Protestantization of U.S. Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_in_Dallas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave_in_Dallas said:
After coming back to the Catholic church last year I am surprised about how many factions there are with in the church – to the extent that many people claim that the others aren’t really Catholics. At the very least the polemics hurled from TLM/EF vs OF sure looks like most other denomination wars with in the U.S. and sure lacks love and “universality”.
The condemnation of other parishes’ sanctuaries because they don’t meet with your approval of what “holy” should look like or the music or singing is not to your style sure smells of protestantism, i.e. Baptist vs methodist vs Presbyterian, etc. or maybe even the polemics of East vs West church.
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?
Click to expand...
Different opinions yes but our beliefs are still ONE unlike Protestants. If you throw out a Catholic teaching you disagree with you are no longer Catholic.
 
Dave_in_Dallas said:
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?
Click to expand...
The real common denominator in diversity was the Latin Mass. Huh! How can this be? Whether you lived in Poland, Germany, France, England, Spain, Mexico or the U.S. all could follow the same Latin Mass irregardless of your native language. The Mass in the vernacular forces one to seek out their own. It polarizes rather than unites. It has a type of Tower of Babel effect which is not a good thing.
 
Nostradennis said:
The real common denominator in diversity was the Latin Mass. Huh! How can this be? Whether you lived in Poland, Germany, France, England, Spain, Mexico or the U.S. all could follow the same Latin Mass irregardless of your native language. The Mass in the vernacular forces one to seek out their own. It polarizes rather than unites. It has a type of Tower of Babel effect which is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it God who made the diverse languages at the Tower of Babel?

Also, Latin is foreign to almost every person on earth today. Forcing people to seek extraordinary means to learn the most basic, everyday forms of worship has an elitist tone to it, its more exclusivity rather than universal, which is what Catholic means.

And using the vernacular is not a Protestant thing, its a Catholic thing. It was that way in the first century, it was that way until today in the East.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Isn’t it God who made the diverse languages at the Tower of Babel?

Also, Latin is foreign to almost every person on earth today. Forcing people to seek extraordinary means to learn the most basic, everyday forms of worship has an elitist tone to it, its more exclusivity rather than universal, which is what Catholic means.

And using the vernacular is not a Protestant thing, its a Catholic thing. It was that way in the first century, it was that way until today in the East.
Click to expand...
It’s really too bad nobody paid attention to Bl. John XXIII’s apostolic constitution Veterum sapientia. A sample:
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.
Click to expand...
Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Since “every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,” and since the Supreme Pontiffs have “true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful” of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.
Click to expand...
When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.
Click to expand...
But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.
Click to expand...
Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.
Click to expand...
In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.” It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
Click to expand...
There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.
Click to expand...
 
True, but Latin didn’t fully exist at that time and God didn’t set it aside as the sole language of the sacrosanct either?

While I think the Tridentine Mass is lovely, reverent, powerful, and NECESSARY for each diocese (preferably each parish!), I do not think it should replace the vernacular completely as another poster has suggested. I find it disturbing when people elevate a language to the level of “God’s Holy Tongue” like the Muslims have done with Arabic. God loves us all, speaks all languages, and appreciates the love and worship He receives from us all in our hearts and various tongues.
Nostradennis said:
Yes, as a punishment.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
True, but Latin didn’t fully exist at that time and God didn’t set it aside as the sole language of the sacrosanct either?

While I think the Tridentine Mass is lovely, reverent, powerful, and NECESSARY for each diocese (preferably each parish!), I do not think it should replace the vernacular completely as another poster has suggested. I find it disturbing when people elevate a language to the level of “God’s Holy Tongue” like the Muslims have done with Arabic. God loves us all, speaks all languages, and appreciates the love and worship He receives from us all in our hearts and various tongues.
Click to expand...
Latin may not have existed at the time of the Tower of Babel, and God hadn’t set it aside then as sacrosanct, but that does not mean He did not do so later on. It was not on a whim that Peter went to Rome. “But amid this variety of languages,” says Bl. John XXIII in Veterum sapientia, "a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West…And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire – and that for so many centuries – it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe."

As for the rest, you are making proponents of Latin say more than we are actually saying (and the comparison to militant Islamists is not appreciated). Nobody is saying we must make all of our private prayers and devotions in Latin. But the language of the Universal Church in her public prayers – the liturgy – is another matter.

Incidentally, the efficacy of liturgy does not require us to understand precisely what is being said; it is, after all, addressed not to us, but to God. But there are plenty of worship aids out there for those who want to follow along in their own language. In fact, in the age of the internet and mass media, when so much is accessible online or in print, there is really no excuse for the average Joe to just throw up his hands and plead ignorance when it comes to the liturgy in Latin.
 
I don’t disagree with your post until you get to this point. This honestly troubles me greatly. It’s not important for me to understand what is being said? I cannot fathom that logic. I can only imagine someone sitting by Jesus’s side as he told the Jews how to pray the Our Father and being completely foreign and having no idea what He just said, in his own language saying, “boy, that was flowery. I wonder what He said? anyway…” :confused: The Mass is worship but it’s also to be from the heart. It cannot be from the heart of someone who hasn’t a clue what is being said. Can someone go and study and learn Latin to try and understand it? Sure. Should they have to do so in order to satisfy traditionalists’ desires? No. Can I actually imagine Our Lord being this picky about language and being appauled at people worshipping him with all their hearts in their own tongue? Not for a second…but the idea of not caring if the flock understands the prayers and worship, that bothers me.

If it was God’s will that Latin be the tongue of the West, perhaps it was also His will that it evolve away from Latin into the local tongues 🙂 I’d say to just trust the Church and the bishops to do their jobs. I’m actually interested in having a Latin Mass around my town or at least close by. I’m open to attending it. But our pastors have indicated they don’t want it and the priests don’t know Latin well enough remotely to do it. And personally I’m thinking, wow, with a priestly shortage of dangerous proportions, especially in this area, there isn’t a flock of men running down to the seminaries right now signing up for the celibate Catholic priesthood. Throwing in a “by the way, you better memorize the Latin Mass and thoroughly comprehend the syntax!” isn’t going to be a signing bonus or an incentive! 😛
Victorious said:
Incidentally, the efficacy of liturgy does not require us to understand precisely what is being said; it is, after all, addressed not to us, but to God. But there are plenty of worship aids out there for those who want to follow along in their own language. In fact, in the age of the internet and mass media, when so much is accessible online or in print, there is really no excuse for the average Joe to just throw up his hands and plead ignorance when it comes to the liturgy in Latin.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
True, but Latin didn’t fully exist at that time and God didn’t set it aside as the sole language of the sacrosanct either?
Click to expand...
Saint Jerome was the most learned of the Western Fathers of the Church. He gave us the Latin Vulgate. Of this verse in Holy Writ, Luke 23:38 “And there was also a superscription written over him in letters of Hebrew, Greek,and Latin,: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” Saint Jerome interprets this verse as the way the language of The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be handed down to the Church through the ages. It was not Hebrew, Greek, Latin and the Vernacular on the superscription of The Holy Cross of Christ.
 
We may argue about OF and EF…CITH and COTT…Latin and English…

But maybe I’m just too new…but what I love about the Catholic Church…the majesterium is always there to guide us. There is leadership of the church. If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches and believes…I only have to go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Even though we argue about all the above…they are all valid and allowed currently. Those that don’t believe in reconciliation, that abortion is wrong and such…it’s not because the Church has not taught those things.

Go to a Protestant church…especially the mega churches…what do they believe? Who is there to lead them? Where does there theology come from??? 🤷 When were they founded?

That’s the biggest difference!
 
Tsuwano said:
I think you’re right that many opinions are often offered which seem to condemn differing opinions, but the thing to note is that these are, in the end, mainly personal opinions and do not reflect the Church itself. The Bishops hold authority in the Church and it is their opinions which should be listened to. The Bishops are in communion with one another regarding the Church and our faith and, in fact, do indeed embrace our worldwide diversity. We should perhaps be more kind towards one another in listening to the various opinions offered in this forum and elsewhere, but when push comes to shove, the true Catholic is united with his Bishop who is united with the See of St. Peter.
Click to expand...
You said

'The Bishops are in communion with one another regarding the Church and our faith and, in fact, do indeed embrace our worldwide diversity."

I suppose I am fomenting more division, but have you really checked out the various members of the USCCB lately? There is much divergence in examples set by the Bishoprics. Some say nothing when matters of great import are on the front burner, some give ambiguous statements, such as one Bishop’s statement that DADT is a “political” matter.’ Another very people popular clergyman, in fact I can think of three of them, do not deny the Eucharist to pro abort pols. If these men do not support the teachings of the Church (Canon 195) how can they be trusted with any other?
 
So the language of the executors of Jesus must be the eternal language of the Liturgy because a mockery was written in the Latin language above Our Lord’s head? I’m lost…
Nostradennis said:
Saint Jerome was the most learned of the Western Fathers of the Church. He gave us the Latin Vulgate. Of this verse in Holy Writ, Luke 23:38 “And there was also a superscription written over him in letters of Hebrew, Greek,and Latin,: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” Saint Jerome interprets this verse as the way the language of The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be handed down to the Church through the ages. It was not Hebrew, Greek, Latin and the Vernacular on the superscription of The Holy Cross of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I don’t disagree with your post until you get to this point. This honestly troubles me greatly. It’s not important for me to understand what is being said? I cannot fathom that logic.
Click to expand...
It should not be troubling, when you consider that (a) the liturgy – particularly the Mass – is far beyond our complete understanding; and (b) the liturgy is not the private property of individuals, but the public prayer of the Church. When we take part in the liturgy, it is not us praying as individuals; it is the voice of the Church, and the words of the Church are put in our mouths.

There is nothing wrong with following along as best we can – I always try to myself, with varying degrees of success – and in fact I think we ought to do so, to the best of our ability. But it is not necessary for the liturgy to be efficacious, or for us to benefit from it. As long as we approach it with the right dispositions, a general understanding of what is happening and the intent to unite with the action of the Church are really all we need to unite ourselves with the praying Church. Then, the Church makes up for what we lack. Do you think that everything depends on our precious selves? If it does, then what is the priest for? Do you think that, when we are properly disposed, we are not backed up by grace and by the Church’s treasury of merits? Why take so much upon ourselves and make things harder than they need to be?
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The Mass is worship but it’s also to be from the heart. It cannot be from the heart of someone who hasn’t a clue what is being said.
Click to expand...
That sentence in red is simply not true. Or are you prepared to believe that the devotion of centuries of uneducated, illiterate peasants and children who attended the Mass in Latin all went for nothing?
gurneyhalleck1 said:
If it was God’s will that Latin be the tongue of the West, perhaps it was also His will that it evolve away from Latin into the local tongues
Click to expand...
The current balkanization of parishes into various ethnic and linguistic groups would seem to give the lie to that theory. Is that really what Jesus meant when, at the Last Supper, He prayed that His disciples may be one? Our prevailing ignorance of the Mass in the wake of vernacular translations also gives it the lie. We have had Mass in the vernacular for 40 years now, and we understand it less now than we ever had before. How can anyone think otherwise, when one considers our nonchalant approach to worship and our tolerance for irreverence?

I keep trumpeting from the rooftops Bl. John XXIII’s apostolic exhortation Veterum sapientia, and I have linked to it several times in this thread, but nobody seems to hear me. I wish people would read this. It answers the objections that keep being raised here.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I don’t disagree with your post until you get to this point. This honestly troubles me greatly. It’s not important for me to understand what is being said? I cannot fathom that logic. I can only imagine someone sitting by Jesus’s side as he told the Jews how to pray the Our Father and being completely foreign and having no idea what He just said, in his own language saying, “boy, that was flowery. I wonder what He said? anyway…” :confused: The Mass is worship but it’s also to be from the heart. It cannot be from the heart of someone who hasn’t a clue what is being said. Can someone go and study and learn Latin to try and understand it? Sure. Should they have to do so in order to satisfy traditionalists’ desires? No. Can I actually imagine Our Lord being this picky about language and being appauled at people worshipping him with all their hearts in their own tongue? Not for a second…but the idea of not caring if the flock understands the prayers and worship, that bothers me.

If it was God’s will that Latin be the tongue of the West, perhaps it was also His will that it evolve away from Latin into the local tongues 🙂 I’d say to just trust the Church and the bishops to do their jobs. I’m actually interested in having a Latin Mass around my town or at least close by. I’m open to attending it. But our pastors have indicated they don’t want it and the priests don’t know Latin well enough remotely to do it. And personally I’m thinking, wow, with a priestly shortage of dangerous proportions, especially in this area, there isn’t a flock of men running down to the seminaries right now signing up for the celibate Catholic priesthood. Throwing in a “by the way, you better memorize the Latin Mass and thoroughly comprehend the syntax!” isn’t going to be a signing bonus or an incentive! 😛
Click to expand...
You paint quite a picture of your local clergy.

Around here, there are 12 year old altar servers who can provide a line-by-line Latin-to-English translation of the Ordinary of the EF Mass, on demand. Granted, these kids are not rookies. Some of them have been serving mass almost as long as you have been posting on CA forums. The point is that they are regular Catholic elementary school kids who create a public nuisance on their skateboards, not seminarians who sleep in cassocks and wake up ready to fight Satan.

Your area is not suffering from a shortage of priests. It is infected by a lack of motivation. If you are truly interested in having a proper TLM in your diocese, you will need to insist that ordained priests are held to higher standards of training than the average EF altarboy.
😛
 
Victorious said:
Incidentally, the efficacy of liturgy does not require us to understand precisely what is being said; it is, after all, addressed not to us, but to God. But there are plenty of worship aids out there for those who want to follow along in their own language. In fact, in the age of the internet and mass media, when so much is accessible online or in print, there is really no excuse for the average Joe to just throw up his hands and plead ignorance when it comes to the liturgy in Latin.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me it is God who needs precise language and not man? Does God even need words? I’m rather bothered by this perception that God cannot know the heart of man when he prays, that He requires language precision, a language made by man. And what if we deviate one iota from this precise language? The prayers are not efficacious? I’m sorry to say, but this is erroneous on so many levels, it is so shortsighted and shows enormous lack of knowledge of Christian worship through the 2000 year history of the Church. Latin is not the only language of Liturgy, its not even the first. One of the oldest Liturgies is the Divine Liturgy of St. James which is probably in Aramaic or Greek, but definitely not in Latin. To make a claim that a worthy Liturgy can only be in Latin… is really head-shaking.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Are you telling me it is God who needs precise language and not man? Does God even need words? I’m rather bothered by this perception that God cannot know the heart of man when he prays, that He requires language precision, a language made by man. And what if we deviate one iota from this precise language? The prayers are not efficacious? I’m sorry to say, but this is erroneous on so many levels, it is so shortsighted and shows enormous lack of knowledge of Christian worship through the 2000 year history of the Church. Latin is not the only language of Liturgy, its not even the first. One of the oldest Liturgies is the Divine Liturgy of St. James which is probably in Aramaic or Greek, but definitely not in Latin. To make a claim that a worthy Liturgy can only be in Latin… is really head-shaking.
Click to expand...
If the Latin language is such a problem in you current parish you may wish to attend the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic parish in your area. Many are 100% valid, licit and free of Latin overtones.
🙂

.
 
Wow, reality check…never come to the “Traditional Catholic” sector of this forum again. This is another dimension. I can’t get any common sense in here. This is totally out there. Bye guys…wowzers! If a Protestant came to this thread considering Catholicism with all I’ve read in here, he’d run like the wind! I’m outta here…:eek:
 
Mass can be said without a congregation. Therefore the congregation is not essential to it. The same texts, with translations beside them, said in every Mass, and which are directed to God, can easily be in Latin. Latin should be retained, for historical, religious and practical purposes.

What is interesting is the opposition to the Roman Catholic Church using Latin in its rites. A bishop even complained about the Pope using it in one of his Masses in the UK.

Imagine a hundred -year-old, well known, multinational company. It has a popular, famous, time-tested product. That product is the same in every country it sells it in. The local reps all use the same sales literature.

The boss calls a meeting to make some tweaks to the product. Instead, it is so thoroughly revamped by a clique within the company that its users can hardly recognise it. Then different versions are made for each country. Said product starts to lose sales and sales reps like billy-o.

Those who favour the changes blame this on the market. Those who liked the old product are told by these people that a) It’s never coming back and b) The new product is better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top