Protestantization of U.S. Catholicism

[gurneyhalleck1]

The first Christians worshipped in synagogues and in catacombs. While I adore sacred art and a beautiful parish Church building, we can truly focus on the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass and worshipping our Lord in a bomb shelter if we’re spiritually mature. I’m not a fan of the “cafeteria catholic” term. I don’t think people are so much confused as it’s just less reverent and rushed also. I was laughing at the amount of acronyms in your post, Justa. NC, TLM, OF It makes me think of Good Morning Vietnam when Robin Williams says ~ Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn’t we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we’d all be put on KP~

Over on the non-Catholic religions sub forum they have a thread about the purpose of NC worship. The answers from NCs are all over the place. Because the centerpiece of Catholic worship, the Eucharist, is missing.
The problem with contemporary Mass as I see it is not that the Eucharist is missing, it’s not. The problem is the distractions around it can take away from the reverance and thus many cafeteria Catholics can become confused about the purpose of worship. In a TLM, or a reverant OF, there is no doubt WHY we are there.
Architecture is important too. One parish in town could easily be renovated into a Baptist church. If not for the sign out front, I would never know it WAS a Catholic parish.

 

[Victorious]

While I adore sacred art and a beautiful parish Church building, we can truly focus on the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass and worshipping our Lord in a bomb shelter if we’re spiritually mature.

Well, if you’re spiritually mature, that’s wonderful. But the rest of us are spiritually immature, or weak, or easily distracted, or preoccupied, or otherwise have a hard time focusing. So Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, has always provided a remedy: distractions that pitch our attention back to where it belongs, to wit, statues, icons, stained glass windows, beautiful architecture, etc. As Winston Churchill said: we shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us.

Besides all of which: it is most fitting that we should make God’s house as beautiful as we can make it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No translation is better than the original.

Scrap the Latin then and lets go Aramaic.

Mind you that many Church documents even today are not in Latin originally. They are made in a different language then translated into Latin.

And there is something wrong with several hundred translations all coming out with different meanings and interpretations. Why is the English OF so much different than the Latin OF or the Polish OF? Why does the English Mass need to be retranslated every 40 years?

To keep it relevant. We can translate the Latin to Shakespearean English which would be hundreds of years old today, unchangable, and still understandable today. Would that be acceptable to you?

The earliest Greek documents we have are translations too. But here’s the thing, the Church has made Latin and Greek and several other Eastern languages THE standard by which we base our faith, if I read the Council of Trent, Veterum Sapientia, and Vatican II correctly. The EF and the OF were both promulgated in Latin, meaning that’s the way it was intended that they be said. There was no provision in the major documents of having a Mass totally said in the modern languages. In fact Trent placed an anathema (read, automatic EXCOMMUNICATION) on anyone for even suggesting that it does.

Well that has changed since then. Keeping Liturgy in Latin is not part of the deposit of faith and therefore a changable discipline.

 

[MusicforMovies]

Pointing the finger at the traditionalists again?

Vatican II, or more specifically SC, did not change much. In fact, it reinforced much of Trent. However, the “spirit of Vatican II” attempted to undo Trent, which reaffirmed the Catholic position against the Reformers. I say we have a ways to go before SC is fully or even partially, implemented.

My own take on it all, as a convert, is that Vatican II was wonderful - a great gift to the Church - and then… and then came people with their own agendas who took Vatican II as an excuse, a forced justification, for their own ideas of what liturgy, doctrine, morality, and everything else should be like. (i.e. removing altar railings, statues, artwork - mocking devotions to Our Lady)

It’s only now, finally, that it seems that the Church is slowly getting back to the original intent of Vatican II.

 

[Layman]

I don’t know that Vat. II proposed any radical changes. However, priests were altering the Mass before it. I understand the New Mass was meant to be an answer to that experimentation, but it seems to have continued regardless.

The sad thing is now, with the decline of religious teaching and the resulting ignorance of the old rite, it’s a job of work to set up, maintain and grow a Latin Sung Mass. The schools that taught it now no longer do. Enthusiasts now have to go treasure-hunting, so to speak.

I invite anyone reading this, who can sing, to try to join a schola. You’ll be surprised at the depth and variety in the chant, propers and ordinary of the old rite.

Insisting on English (or Aramaic) means that, what, 500+ years of liturgical development can now be ignored.

Aim high and you may surprise yourself. Set an easy target and you might not even reach that.

 

[Victorious]

I don’t know that Vat. II proposed any radical changes. However, priests were altering the Mass before it. I understand the New Mass was meant to be an answer to that experimentation, but it seems to have continued regardless.

The sad thing is now, with the decline of religious teaching and the resulting ignorance of the old rite, it’s a job of work to set up, maintain and grow a Latin Sung Mass. The schools that taught it now no longer do. Enthusiasts now have to go treasure-hunting, so to speak.

I invite anyone reading this, who can sing, to try to join a schola. You’ll be surprised at the depth and variety in the chant, propers and ordinary of the old rite.

Insisting on English (or Aramaic) means that, what, 500+ years of liturgical development can now be ignored.

Aim high and you may surprise yourself. Set an easy target and you might not even reach that.

Vatican II DIDN’T require the massive changes that followed in its wake. It was merely the excuse for them. Vatican II explicitly stated, among other things, that Gregorian chant is to have pride of place in the liturgy, that all rites were to be preserved, and that the faithful were to be instructed in Latin Mass parts.

I am in a chant schola. It is an uphill battle out there. It’s like nobody is interested in the faith at all where we are. There are only four of us, and it’s like pulling teeth to get more: people come for one or two rehearsals, and then quit. Once we were invited to do the music for Easter Sunday at a local parish, and during Mass the priest publicly vouchsafed his opinion during Mass about how boring the music was. The one priest who did welcome us (to the great consternation of his congregation) is now being transferred, so we are back again to square one.

It is a jungle out there. Traditional worship is coming back in many places, but in many others, there is still a lot of opposition and downright hatred for it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think one needs to have images to focus one’s prayers. I pray with my daughter at night by her bedside. We pray the Our Father, Hail Mary, Hail Holy Queen, Fatima Prayer, and a personal prayer to Jesus and Mary. We put a lot of heart into our prayers and she has memorized them all. Her own prayers come from the heart. We don’t need a statue or icon to stare at to keep us focused. So if not needing images to keep my interest and my focus on Christ, then I guess I’m more mature than I thought! I often pray while I’m on my way to work and actually focus really well. I think it’s possible to lose focus on the homily or liturgy, in fact, if one gets too caught up in the artwork. I have gone to San Francisco to Mass before at Old St. Mary’s and the St. Francis of Assisi Churches and I’ll tell you, I actually got distracted from the homily and liturgy a bit because the art was so jaw-dropping.

I’m not an iconoclast but I don’t feel art is a must, a deal-breaker. The Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as I said, used to be said in catacombs by candle-light and in synagogues and heck, even in homes. Some probably had some art (I know some catacombs had art) and some didn’t.

As far as making God’s house beautiful, no objection there.

Well, if you’re spiritually mature, that’s wonderful. But the rest of us are spiritually immature, or weak, or easily distracted, or preoccupied, or otherwise have a hard time focusing. So Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, has always provided a remedy: distractions that pitch our attention back to where it belongs, to wit, statues, icons, stained glass windows, beautiful architecture, etc. As Winston Churchill said: we shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us.

Besides all of which: it is most fitting that we should make God’s house as beautiful as we can make it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What are they trying to destroy of Aramaic? Last time I checked there were about 400,000 Aramaic-speakers in the entire world. Most of them have arabicized the language and most are Muslims. I don’t know of any systematic attempt to wipe Aramaic from any liturgies

I have no problems with that. From Veterum Sapientia:

Resurrect Aramaic or preserve whatever they’re trying to destroy of that as well?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not an iconoclast but I don’t feel art is a must, a deal-breaker. The Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as I said, used to be said in catacombs by candle-light and in synagogues and heck, even in homes. Some probably had some art (I know some catacombs had art) and some didn’t.

The reason they do the Mass in the Catacombs because of the relics of the Saints are there. They could easily find a secluded cave somewhere else if they need to escape persecution.

I used to think that art may be unnecessary as well. But it changed when I joined an Eastern parish. Try to find the explanation for icons in the East and see if it changes your view as well.

 

[Victorious]

I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think one needs to have images to focus one’s prayers. I pray with my daughter at night by her bedside. We pray the Our Father, Hail Mary, Hail Holy Queen, Fatima Prayer, and a personal prayer to Jesus and Mary. We put a lot of heart into our prayers and she has memorized them all. Her own prayers come from the heart. We don’t need a statue or icon to stare at to keep us focused.

But you’re just two people. Then there are the rest of us. I cannot tell you what a struggle it is for me to keep my attention focused on prayer, especially in a bare chapel with no icons or – what is worse – Jackson-Pollock-like meanderings. I am not a spring chicken, and I have a doctorate-level degree; yet I still need the aid of beautiful pictures and statues to help me.

Who needs more TLC: the spiritually mature, or the weak? Should we not give the weak what they need, just because others don’t need it? For centuries, the Church, in her delicacy, took care of her easily-distracted children. Then, somewhere along the line, modern “art” and “architechture” reached their slimy tentacles in, and we went to early Communist bunker. And it’s a disaster. There is nothing inspiring in this. Like Mother Angelica said: if you go into a church that looks like a garage, you come out feeling as though you’ve been in a garage.

 

[Victorious]

I used to think that art may be unnecessary as well. But it changed when I joined an Eastern parish. Try to find the explanation for icons in the East and see if it changes your view as well.

Yes. Bingo. Symbols are important to Catholics, and the best art – whether it’s Eastern iconography or stained-glass windows – is replete with symbols, and with meaning. There is a great deal of food for contemplation there.

In this connection, I always think of the tilma of Guadalupe (drawn, of course, by Him Who made what it depicts). It is more than just a beautiful picture of the Mother of God. It is a summation of the Catholic faith.

 

[ProVobis]

The Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as I said, used to be said in catacombs by candle-light and in synagogues and heck, even in homes. Some probably had some art (I know some catacombs had art) and some didn’t.

Do we really want to go there?

PIUS XII: Mediator Dei, 1947:The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavour of antiquity. More recent liturgical rites are also worthy of reverence and respect, because they too have been introduced under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is with the Church in all ages even to the consummation of the world . . .the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black excluded from the liturgical colours, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches . . . This attitude is an attempt to revive the ‘archaeologism’ to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in her capacity of watchful guardian of ‘the deposit of faith’ entrusted to her by her Divine Founder has rightly condemned.

 

[ProVobis]

Insisting on English (or Aramaic) means that, what, 500+ years of liturgical development can now be ignored.

Not to mention the countless who died for the Traditional Latin Mass in England. (I heard this from Michael Davies himself at a seminar in Rockford,Il several years ago.)

Traditional Latin Mass in English is an oxymoron.

 

[MusicforMovies]

I am in a chant schola. It is an uphill battle out there. It’s like nobody is interested in the faith at all where we are. There are only four of us, and it’s like pulling teeth to get more: people come for one or two rehearsals, and then quit. Once we were invited to do the music for Easter Sunday at a local parish, and during Mass the priest publicly vouchsafed his opinion during Mass about how boring the music was. The one priest who did welcome us (to the great consternation of his congregation) is now being transferred, so we are back again to square one.

I’ve found Gregorian chant to be very beautiful - when done well. I wish you the best of blessings as you continue the ‘uphill battle.’ For myself I’ve collected some of the older Catholic hymn books out there for the chant. A Deacon friend of mine gave me his old St. Basil’s hymnal, but I’m still hoping to get my hands on the Liber Usualis someday.

 

[Victorious]

I’ve found Gregorian chant to be very beautiful - when done well. I wish you the best of blessings as you continue the ‘uphill battle.’ For myself I’ve collected some of the older Catholic hymn books out there for the chant. A Deacon friend of mine gave me his old St. Basil’s hymnal, but I’m still hoping to get my hands on the Liber Usualis someday.

Thank you. Fortunately, a lot of the most important chants are online, both scores and audio. The Adoremus hymnal has several settings for the Ordinary of the Mass – and now that the new English translation of the Missal is coming out, and the English chant settings are out the window, there may well be a trove of discarded hymnals out there in the not-too-distant future.

(And incidentally, with few exceptions, I maintain that chant and English really do not mix. They dance very clumsily together.)

 

[MusicforMovies]

Thank you. Fortunately, a lot of the most important chants are online, both scores and audio. The Adoremus hymnal has several settings for the Ordinary of the Mass – and now that the new English translation of the Missal is coming out, and the English chant settings are out the window, there may well be a trove of discarded hymnals out there in the not-too-distant future.

(And incidentally, with few exceptions, I maintain that chant and English really do not mix. They dance very clumsily together.)

Can’t believe I forgot the Adoremus hymnal - which I have. Yes, the new translation - or rather I’d say the old one as it fits pretty closely to what you would find in Pre-Vactican II Missals (Latin one page, and English on the other) - will provide a new opportunity for new music and hopefully a resurgence of the usage of Latin and chant, but we’ll have to wait and see.

I know that some of the publishers of Catholic music were planning on attempting to change the texts of some of their bestsellers to conform to the new translation, but my own feeling is that new music will have to be written and adopted instead - as far as contemporary hymns. Naturally, I think all of the confusion of English and Spanish Masses would be mute if we just went back to the Latin - one language - makes it a lot easier.

 

[Victorious]

Can’t believe I forgot the Adoremus hymnal - which I have. Yes, the new translation - or rather I’d say the old one as it fits pretty closely to what you would find in Pre-Vactican II Missals (Latin one page, and English on the other) - will provide a new opportunity for new music and hopefully a resurgence of the usage of Latin and chant, but we’ll have to wait and see.

I know that some of the publishers of Catholic music were planning on attempting to change the texts of some of their bestsellers to conform to the new translation, but my own feeling is that new music will have to be written and adopted instead - as far as contemporary hymns. Naturally, I think all of the confusion of English and Spanish Masses would be mute if we just went back to the Latin - one language - makes it a lot easier.

I would not mind seeing the last of most English Mass settings that are now widely used. In fact, I can’t think of any good ones: all the ones in use in my diocese are terrible. As far as it being best to stick to Latin, Bl. Pope John XXIII thought so too.

 

[Victorious]

ProVobis, thank you for mentioning Ven. Pius XII on antiquarianism.

 

[mark_a]

If the Catholic Church were really “catholic” shouldn’t we embrace our diversity rather than try to subversively dismantle the “style” we don’t like?

There’s no fight like a family fight.

 

[Timothy17]

The Latin liturgical formula are i) exact, and ii) fixed, which means to learn them is to learn the Faith, and the very mind of the Catholic Church, which is the mind of Christ. Latin, exactly because it is a language confined to the sacred and used solely by the Church, becomes perfect for use and study by Christians in all things pertaining to our Faith and religion. Latin, Greek and Hebrew were the original languages that promulgated the goods news, “Here is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” No other languages can claim that specific, and divinely sanctioned, dignity. The language of our liturgical books, therefore, point immediately and directly to the Cross for their justification.

Technically speaking, someone should be able to learn the Faith by learning the Mass ; however, the vulgar is highly subject to personal interpretation and imagination ; in fact, it is supposed to be. The sacred languages resist all such efforts at perversion and betray every novelty, which is exactly why the Reformers were wont to remove the Latin original and supplant an equivocal vulgar, and from there replace whatsoever they desired to replace.

The Church, for such reasons as given above, but by no means restricted to them, therefor prefers Latin. To learn the Latin of the Mass is to learn the Faith exactly.

Pax,
Tim