Protestantization of U.S. Catholicism

[Victorious]

My guess is that 40-65% of American Catholics are more protestant than Catholic in their actual beliefs and practices and will remain that way because quite frankly, why would they change. I’ve never seen Father “X” tell someone in line for communion to sit down because he knows for a fact they shouldn’t be receiving the eucharist for one reason or another. If it did I suspect that person would just go to another parish. If it happened again they would either leave the church or take care of the situation. Leaving may prove the easier option for many.

I’m afraid you may be right.

 

[Sarahforgiven]

Well I am just thankful to be entering the Catholic church. What a blessing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which means…what?

By the way, a little over a year before his death, Bl. John XXIII published Veterum sapientia, an apostolic constitution on Latin as the language of the Church. Worth a read.

Latin is the language of the Roman Church, lets be clear on that.

And which means what? Ask the people who make a big deal of other languages being translated from Latin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes and

Aren’t Ecumenical Councils infallible?

And what in my statement contradicted the Ecumenical Council?

 

[Victorious]

Latin is the language of the Roman Church, lets be clear on that.

And which means what? Ask the people who make a big deal of other languages being translated from Latin.

I still don’t get your point about Latin being a translation from Greek and Hebrew. Is it that there’s nothing particularly special about Latin? If so, neither history nor the mind of the Church bear you out.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I still don’t get your point about Latin being a translation from Greek and Hebrew. Is it that there’s nothing particularly special about Latin? If so, neither history nor the mind of the Church bear you out.

No. People have the false premise that Latin is the only thing that can faithfully carry the faith. It is not. Also, it seems that if something is translated from Latin then its substandard at best, most of the time made to seem incapable of being worthy of Liturgical use.

Mind you that Latin itself has translation issues from Greek. Take the Filioque for example. While I agree in the explanation of why the Filioque is necessary in the Latin version of the Creed, its that very reason of why it was necessary in the first place that shows that Latin itself it not a perfect language. And on the other hand, it also shows how effective a translation can be in transmitting the faith especially in the context of people who use that language. So if it works for Latin, why not English?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree; some traditionalists make it sound as if Latin is the language of God Himself and to deviate from it is a breach of a holy trust. One thing I like about the Orthodox is that they have successfully adapted the Orthodox liturgy into the tongue of each ethnic group where they have spread the faith. That includes English in the States. It’s not so much about language as it is a tearing down of piety and traditional styles of worship and other elements of the ritual that bother me. Nobody bows at the Incarnation during the Creed “was born of the Virgin Mary and became man” should be a point where one bows. People don’t pound their fist against their chest. Some don’t genuflect. Some sit comfortably after Communion when the return to the pew. Incense is almost NEVER used around these parts except on Christmas and Holy Thursday (), things have become a little too informal, holding hands during the Our Father, communion in the hand, too many EMU’s handling the Host, on and on. For me it’s not so much language but the rest of these important elements that have tainted things a bit.

No. People have the false premise that Latin is the only thing that can faithfully carry the faith. It is not. Also, it seems that if something is translated from Latin then its substandard at best, most of the time made to seem incapable of being worthy of Liturgical use.

Mind you that Latin itself has translation issues from Greek. Take the Filioque for example. While I agree in the explanation of why the Filioque is necessary in the Latin version of the Creed, its that very reason of why it was necessary in the first place that shows that Latin itself it not a perfect language. And on the other hand, it also shows how effective a translation can be in transmitting the faith especially in the context of people who use that language. So if it works for Latin, why not English?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree; some traditionalists make it sound as if Latin is the language of God Himself and to deviate from it is a breach of a holy trust. One thing I like about the Orthodox is that they have successfully adapted the Orthodox liturgy into the tongue of each ethnic group where they have spread the faith. That includes English in the States. It’s not so much about language as it is a tearing down of piety and traditional styles of worship and other elements of the ritual that bother me. Nobody bows at the Incarnation during the Creed “was born of the Virgin Mary and became man” should be a point where one bows. People don’t pound their fist against their chest. Some don’t genuflect. Some sit comfortably after Communion when the return to the pew. Incense is almost NEVER used around these parts except on Christmas and Holy Thursday (), things have become a little too informal, holding hands during the Our Father, communion in the hand, too many EMU’s handling the Host, on and on. For me it’s not so much language but the rest of these important elements that have tainted things a bit.

And tying it with the topic of the thread, many would even say that the use of vernacular language is a Protestant thing. It is not. The East has always used the vernacular or a more formal version of the current vernacular. They have never used language that is totally alien to the people in the Church.

While the Church has spoken highly of Latin, it does not condemn every other language out there. People here are too quick to make an assumption the Church never makes.

 

[JustaServant]

Maybe it’s age, but I recently transfered my membership to a parish that actually ‘looks’ like a Catholic Church.
It wasn’t the priest, he’s a wonderful man. What was it then?
It wasn’t the ‘folk masses’, a relic from the seventies that needs to be buried.
It wasn’t the inclusion of Evangelical songs and the abandonment of Catholic music.
It wasn’t the Eucharistic ministers and CITH.
What it was, was what left a sour taste in my mouth for a while:
The Tabernacle in the back of the Church by the door. People walked by without any notice, talking and laughing.
The Tabernacle belongs up on the altar, not in the back like the restroom.
I returned to the Catholic Church to be Catholic, not Protestant.

 

[ProVobis]

No. People have the false premise that Latin is the only thing that can faithfully carry the faith. It is not. Also, it seems that if something is translated from Latin then its substandard at best, most of the time made to seem incapable of being worthy of Liturgical use.

No translation is better than the original. 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?

Mind you that Latin itself has translation issues from Greek.

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.

 

[larkin31]

Maybe it’s age, but I recently transfered my membership to a parish that actually ‘looks’ like a Catholic Church.
It wasn’t the priest, he’s a wonderful man. What was it then?
It wasn’t the ‘folk masses’, a relic from the seventies that needs to be buried.
It wasn’t the inclusion of Evangelical songs and the abandonment of Catholic music.
It wasn’t the Eucharistic ministers and CITH.
What it was, was what left a sour taste in my mouth for a while:
The Tabernacle in the back of the Church by the door. People walked by without any notice, talking and laughing.
The Tabernacle belongs up on the altar, not in the back like the restroom.
I returned to the Catholic Church to be Catholic, not Protestant.

This is indeed a strange place for this. And one that I never saw in a Protestant church, either (although “Tabernacle” is not used, strictly speaking, in Protestant churches).

 

[ProVobis]

**It’s not so much about language **as it is a tearing down of piety and traditional styles of worship and other elements of the ritual that bother me.

It isn’t? Then why do I see complete reverence at all the Latin OFs I attend? I’d like to see people hold hands or dance in the aisle or other innovations during the Latin OF. When the language they use is more of a sacred nature, it makes a big difference in practices and method of worship and thus “reverence.” Sure, you may see some reverent Masses in the typical family parishes, but sooner or later they’ll break down and want the block party or Protestant atmosphere. Just a matter of time.

 

[ProVobis]

And tying it with the topic of the thread, many would even say that the use of vernacular language is a Protestant thing. It is not.

Use of more modern language was the first step in the Reformation process.

Maybe it was their own interpretations of Scriptures or the liturgy, but once the printing presses started rolling, the Reformers couldn’t carry out their agenda without making things more “understandable” for their audiences.

The doctrinal Council of Trent was convened to counter these agendas and misinterpretations. The council fathers could easily see the danger of the all-vernacular.

…
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue.
…
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
…

Interpret this anyway you want but the IMPACT of this canon retained the Latin Rite worship in Latin for 400 years. And, of course, Veterum Sapientia and Vatican II re-enforced this premise.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Pro,

Well I would say this: What if each parish offered a traditional Mass in the vernacular? It would include the priest facing the altar, incense guaranteed, all the proper gestures and piety, encourage women to wear head-coverings, all the “good stuff” that the Tridentine offered, but it would be in English? Do you think without Latin in there the Mass is doomed to innovation and impiety? I don’t.

Don’t take me wrong here. I’m FINE with the Latin Mass. In fact, my wife and I are talking about attendint the ONE they have up in Fresno each Sunday afternoon. It’s an hour drive but we considered going to it. I’m open-minded about it and I have watched them and find them lovely and reverent. So I’m NOT anti-Latin. I find it beautiful when they include a little Latin at our English Mass for things like the Agnus Dei and other parts.

But I think the Mass can be “reformed” as far as some of the taking liberties, abuses, and impious slacking-off we have all seen from time to time at Mass without throwing down an all-Latin Mass. It’s Tridentine-or-nothing when it comes to making Mass more traditional and beautiful IMO. I personally would like to see each parish have an all-Latin Tridentine Mass and a Mass that is in the vernacular but in the style of the Tridentine and all the rest very pious and kumbaya-free. I’m totally opposed to “contemporary” Mass. I went to a couple and almost called for Dramamine to relieve my desire to puke. I HATE contemporary Mass!

I think my point is valid from my experience as an Anglican. They have taken the vernacular and made it palatable and yet lovely at the same time in English with Rite I’s worship in the Prayer Book. The Anglicans in many places, including around here, are able to blend the vernacular with a pious approach in verbage and in gestures that is first-rate. I see no reason why Catholics cannot do the same. Blessings!

It isn’t? Then why do I see complete reverence at all the Latin OFs I attend? I’d like to see people hold hands or dance in the aisle or other innovations during the Latin OF. When the language they use is more of a sacred nature, it makes a big difference in practices and method of worship and thus “reverence.” Sure, you may see some reverent Masses in the typical family parishes, but sooner or later they’ll break down and want the block party or Protestant atmosphere. Just a matter of time.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi Pro,

Well I would say this: What if each parish offered a traditional Mass in the vernacular?

By vernacular you mean English-only with Latin suppression? What about the Polish or the hispanics or French who may want one in their language? (The unofficial Polish translation of the traditional Mass is beautiful too, by the way.) You want the Vatican to start authenticizing all translations of the older Mass too?

I prefer that each parish abide by the doctrines of Trent, the decrees of Veterum Sapientia, the guidelines of Vatican II, and the legalities of Canon Law (especially #249). Also the 1962 Missal is to be said in Latin only and by a priest who knows good Latin. That means no all-vernacular all-the-time stuff. To me the Mass is not a show designed only to pack-em in.

Also consider what Cardinal Arinze has said on the matter in 2006:

"…Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.

"It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

“It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth.”

Does Protestantism carry its own sacred language that can be traced to the early days of the Church? I rest my case.

 

[FredM]

How about people that don’t genuflect when passing before the Blessed Sacrament?

I had a sense it was something I should do long before I became a catholic.

Fred

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

With all due respect, Pro, your case isn’t rested. Just because a language can be traced back to the beginnings of the Church in different areas doesn’t mean Our Lord ordained that forever that language is sacrosanct and totally set in stone as the language of God Himself. The Greeks in the East used Greek and yet when they have sent missionaries to different countries, they maintained the local language of the people who converted. The Ukrainian Orthodox speak Ukrainian, Russian speak Russian, Serbians utilize their dialect and language, etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It is made tangiable to the people, is more meaningful to many, and oddly enough do you notice that the Orthodox have kept the purity and consistency and beauties of their liturgy in every country they’ve spread to WHILE adapting the language to local folks. Isn’t that odd? So the Orthodox, who started off with Greek, have successfully spread the faith and the lovely liturgy they have, unspoiled, and untainted to many lands to this very day. So, your contention that God somehow intended all the West to speak Latin for all time is one I fail to see proven at all. And your post sounds hostile and angry with phrases like “By vernacular you mean English-only with Latin suppression?” I made it clear that I personally think all parishes should offer a Latin Mass. But is it the be-all/end-all totality of what the Mass is always and everywhere? Nope. And nobody said that Mass is a silly pack-em-in joke that you imply that people who disagree with your view take. Nonsense. The Catholic Church is bigger than Gurney and ProVobis and they’re doing what they think the people need to be fed. I’ll defer to the powers-that-be over you and myself here.

And is there a “sacred language?” at all anyway? Latin was once a typical, daily language that was spread all through the Roman Empire. It was the language of trade and discourse and theology, etc. God didn’t put it in stone chiseled somewhere as the sacred tongue. Jesus spoke Aramaic so to be true to Our Saviour, perhaps it would be better to resurrect Aramaic. What do you think?

By vernacular you mean English-only with Latin suppression? What about the Polish or the hispanics or French who may want one in their language? (The unofficial Polish translation of the traditional Mass is beautiful too, by the way.) You want the Vatican to start authenticizing all translations of the older Mass too?

I prefer that each parish abide by the doctrines of Trent, the decrees of Veterum Sapientia, the guidelines of Vatican II, and the legalities of Canon Law (especially #249). Also the 1962 Missal is to be said in Latin only and by a priest who knows good Latin. That means no all-vernacular all-the-time stuff. To me the Mass is not a show designed only to pack-em in.

Also consider what Cardinal Arinze has said on the matter in 2006:

Does Protestantism carry its own sacred language that can be traced to the early days of the Church? I rest my case.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya, Fred. It should be a natural thing! It’s a no-brainer IMO, too.

How about people that don’t genuflect when passing before the Blessed Sacrament?

I had a sense it was something I should do long before I became a catholic.

Fred

 

[ProVobis]

With all due respect, Pro, your case isn’t rested. Just because a language can be traced back to the beginnings of the Church in different areas doesn’t mean Our Lord ordained that forever that language is sacrosanct and totally set in stone as the language of God Himself. The Greeks in the East used Greek and yet when they have sent missionaries to different countries, they maintained the local language of the people who converted. The Ukrainian Orthodox speak Ukrainian, Russian speak Russian, Serbians utilize their dialect and language, etc. I see nothing wrong with that.

I have no problems with that. From Veterum Sapientia:

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

Jesus spoke Aramaic so to be true to Our Saviour, perhaps it would be better to resurrect Aramaic. What do you think?

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

 

[JustaServant]

Hi Pro,

Well I would say this: What if each parish offered a traditional Mass in the vernacular? It would include the priest facing the altar, incense guaranteed, all the proper gestures and piety, encourage women to wear head-coverings, all the “good stuff” that the Tridentine offered, but it would be in English? Do you think without Latin in there the Mass is doomed to innovation and impiety? I don’t.

Don’t take me wrong here. I’m FINE with the Latin Mass. In fact, my wife and I are talking about attendint the ONE they have up in Fresno each Sunday afternoon. It’s an hour drive but we considered going to it. I’m open-minded about it and I have watched them and find them lovely and reverent. So I’m NOT anti-Latin. I find it beautiful when they include a little Latin at our English Mass for things like the Agnus Dei and other parts.

But I think the Mass can be “reformed” as far as some of the taking liberties, abuses, and impious slacking-off we have all seen from time to time at Mass without throwing down an all-Latin Mass. It’s Tridentine-or-nothing when it comes to making Mass more traditional and beautiful IMO. I personally would like to see each parish have an all-Latin Tridentine Mass and a Mass that is in the vernacular but in the style of the Tridentine and all the rest very pious and kumbaya-free. I’m totally opposed to “contemporary” Mass. I went to a couple and almost called for Dramamine to relieve my desire to puke. I HATE contemporary Mass!

I think my point is valid from my experience as an Anglican. They have taken the vernacular and made it palatable and yet lovely at the same time in English with Rite I’s worship in the Prayer Book. The Anglicans in many places, including around here, are able to blend the vernacular with a pious approach in verbage and in gestures that is first-rate. I see no reason why Catholics cannot do the same. Blessings!

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.