Progressive Philippines Catholicism

[Layman]

Wait so a more fanciful ceremony will incite a higher collection rate? Again, your ignorance, nay insensitivity to a culture’s poverty-stricken, third-world environment is appalling. People are already scraping the bottom of the barrel (even the middle class) and you expect them to shed more cash for a high-maintenance Mass? I thought we were trying to keep the Church open for all not give them more reason to stop going.

The TLM was said for 1000+ years, worldwide, in cathedrals and local chapels, in varying economic circumstances. This is, comparatively, an era of luxury. Also, ‘the poor are always with us’.

The perception of holiness is the ulimate draw. The perception that the priests are trying to gain God’s favour would help. The O.F. is currently said towards the people, often in bare modern churches, in the local language, to banal hymns. In pure theatrical terms, what’s inspiring about that? Want to inspire people? ‘Take them out of themselves’?. That’s not the way to go.

Poverty is nothing new in the history of the Roman Catholic church. What’s new is the de-Romanisation and democraticisation of our religion. The puerile minimalism. The stylisation of icons. The relentless chasing after the people instead of putting first Who the rite is supposed to be directed to.

My goodness, priests have, at their disposal, the means and authority to put on a show that dwarfs any rock concert or other theatre. Yet we get ‘Bind Us Together’ and Mrs. Goodlady handing out the Sacred Matter. Touted as good, mind you. As being better than what we had before.

 

[ProVobis]

All of this foolishness about nationalizing liturgies is in fact dangerous to the culture of the nation. **The Gospel produces, develops, purifies and informs authentic culture **: not and never the other way around. Again, I would point to pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec with post-Quiet Revolution Quebec.

Yes, but what is this source of “the” Gospel? Some translation? Tell me how this is always authentic and promotes the same understanding worldwide. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to “sneak” in two suns into your Gospels, would not this create still another culture among the gullibles? Isn’t this what Cardinal Arinze warns against in his 2006 document?

 

[ProVobis]

The TLM was said for 1000+ years, worldwide, in cathedrals and local chapels, in varying economic circumstances. This is, comparatively, an era of luxury. Also, ‘the poor are always with us’.

Indeed. The TLM’s been said in the middle of warfields, jungles, gymnasiums, hospitals, and prisons with soldiers and civilians from all sides and allegiances and cultures in attendance.

But now, everyone seems to wants his own Mass, specially tailored to his own circle of friends, neighbors, and associates in accordance with their lifestyles. And if it excludes anyone because of language or liturgical innovations, that’s their problem.

 

[malphono]

All of this foolishness about nationalizing liturgies is in fact dangerous to the culture of the nation. The Gospel produces, develops, purifies and informs authentic culture : not and never the other way around.

I basically agree with the premise that liturgical “inculturation” is generally unnecessary at best.

Again, I would point to pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec with post-Quiet Revolution Quebec.

What the Quiet Revolution has to do with liturgical “inculturation” is beyond me.

 

[Timothy17]

I basically agree with the premise that liturgical “inculturation” is generally unnecessary at best.

What the Quiet Revolution has to do with liturgical “inculturation” is beyond me.

I am assuming many people innocently desire their culture to benefit from the Mass. As an example, I demonstrated one culture that certainly did - the Quebecois, even during centuries of attempts to nullify their culture, all the while they flourished as a people, as a culture. The Quiet Revolution of the 60s and 70s was the secularization of Quebec, when Quebec became, as I said, like all other secular societies. I delineated the two (pre- and post-Revolution) because I would not hold up modern, secular Quebec as an example of Gospel inculturation. This example demonstrates that the Mass is more like a seed for culture rather than a canvas to be rearranged by present or local culture.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The TLM was said for 1000+ years, worldwide, in cathedrals and local chapels, in varying economic circumstances. This is, comparatively, an era of luxury. Also, ‘the poor are always with us’.

Yet Marx managed to lump us in with the elite and upper classes. Let’s not prove his point now shall we?

The perception of holiness is the ulimate draw. The perception that the priests are trying to gain God’s favour would help. The O.F. is currently said towards the people, often in bare modern churches, in the local language, to banal hymns. In pure theatrical terms, what’s inspiring about that? Want to inspire people? ‘Take them out of themselves’?. That’s not the way to go.

Again, you’re not answering the question. You think employing a much costlier mass is the solution? More like an invitation to closure.

 

[Timothy17]

Again, you’re not answering the question. You think employing a much costlier mass is the solution? More like an invitation to closure.

I don’t see why it would necessarily be costlier. Generally Churches are built and furnished by gifts from the laity. There is no Church tax. I believe there is an underlying assumption by many “Traditional Catholics” that the more beautifully, and the more reverently the Mass is celebrated, the more inspired Catholics will be to furnish their Faith, to furnish their Churches.

Recall also our Lord’s being annointed with expensive perfumes as gift from one who loved Him - he did not rebuke this action ; in fact, he defended it, even though one of his disciples was scandalized by it, claiming it ought to have rather been sold and given to the poor. Our priests are the sons of the Princes of the Church (the Bishops), it can be an embarassment if our princes live in poverty while we live well. It can be embarassing even if we are not living well, as they embody us as a nation, as a people. The desire to glorify Mother Church and the Priesthood is intrinsically a desire to glorify Christ, to give glory to God Most High.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Recall also our Lord’s being annointed with expensive perfumes as gift from one who loved Him - he did not rebuke this action ; in fact, he defended it, even though one of his disciples was scandalized by it, claiming it ought to have rather been sold and given to the poor. Our priests are the sons of the Princes of the Church (the Bishops), it can be an embarassment if our princes live in poverty while we live well. It can be embarassing even if we are not living well, as they embody us as a nation, as a people. The desire to glorify Mother Church and the Priesthood is intrinsically a desire to glorify Christ, to give glory to God Most High.

Let’s be practical here. With more than half the population suffering below the poverty line, do you really think we can even afford this? Must we really start pitting our desire to glorify God via costly masses and cathedrals and the commandment to serve the least of our brethren? You can’t have both, not in this country. It’s either you pour all your resources for one thing or another. Trying to give equal shares will just give less and take even longer for anything to happen.

 

[Layman]

Yet Marx managed to lump us in with the elite and upper classes. Let’s not prove his point now shall we?

Again, you’re not answering the question. You think employing a much costlier mass is the solution? More like an invitation to closure.

As the previous poster has pointed out the ‘What about the poor’ response to nice churches misses the point. God must be glorified. And you don’t need to spend a lot of money to evoke beauty. I’ve seen a picture of a Mexican altar strung with fairy lights that looked lovely. Paint, icons, darkness, candles, chant, vestments and a pious priest, that’s what you need.

If the Church liquidated all its assets I doubt it would help the poor much, long term, but we would be very much poorer spiritually.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As the previous poster has pointed out the ‘What about the poor’ response to nice churches misses the point. God must be glorified. And you don’t need to spend a lot of money to evoke beauty. I’ve seen a picture of a Mexican altar strung with fairy lights that looked lovely. Paint, icons, darkness, candles, chant, vestments and a pious priest, that’s what you need.

Again, you demonstrate your short-sightedness of just how poor this nation is.

 

[malphono]

I am assuming many people innocently desire their culture to benefit from the Mass. As an example, I demonstrated one culture that certainly did - the Quebecois, even during centuries of attempts to nullify their culture, all the while they flourished as a people, as a culture. The Quiet Revolution of the 60s and 70s was the secularization of Quebec, when Quebec became, as I said, like all other secular societies. I delineated the two (pre- and post-Revolution) because I would not hold up modern, secular Quebec as an example of Gospel inculturation. This example demonstrates that the Mass is more like a seed for culture rather than a canvas to be rearranged by present or local culture.

I’m quite familiar with the Quiet Revolution. Nonetheless, and maybe I’m just being dense, but to me the example demonstrates nothing whatsoever with regard to the topic of LITURGICAL “inculturation” which is the point of this entire thread.

 

[patrick457]

Let’s be practical here. With more than half the population suffering below the poverty line, do you really think we can even afford this? Must we really start pitting our desire to glorify God via costly masses and cathedrals and the commandment to serve the least of our brethren? You can’t have both, not in this country. It’s either you pour all your resources for one thing or another. Trying to give equal shares will just give less and take even longer for anything to happen.

As I said, we may be one of the poorest countries out there, yes, but I see no need to make it an all-purpose excuse to not give our best. Yes, I don’t dispute that fact as I’ve experienced it, but trying to bring the whole fact of poverty up every now and then, effectively making it an excuse, kind of reminds me (I’ll be frank here) of some Japanese’s over-emphasis of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An true and undeniable fact, but something we don’t need to play up than what is required of us. After all, other countries that have higher poverty rates than us do exist.

Yes, we are poor, but that’s not the end of it. Before we complain about the horrible state our country is in, why not first rattle those politicians who hoard the national treasuries for their personal gain (and oh Lord, we all know who they are)? Or better yet, why not start with ourselves? We may not know it, but could it also be the case that WE are contributing (in an indirect manner) to the decrepit state of the Philippines?

As mentioned, God must be glorified in all things. I’ll bet that for many of these people, these ‘squatters’ who scavenge for a living, the beauty of the sanctuary might be the only thing they could get closest to Heaven in their earthly life.

This reminds me of a story Fr. Mitch Pacwa once told (it was in EWTN Live, I think): there was once this church in the poorer regions of South America. The church was really, shall we say, grand: the sanctuary area was even decorated with gold. A new priest was assigned to the parish, and one of his first ideas was: to strip off all the gold and decorations in the church and sell them, using the proceeds to give to the poor of the parish. It was when a group of people asked him to not sell them (even threatening to kill him if he did so!), because all those gold were the only beautiful things that they had, and they would never allow themselves to be parted from them.
Guess who this group was: it was the beggars, the poor parishioners for whose sake the priest planned to sell the ‘treasures’ of that church.

 

[benedictgal]

One of the concerns that I have is the seemingly misinformation about the EF that I read into the text of the “progressives’” statement. I did some research on the EF and the OF and I found this quote from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, circa 1990, regarding the subject.

I wish to comment on that what concerns the unity of the Roman rite. This unity is not threatened by small communities using the indult, who are often treated as lepers, as people doing something indecent, even immoral. No, the unity of the Roman rite is threatened by the wild creativity, often encouraged by liturgists (in Germany, for instance, there is propaganda for the project Missale 2000, which presumes that the Missal of Paul VI has already been superseded). I repeat that which was said in my speech: the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called ”creative” applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation, the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform. To oppose the Indult of 1984 (1988) in the name of the unity of the Roman rite, is – in my experience – an attitude far removed from reality. Besides, I am sorry that you did not perceive in my speech the invitation to the ”traditionalists” to be open to the Council and to reconcile themselves to it in the hope of overcoming one day the split between the two Missals.

The highlighted section of this quote, I believe, cuts to the very heart of what I fear this group is advocating in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, at least in my part of Texas, I have seen this wild creativity and it is not a good thing. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity. It seems that the “progressives” advocating a Mulligan’s stew sort of liturgy seem to have forgotten the phrase “Lex orandi, Lex credendi.”

 

[benedictgal]

As I said, we may be one of the poorest countries out there, yes, but I see no need to make it an all-purpose excuse to not give our best. Yes, I don’t dispute that fact as I’ve experienced it, but trying to bring the whole fact of poverty up every now and then, effectively making it an excuse, kind of reminds me (I’ll be frank here) of some Japanese’s over-emphasis of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An true and undeniable fact, but something we don’t need to play up than what is required of us. After all, other countries that have higher poverty rates than us do exist.

Yes, we are poor, but that’s not the end of it. Before we complain about the horrible state our country is in, why not first rattle those politicians who hoard the national treasuries for their personal gain (and oh Lord, we all know who they are)? Or better yet, why not start with ourselves? We may not know it, but could it also be the case that WE are contributing (in an indirect manner) to the decrepit state of the Philippines?

As mentioned, God must be glorified in all things. I’ll bet that for many of these people, these ‘squatters’ who scavenge for a living, the beauty of the sanctuary might be the only thing they could get closest to Heaven in their earthly life.

This reminds me of a story Fr. Mitch Pacwa once told (it was in EWTN Live, I think): there was once this church in the poorer regions of South America. The church was really, shall we say, grand: the sanctuary area was even decorated with gold. A new priest was assigned to the parish, and one of his first ideas was: to strip off all the gold and decorations in the church and sell them, using the proceeds to give to the poor of the parish. It was when a group of people asked him to not sell them (even threatening to kill him if he did so!), because all those gold were the only beautiful things that they had, and they would never allow themselves to be parted from them.
Guess who this group was: it was the beggars, the poor parishioners for whose sake the priest planned to sell the ‘treasures’ of that church.

Remember, too, that Judas seemed to have a concern for the poor when he chastised the woman for buying costly oil to annoint Jesus. Jesus told him not to condemn her. “The poor you will have with you always, but you will not have me”, was his reply. While we are called to love the poor, the first commandment is to Love God. Loving God means giving him the best that we have.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The highlighted section of this quote, I believe, cuts to the very heart of what I fear this group is advocating in the Phillipines.

What is the group advocating specifically?

A lot has been said about imaginary scenarios of what could be done about the Liturgy. When if fact nobody here can even say what exactly is going to be done. And we’re fighting over what? Speculation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Remember, too, that Judas seemed to have a concern for the poor when he chastised the woman for buying costly oil to annoint Jesus. Jesus told him not to condemn her. “The poor you will have with you always, but you will not have me”, was his reply. While we are called to love the poor, the first commandment is to Love God. Loving God means giving him the best that we have.

And loving God also means loving the least of our brethren. But since describing the situation of the poor in the Philippines over and over again doesn’t seem to connect with anyone here, let me just paint a picture for everyone:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...vzChlo&t=1&usg=__ZyBd3EfUPc2qmvy1KIRMwYUARyI=

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...CdoMH0&t=1&usg=__yFmQ8E_MZQHE31r1G-piXFeA968=

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...aKavNg&t=1&usg=__7avLWPOvC7loN7OCBtWBMQWSaEY=

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ThLeWI&t=1&usg=__TH7g6QrUTue9eFOnvZDJN7PT3Dg=

 

[Ockham]

What is the group advocating specifically?

A lot has been said about imaginary scenarios of what could be done about the Liturgy. When if fact nobody here can even say what exactly is going to be done. And we’re fighting over what? Speculation?

Read the OP.

You are fighting against the country’s bishops.

 

[benedictgal]

What is the group advocating specifically?

A lot has been said about imaginary scenarios of what could be done about the Liturgy. When if fact nobody here can even say what exactly is going to be done. And we’re fighting over what? Speculation?

At the risk of quoting Udo Kier in Andy Warhol’s Dracula, “I have heard that before”, I really have heard that before. I went to an Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions convention seven years ago in San Antonio. In fact, I still have the notes from it. A lot of what was mentioned in the OP was discussed (different wording used) during some of the breakout sessions among the various regions. Sadly, some of these things started creeping up in various locations.

As I see it, we are not called to be creative with the liturgy. We are called to receive this immense treasure with love and keep its integrity intact.

 

[ConstantineTG]

At the risk of quoting Udo Kier in Andy Warhol’s Dracula, “I have heard that before”, I really have heard that before. I went to an Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions convention seven years ago in San Antonio. In fact, I still have the notes from it. A lot of what was mentioned in the OP was discussed (different wording used) during some of the breakout sessions among the various regions. Sadly, some of these things started creeping up in various locations.

As I see it, we are not called to be creative with the liturgy. We are called to receive this immense treasure with love and keep its integrity intact.

Sure, I agree. But still nothing specific has been laid out. For all we know they just copies the words from other people. They don’t need to change the Liturgy to effect changes, there are many things that can be changed within the Liturgy without affecting the Liturgy. For example, the sign of peace can be made into something that has more cultural significance as a sign of peace. Also I read the other links where they talk about re-translation. I’m not totally against that. As I mentioned in the past I think the Tagalog used is antiquated and more will benefit from an updated text.

 

[Layman]

Consider this: there’s nothing specific because they have no idea what they’re going to do.