, and therefore worthy of respect, or it’s something impermanent and mutable which you don’t need to worry too much about. Christ being an easygoing pal who loves you and all that.

What divine revelation prompted all these changes, which have introduced mundane and egalitarian elements into our rite?

I’m starting to think that a section of our clergy, like our politicians, men who have had third-level education, actually have no foresight or hindsight when it comes to the long-term greater good of those in their care. They absorb fashionable ideas without thinking them through, without reference to the past, or their likely effect in the future, and then condescend to the flock who pipe up with objections.

In politics, they didn’t see the property crash coming; a classic boom and bust of the capitalist cycle. They even helped it along.

In religion, they chucked away a grand old rite and abandoned simple rote teaching, on the basis of intellectual ideas. An ideology is not a substitute for original thought. Or for divine inspiration.

So now you have clerics, who have the stress of being a performer as well as a priest, ‘celebrating’ a rite which their audience/congregation don’t know they commit a mortal sin by missing or receiving communion at unworthily.

And they wonder why people misbehave in Church or don’t bother going to confession? It’s because they’re following the example set for them.

It’s like a trendy teacher saying “Call me Jerry, I’m your pal” then getting annoyed when the pupils start getting familiar with him. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Cat]

Cat, you sound like a very nice lady and I enjoy reading many of your posts so pleae take my next comment as friendly advice. It would be good for you to broaden your perspective on this subject. There is quite a lot more to Catholicism, Christianity, and religion in general than the city you grew up in and the experiences you have.

However, I have a couple questions for you if you don’t mind based on your personal experiences. You said earlier that when you were a little girl people weren’t allowed to talk in church. Why is that? In a Catholic church you are in the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, but what’s the motivation in a non-Catholic? Also, I was in a mainline Protestant church last month (for a choral receital) and noticed they don’t have kneelers. What type of praying goes on in the Protestant churches you know of?

I’m not blaming Protestants for “protestantizing” our Mass. However, I believe there are Catholics who think this is the best course and as you pointed out, the mainline Protestant churches are losing memebers too.

Ockham, thanks for the advice, but I’m not sure about it. I think it is unwise to go poking about in everyone else’s backyard when I have my own very lush and lovely yard to play in!

Seriously, I have a life that God has given to me. I believe very strongly in St. Paul’s admonition to learn to be content in all things. I see no reason to peer and search all over the U.S. or the world to find all the places where Catholicism is not being done correctly.

I feel for Catholics who are trapped in a bad situation, and I join my prayers with them that things will get better. But since God hasn’t put me there, I see no reason to try to escape from where He has put me.

Besides, I’m not sure on a practical level exactly how to “broaden my perspective” on Catholicism. Internet? You know I’m here.

I’ve attended Masses in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana–all around the Midwest, as you can see. My daughter lives in California and attends Mass.

I think that’s probably about as far as I will be travelling, due to various physical limitations.

I attend every seminar, mission, retreat, and conference that comes to our area. I attend Bible studies and classes when I can.

My husband buys Catholic CDs and listens to them during his work commute, and often we listen to them together.

We listen to Relevant Radio out of Chicago.

TAN Publishing Company is located in our city, and we buy their books along with with all the “trendy” Catholic books. I enjoy reading the “ancient” Catholic books.

And we have an awesome bishop (Thomas Doran) who does a weekly radio show which we try to listen to.

And a great diocescan newspaper, which I read faithfully.

I think I’m pretty steeped in Catholicism!

And I don’t need to broaden my perspective on Protestantism–I spent 47 years broadening it! I still subscribe to and read several Protestant periodicals to “stay in touch,” and my husband still listens to the local Protestant radio station (mainly for the Christian rock music).

So I’m not sure exactly what else you would have me to do.

 

[Cat]

Cat, you sound like a very nice lady and I enjoy reading many of your posts so pleae take my next comment as friendly advice. It would be good for you to broaden your perspective on this subject. There is quite a lot more to Catholicism, Christianity, and religion in general than the city you grew up in and the experiences you have.

However, I have a couple questions for you if you don’t mind based on your personal experiences. You said earlier that when you were a little girl people weren’t allowed to talk in church. Why is that? In a Catholic church you are in the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, but what’s the motivation in a non-Catholic? Also, I was in a mainline Protestant church last month (for a choral receital) and noticed they don’t have kneelers. What type of praying goes on in the Protestant churches you know of?

I’m not blaming Protestants for “protestantizing” our Mass. However, I believe there are Catholics who think this is the best course and as you pointed out, the mainline Protestant churches are losing memebers too.

Now I’ll try to answer your questions.

First, please allow me to correct something in your post. You mention that mainline Protestants are losing members, too, and yes, you’re right.

But evangelical Protestant churches are growing by leaps and bounds. The non-denominational megachurch in our city (a Willowcreek plant) has over 10,000 people who attend Sunday services, and more attend every week. (They had to purchase a second campus to accomodate their attendees.)

When I lived in North Carolina in the 1980s, we saw our little Christian and MIssionary Alliance Church quadruple its membership in less than 10 years, and we’re not talking “members on paper only.” We’re talking members who are actually in the pews on Sunday. How many people would be attending Mass at your church if you quadrupled attendance? You’d have to either add several dozen Masses on Saturday/Sunday, or you would have to build another building, wouldn’t you? Just imagine it. It was reality for us.

Evangelical Protestant churches are not mainline Protestant churches. I think you understand that, but just in case there are others who are confused, I want to make it clear.

Mainline Protestant Churches are the older Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Episcopal., UCC, etc.) who are more simliar to Catholicism, mainly because they borrowed almost all of their liturgy from the Catholic Mass (not the other way around.)

Evangelical Protestant Churches are the newer Protestant churches, and most have a worship service that does not in any way, shape, or form resemble the Catholic Mass. The Catholic Mass is to an evangelical worship service what a watermelon is to a pea. There is virtually NO resemblance between a Catholic Mass and an evangelical Protestant worship service.

Summary:

Mainline Protestant-
worship service resemble Catholic Mass
losing members at an alarming rate!

Evangelical Protestant
worship service does NOT resemble Catholic Mass
gaining members at an alarming rate!

Hope all this makes sense.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Summary:

Mainline Protestant-
worship service resemble Catholic Mass
losing members at an alarming rate!

Evangelical Protestant
worship service does NOT resemble Catholic Mass
gaining members at an alarming rate!

Hope all this makes sense.

---

In my experience as a supply organist, services in Methodist, Presbyterian, and UCC Churches bore no resemblance whatsoever to the Catholic Mass.

 

[bpbasilphx]

So now you have clerics, who have the stress of being a performer as well as a priest, ‘celebrating’ a rite which their audience/congregation don’t know they commit a mortal sin by missing or receiving communion at unworthily.

---

**Layman, mortal sin requires knowlege that the act in question is in fact sinful.

If there is no knowledge of this, there is no sin.

I’m happy to see, however, that you do recognize that the OF is an efficacious Liturgy.**

 

[Cat]

However, I have a couple questions for you if you don’t mind based on your personal experiences. You said earlier that when you were a little girl people weren’t allowed to talk in church. Why is that? In a Catholic church you are in the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, but what’s the motivation in a non-Catholic? Also, I was in a mainline Protestant church last month (for a choral receital) and noticed they don’t have kneelers. What type of praying goes on in the Protestant churches you know of?

I’m not blaming Protestants for “protestantizing” our Mass. However, I believe there are Catholics who think this is the best course and as you pointed out, the mainline Protestant churches are losing memebers too.

Now to answer your questions.

But first, I’ll ask YOU a question. Do you think that Protestant are Christians?

It sounds to me like you do not.

Another question. Do you know Protestants? Or maybe it would be better for me to ask, “Are you close friends with any Protestants, specfically evangelical Protestants?”

It sounds to me like you don’t know any.

If you DID know evangelical Protestants, you would realize that they LOVE THE LORD JESUS!

I think this is one reason why so many Catholics are attracted to evangelicalism. They want to experience that same vibrant, close, loving relationship with Jesus that their evangelical friends have.

Yes, the evangelicals don’t have Eucharist, and that’s a tragedy. But they do have Jesus, and I will give you evidence–I recognized Jesus in the Eucharist because I had known Him all my life before ever setting eyes on Eucharist.

If I had not known Jesus personally, I would never have recognized Him, would I?

You can’t recognize someone that you don’t know.

Anyway, I think you should consider setting aside any ideas that evangelical Protestants aren’t “real” Christians, and instead, realize that many of them love the Lord and are** serving Him as best they know how with the little bit of information that they have.**

Consider this–what if you only had one bead of the Rosary, and you only knew the Hail Mary and none of the other prayers? Would your Rosary be as much of a joy and learning experience for you as the complete Rosary? Of course not. But that one bead and that one prayer can go a looooong ways toward helping you be like Christ, right?

That’s kind of what the situation is for an evangelical Protestant. They have the Bible, and that’s pretty much it. One bead. And they do a awful lot for Christ with that one bead.

 

[Cat]

Ockham, I guess I’d better answer your questions, right?! Sorry for the delay!

Now to answer your questions: Why didn’t we talk in church? Because we were in God’s house. That is the answer that Miss Larson taught me and the other children. That is what the pastor taught the congregation. That is what my mother taught me. When we were in church, we were in God’s house, and so we did not chatter in His Presence. We could certainly smile and greet each other, but not carry on conversations about sports and recipes and babies.

Also, even though the Lord is not present in the Blessed Sacrament in Protestant church, the Lord is present in other Christians. When a person is baptized, the Holy Spirit becomes present in their lives and they become linked to the Catholic Church by virtue of their baptism–it’s a pretty powerful sacrament! So no one can say that the Lord is not present in Protestants because that is contrary to Catholic teaching about baptism.

Always remember that when you enter a Protestant church.

As for your question about prayer, I’ll be honest. That question stings. It tells me that you don’t respect Protestants. I hope I’m wrong about you.

If you knew Protestants, you would know that they pray deep prayers from their heart. Most Protestants do not pray memorized prayers (and I think that’s too bad). But they pray extemporaneously. They talk to God, and listen to Him. Yes, they LISTEN. I was taught from a young age in my evangelical church that prayer is not just me talking, but God talking back to me.

As for kneelers, I do hope you realize that kneeling is not the only position in which we can pray. I currently do not kneel to pray to God, ever,even when in His August Presence in the Blessed Sacrament in the Perpetual Adoration Chapel at our church. I cannot kneel because of my knee and feet.

In recent months, I have returned to the prayer posture that I used for years in the evangelical churches–leaning onto the pew in front of me with my head in my hands. It feels right to me, and since the Catholic Church does not prohibit it during Mass, it’s the position that I prefer. I don’t feel that it is reverent to kneel in the pew and keep my eyes open.

Most evangelical do not kneel normally in worship services. However, many times, I saw evangelical Protestants kneeling in prayer during prayer meetings and other special worship services. My husband often knelt in the pew (he had to face backwards, since there are no kneelers in most Protestant churches). Many of the charismatic Christians will kneel (my husband came from this background).

And growing up, many times, I saw people kneeling at the altar at the front of the church when they were moved to pray.

So please do not think that evangelicals never kneel. That’s simply not true.

I agree with you that there are Catholics who would like to see Mass become more “lively.” I’ll admit to being in this camp.

It’s my opinion that Holy Mother Church has already given us the answer to this “debate.” Both the EF and the OF are made available to us, and there is a lot of freedom in the OF, not to change the liturgy, but to make different selections of setting and music.

So what I think should happen is that the Catholic Church in the U.S. should strive to offer BOTH forms of the Mass in every location so that every Catholic can attend the form of their choice.

And I think that the Catholic Church in the U.S. should strive to develop the OF Mass to its fullest potential instead of allowing it to wimp along and offend no one and yet offend many. There is so much freedom with the OF–e.g., there is the option of doing a Latin OF. There is the option of doing OF with completely modern music and orchestra/band. There is the option of doing OF with some Latin and some chant. So many option, and yet, most parishes just keep doing the “safe” thing (Creation Mass.).

IF the EF were available everywhere, and if the OF were developed to its fullest potential with all its variations, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because you would happily attend the EF and never have to listen to a drum or a song younger than 1000 years or a word of English during prayers, and I would happily attend the OF and listen to rock music and songs that were written within my lifetime and all English (my heart language), and both of us would be fully Catholic and fully worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

 

[Cat]

Summary:

Mainline Protestant-
worship service resemble Catholic Mass
losing members at an alarming rate!

Evangelical Protestant
worship service does NOT resemble Catholic Mass
gaining members at an alarming rate!

Hope all this makes sense.

---

In my experience as a supply organist, services in Methodist, Presbyterian, and UCC Churches bore no resemblance whatsoever to the Catholic Mass.

Then you’ve been involved with the mainlines who are changing their traditional worship service and making it more “evangelical” to try to attract back their members who have fled.

My parents in law attend a UMC, and when we go with them, it’s very simliar to the Mass.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Then you’ve been involved with the mainlines who are changing their traditional worship service and making it more “evangelical” to try to attract back their members who have fled.

My parents in law attend a UMC, and when we go with them, it’s very simliar to the Mass.

This was back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s.

 

[Layman]

So now you have clerics, who have the stress of being a performer as well as a priest, ‘celebrating’ a rite which their audience/congregation don’t know they commit a mortal sin by missing or receiving communion at unworthily.

---

**Layman, mortal sin requires knowlege that the act in question is in fact sinful.

If there is no knowledge of this, there is no sin.

I’m happy to see, however, that you do recognize that the OF is an efficacious Liturgy.**

That was not what I meant. Liturgical experimentation by the clergy and the bad teaching of the laity have led to Masses where the focus is on the participants. If it continues, whatever is now seen as irreverent (liturgical dancing?) will eventually be seen as normal.

As to the efficacy of such Masses: No one, when I asked about it on other posts here, defined, officially, what efficacy means in the context of a Mass.

I think what is happening is a failure of imagination. People who favour what Vat. II has wrought should try to imagine any of the pre-1962 saints of the church being present at an N.O. mass where all the indults are taken advantage of.

Just imagine it.

 

[Ockham]

Cat, I think you are making some quick and inaccurate assumptions about me. I try my best to respond to your questions but if I miss something important then let me know.

I’m glad you’ve travelled outside of your city and read sources beyond its limits. It’s not prodding or poking your nose where it doesn’t belong to be aware of national and global trends and events.

Here’s a recent Pew Research study. It’s amazing how the Catholic clergy sexual abuse makes its way into nearly everything these days despite the evidence rates are higher in Protestant churches and extremely higher in public institutions.

“Reasons for Leaving Childhood Religion
When asked a separate series of yes-or-no questions about why they left their childhood faith, more than seven-in-ten former Catholics and former Protestants (71% each) who are now unaffiliated say they just gradually drifted away from the faith, making this the most commonly offered reason by both groups. Many also say they left their former religion because they stopped believing in its teachings, with nearly two-thirds of unaffiliated former Catholics (65%) and half of unaffiliated former Protestants (50%) saying they left their childhood religion for this reason. Among both groups, roughly four-in-ten say they departed their former faith because their spiritual needs were not being met. Roughly three-in-ten former Catholics (29%) and more than one-third of former Protestants (36%) were unhappy with their former religion’s teachings about the Bible. Most of those who express concerns about the religion’s teachings on the Bible say their former religion interpreted the Bible too literally, with only a few saying their former faith did not follow the Bible literally enough.”

pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=409

 

[Ockham]

Despite the trends in your city, American Fundamentalist/Evangelicalism isn’t overly secure in its future. It’s a fairly recent invention and with an emphasis on entertainment over liturgy it may appeal to certain people but I doubt its staying power.

"Many Americans worship themselves
The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christian has dropped 11 per cent in a generation. And I think this is the beginning of a very long slide.

“More than ever before, people are just making up their own stories of who they are,” says Barry Kosmin, co-author of the survey. "They say, ‘I’m everything. I’m nothing. I believe in myself.’ "

…]

I’ve seen this coming for a long time. Five years ago I was doing academic research on evangelical religion, and I was struck by just how secularised even born-again, Bible Belt Christianity had become. US Christians whom the BBC would describe as “fundamentalist” were becoming increasingly focussed on a narcissistic spiritual journey in which the figure of Jesus was sometimes little more than a disposable spirit guide or a life coach.

The fast-growing evangelical churches of America base much of their appeal on experiential excitement and therapeutic storytelling; everything is turned into a commodity, including courses of sermons. No wonder there is a signficant (if unacknowledged) overlap with the New Age."

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/03/10/at_last_the_truth_about_america_its_becoming_less_religious

---

"The coming evangelical collapse
An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise.
By Michael Spencer
from the March 10, 2009 edition

Oneida, Ky.

We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close."

csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

 

[Ockham]

Here’s Father Barron’s opinion on European empty pews.

wordonfire.org/Default.aspx#yt_video

 

[JustaServant]

Despite the trends in your city, American Fundamentalist/Evangelicalism isn’t overly secure in its future. It’s a fairly recent invention and with an emphasis on entertainment over liturgy it may appeal to certain people but I doubt its staying power.

It is also primarily an American invention. It is a creature born out of our culture and time.
Historically, fundamentalism was a reactionary movement against the growing apostasy and liberalism within Protestant America in the late 19th, and early 20th century. But it goes much deeper than that. The fundamentalist movement is a direct ancestor of the ‘revivalism’ of Early America. It is basically an American movement.

 

[Ockham]

Yes, I personally know Protestants and Evangelicals. I consider them to be Christians outside of Christ’s Church, just as Pope Benedict XVI does.

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/

Protestants and Funadmentalist/Evangelicals indeed love Christ, but their rejection of Catholicism creates division among His flock and hostility towards His Church, none of which is Scriptural.

My conclusion is that the biggest threat to Christianity isn’t each other - it’s apathy. If you read the Christian Science Monitor link I provided then it states the biggest gainers from the coming Evangelical collapse will be the Catholic Church and other Orthodox religions.

“Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the “conversion” of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.”

Do you see a connection here? Catholic and Orthodox. The American Evangelical movement is very unorthodox; modern with its presentation and attraction. Our modern society is like the Evangelical movement: multi-media, information age, constant marketing messages, instant gratification, personalities. It’s easy to see why the Evangelical church modelled itself on modern features, but I don’t believe that’s what people go to church for.

The Pew Research survey found that most people that leave the Catholic Church aren’t going to Evangelicals, they are staying home on Sunday. They cite a disagreement with Church teachings and a lack of spiritual fulfillment. Non-Catholic Christians change churches for frivolous reasons which tells me their reasons for being at one church aren’t based on teachings, liturgy, or orthodox reasons.

The Church’s teachings are Scripturally sound and form solid doctrine. If someone wants to disagree then that’s their option. However, I can’t remember the last time I heard a Novus Ordo homily that taught anything.

The solution is for the Church to remain consistent, orthodox, and give clear teaching. What do people go to church for anyway?

 

[JustaServant]

My conclusion is that the biggest threat to Christianity isn’t each other - it’s apathy. If you read the Christian Science Monitor link I provided then it states the biggest gainers from the coming Evangelical collapse will be the Catholic Church and other Orthodox religions.

“Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the “conversion” of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.”

Do you see a connection here? Catholic and Orthodox. The American Evangelical movement is very unorthodox; modern with its presentation and attraction. Our modern society is like the Evangelical movement: multi-media, information age, constant marketing messages, instant gratification, personalities. It’s easy to see why the Evangelical church modelled itself on modern features, but I don’t believe that’s what people go to church for.

One of the issues brought up on this thread was that many parishes appear to be trying to “look Protestant (I think they mean evangelical)”. But if the novelties of evangelicalism are dying (and I believe they are), then the need for parishes to continue in any imitation of those practices will most certainly die off as well.
Those wandering evangelicals are not attracted to what looks like what they have just left.

 

[Cat]

ockham, I agree with much of what you’ve said about evangelicalism. We know several converts who came out of our childhood churches. There are many more that we don’t know.

My husband and I often wonder, “Why us?” Why did God allow us to be brought into His Church, the Catholic Church?"

My husband says it’s because we have always tried to follow the beautitude, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.”

Always, my husband and I sought for the truth in Christianity. In fact, we always considered ourselves just a bit on the “fringe” of our evangelical churches because we didn’t just follow along with the crowd.

We coined the term “Bandwagon Christianity” back when we were young. Many trends have passed through evangelicalism. When we were first married in 1979, the trend was “simple lifestyle.” Evangelicals like Ron Sider started this trend; his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger galvanized evangelicals, and had them making sandles out of old rubber tires, and starting compost heaps in the backyard. Even Billy Graham held a conference and committed to a simpler lifestyle.

Another big trend was the “Four Temperaments,” mainly popularized by Tim and Beverly LaHaye. This trend is coming to Catholicism, BTW! My husband posted a link about a Catholic book that looks just like the LaHaye’s MANY books about this subject. Here’s a link: catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1004805/Temperament-God-Gave-Your-Spouse/

There was the “88 Reasons Why the Rapture will happen in 1988” trend. We knew many people, intelligent people, who literally sold all their possession and sat on the roof waiting!

One of the biggest trends ever has been the “purpose-driven” trend. There is an entire church-planting movement based on this trend, which finally seems to be dying out a little.

That’s just a few “bandwagons.” My husband and I avoided almost all of them, except for the Simple Lifestyle movement which still influences us 30 years later.

And we were criticized by other evangelicals for being sticks in the mud.

One of the most dangerous trends (in our opinion) was (and still is) the “Courtship Marriage” trend, created by a 17-year-old named Josh Harris who was dumped by his girlfriend. Dr. James Dobson jumped on this bandwagon and popularized it, claiming that courtship marriages were the Biblical model. (This proves that evangelicals aren’t REALLY reading their Bibles, because if they were, they would see that ARRANGED marriages are the Biblical model.)

My husband and I got into trouble with this trend in our last evangelical church because we allowed our daughters to date at a young age, and to actually sit with their boyfriends in church. This was considered “rebellion” by the pastors, and it got us started down a pathway that eventually was used against us by a woman pastor who accused us (falsely) of all kinds of evil things (defying pastoral authority, mainly). We were brought before a tribunal of church members, several who we had never met, and we were tried, condemned, and ousted. From then on, we were shunned by that church and its members.

The point of this post is to say that I think many evangelicals who are NOT bandwagon Christians truly DO hunger and thirst after righteousness, and they will be the ones who are converted to Catholicism. This has nothing to do with how the Catholic Mass is done, BTW. The evangelicals will examine the facts and study the history and theology, and they will come into the Catholic Church even if the Mass is done poorly. Evangelicals like me and my husband have learned that anyone can put on a good “show.” The question is, is it the COMPLETE TRUTH? The Catholic Church IS the Complete Truth, because it’s the Church that Jesus Christ Himself established.

I think that what will kill evangelicalism is the same thing that is strangling the Catholic Church. I think that the prevalence of sin will kill evangelicalism and hurt (but not kill) Catholicism. People simply want to do what THEY want to do, not what God wants them to do. They won’t listen to the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think that traditionalism or modernism will “fix” this. I think that we need to pray more and sin less (not at all!). But it’s a lot easier to rag about the dancers and the rock music and priest’s Chicago Bears t-shirt under his vestments then to pray and fast and be righteous.