Sad and Confused ...

[Monica4316]

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/archbp-ranjith-in-sri-lanka-huzzah/

this is encouraging

 

[Student09]

“20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

Funny, nowhere does he say, “For the pagans I erected statues of Dionysis in the chapel so as to get them to come to Mass. For the Jews I removed all images of Jesus so as to get them to come to Mass. I have made the altar of God look like it isn’t Catholic so that non-Catholics will come and worship there.”

As far as I can tell he is talking about his personal behavior while preaching, not about how the church where Christians go to worship should appear. (Or catacombs, as the case may be.)

Paul finds it necessary to adopt all kinds of different forms to reach different people, rather than simply asserting, “the truth speaks for itself,” and expecting everyone to get on board with one way of presenting the truth. He offers the true and sacred in many different ways to reach to different people. This is part of the evangelistic process.

But here we are not talking about evangelistic preaching, we are talking about the place where Catholics go to worship, the sacrifice of the Mass, the Liturgy that feeds their relationship with God and from which all graces flow into the world. There is a time and a place for everything.

For instance, that Protestant-turned-Catholic I mentioned before, who was drawn to the OF, said that if the church had been full of statues of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she would have been turned off. She was genuinely seeking God, as is proven by the fact that she did convert to Catholicism and is a devout believer. She says that now she loves all those statues, but for her when she was Protestant, these would have turned her away.

Meanwhile all the Catholics who are attending the church where she started going do not have the comfort of being able to look at statues of the Sacred Heart and Mary when they go to Mass. Don’t you see the problem with that? So Catholics should be forced to worship in a bare church so that Protestants who don’t like statues yet will want to convert? I don’t want to sound insensitive, I’m really glad that she converted. God can bring good out of human mistakes – and perhaps he guided her first to Mass at an empty church, since there was one anyway, so as to avoid putting a stumbling block before her – but that doesn’t make them not mistakes.

When talking with my Protestant family about Catholicism, I have “eased my way” in, not presenting hard truths first but working my way up to them through easier things, and things which are the most clearly Biblically supported. Having stomached and begun to digest the easier truths has made it easier for my sister to open up to those truths that are really difficult for her.

Again, this refers to your personal evangelism (which I admire and applaud, by the way - and I am praying for you and your family). It does not follow that the layout of a Catholic Church and Liturgy should be constructed primarily in a way that will be most attractive to non-Catholics. That is a huge leap in logic.

I hope that when you become a priest, you will be able to distinguish between your evangelical activity and your celebration of the Liturgy. “Becoming all things to all people” also means being Catholic for Catholics, and the Mass is the center of the Catholic life.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Funny, nowhere does he say, "For the pagans I erected statues of Dionysis in the chapel so as to get them to come to Mass.

I’m not advocating spreading paganism .

For the Jews I removed all images of Jesus so as to get them to come to Mass.

We can’t hide the central meaning of the Mass. Changes in the form of presentation are a different matter.

If we were teaching a community that has an aversion to all statues and images (not just to ones of Jesus) that is deeply culturally ingrained and historically passed on, which we can see we will not easily change, but we see that this community is not averse to Christ Himself or the Gospel message, then we might, for as long as necessary, not use statues and images in that area, so that we can bring these souls into the Catholic faith. Just as Paul says, he will abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols even though it is part of his Christian liberty to do so, if by eating, he causes scandal to the ignorant. Paul is willing to make sacrifices to reach out to his culture. More on this in a moment.

I have made the altar of God look like it isn’t Catholic so that non-Catholics will come and worship there."

As far as I can tell he is talking about his personal behavior while preaching, not about how the church where Christians go to worship should appear. (Or catacombs, as the case may be.)

When the Early Church was trying to reach out to the non-Christians, they made adaptive changes to their own culture in order to help them. They often downplayed Marian doctrine and did not emphasize it because of the severe risks that the new Christians, or pagans considering conversion, would blur Mariology with their fertility goddess worship. The Early Fathers also arranged many of the major Christian feasts to fall on days of high importance in the pagan religions. The Fathers made a lot of adjustments to the form of how they practiced their Christian faith to try to bring people home to the Catholic Church.

I believe the Jesuit missionaries to the Indians also adjusted the form of the Mass, and traditional Catholic customs, at times, to reach people more effectively.

During the Early Church, the Masses weren’t in Latin, I do believe, and during many parts of Church history they weren’t consistently Latin.

The Church, for a time, prevented laity from receiving the consecrated wine. Why? To fight a heresy that was teaching you have to receive both the consecrated wine and the bread to receive the fullness of the Body of Christ, that Christ isn’t fully present in both species. They altered a highly important part of the Mass’s form, for centuries, in order to reach out to heretics and try to clarify the faith for everyone.

Paul’s teaching isn’t about his own personal behavior alone; the Scripture has a longer reach than that. The Mass also, as you have mentioned, has a powerful ability to draw people in or turn people off. It is necessarily part of the evangelistic world, not part of a privately Catholic-only reality, so we have to consider also those we are trying to reach, as the Church has done throughout her existence. Her entire mission and reason for being is evangelistic. The OF left a negative impression on you, whereas the EF has a negative affect on others. The Church uses the two different versions to try to reach different groups. Something every non-Catholic does before conversion is attend Mass a few times. How the Mass is presented makes a difference, and the Church Fathers are aware of this and are willing to do what it takes to draw souls home to Christ.

I’m not saying the OF is better than the EF. I do believe both are valuable, and I expect the EF might have a more reverent form, but I also believe very strongly, very passionately, in drawing souls home to the Church, and if I had to sacrifice a few statues or chants in some Masses, I would do that, if the result was that more Protestants would come home or more Catholics would become better disposed to learn the truths of the faith. I would prefer to claim a soul for Jesus over mounting a statue to Him any day.

I love our stained glass windows, our statues and chants, our paintings, architecture, our shrines to saints, etc. I love these things dearly. I wear a medal of Mary and a medal of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, along with a crucifix, publicly around my neck always (these both offer me graces and serve as an evangelistic tool, for sometimes people ask about them, and I’m only too happy to explain!). I love the treasures of our faith with all my heart, including the riches of the EF (I’ve heard the chants before and I love the Latin as well), which I expect may well be more beautiful than the OF, even though I’ve never yet been to one. I’m seriously considering entering a religious order that, if I recall correctly, only uses the EF Mass.

At the same time, I’m willing to sacrifice things I love that are non-essential if by doing this I can help others receive what is essential.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I hope that when you become a priest, you will be able to distinguish between your evangelical activity and your celebration of the Liturgy. “Becoming all things to all people” also means being Catholic for Catholics, and the Mass is the center of the Catholic life.

The OF isn’t less Catholic, though I admit its form may be less reverent (though this mostly depends on the hearts of the participants, as you pointed out), while also being more effectively evangelistic. The OF also isn’t mandatory everywhere. It isn’t designed only to appeal to Protestants. It will and does help some, perhaps many of them, and I find that to be a very high value in its form, and a good reason for offering Catholic communities the option of either form. It is likely, in my view, that it appeals strongly to a large number of Catholics more than the EF does, while the converse is true too. To me, that reaffirms the wisdom of the Vatican Council in offering both so that people can choose.

By the way, I admit I’m very ignorant in these matters. I haven’t studied the controversies between proponents of the OF and the EF. I’m saying what I think right now, but I might consider my current feelings worthless after I’ve learned more.* I’m just some guy with opinions.

 

[thealtonroute]

It’s very sad knowing that our own priests, bishops, etc. trashed Catholic churches all over the country. I certainly know of cases where sledgehammer-wielding priests smashed high altars and communion rails. Not surprisingly, none of these priests paid for these elaborate altars, communion, etc., but had the authority to destroy sacred objects parishioners loved.

 

[Student09]

The OF isn’t less Catholic, though I admit its form may be less reverent (though this mostly depends on the hearts of the participants, as you pointed out), while also being more effectively evangelistic.

I never said the OF was “less Catholic” - I was referring to your position that we should remove statues and stained glass windows from churches to attract Protestants. Anyway, I don’t want to argue this anymore …

 

[Student09]

I’m not advocating spreading paganism .

I didn’t say that either. St. Paul preached to pagans.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m just saying that some people who aren’t deep in the Catholic faith are turned off by things they presently can’t understand or appreciate. For instance, that Protestant-turned-Catholic I mentioned before, who was drawn to the OF, said that if the church had been full of statues of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she would have been turned off. She was genuinely seeking God, as is proven by the fact that she did convert to Catholicism and is a devout believer. She says that now she loves all those statues, but for her when she was Protestant, these would have turned her away. The way in which the truth is presented matters.

I agree with you. The manner is always important. And I’m sure you deserve some credit for her “improved” disposition.

For hundreds of years, there had been many conversions to the Catholic faith. Catholics had been respected for their adherence to stricter rules such as Friday abstinence and fasts, their religious orders, their higher moral standards, their charity, and their educational system, amongst other things. Then sometime during the 60’s, the Church suddenly became the butt of a lot of jokes. And it was mostly Catholics who were spreading these jokes. Discipline went out the window. The Catholic identity was lost and Catholics left in droves.

Sure, the Church gained some converts in the process but at what expense?

It seems, though, that since JPII, the pendulum has been swinging back. Brick by brick, as Father Z likes to say.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I didn’t say that either. St. Paul preached to pagans.

Yes, but you were comparing my views on the OF to Paul advocating the establishment of a statue to Dionysus, which is pagan worship.

Student09:

I never said the OF was “less Catholic” - I was referring to your position that we should remove statues and stained glass windows from churches to attract Protestants.

I’m not advocating that we should generally do that. I love our statues and stained glass and don’t want to see them go. I also expect that I, like you, would enjoy the EF more than the OF. I’m glad that Pope Benedict is encouraging the EF as he is.

If I was in a parish surrounded in a firmly fundamentalist Protestant county, I might recommend removing some of the things that would make Protestants uncomfortable, in the hopes of gaining converts. I certainly don’t seek that in a general way, though.

At the parish I currently attend, I’m sorry that we don’t have more of these treasures. I always get happier when I enter a parish that does have them.

What I mean to say is that I think the Church did the right thing in allowing both the OF and the EF to thrive, for the sake of ecumenism and reaching out to a large number of Catholics that didn’t appreciate the EF as much as they have the OF. I’m not saying anything at all against either the EF or our traditional Catholic treasures, like statues and artwork. I’m decidedly not suggesting we should generally put them in the attic, either.

I believe Pope Benedict XVI is doing a great thing right now in pushing for more traditional liturgy and supporting the EF as strongly as he is.

Student09:

Anyway, I don’t want to argue this anymore …

I’m just sorry I think you’re misunderstanding me .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I agree with you. The manner is always important. And I’m sure you deserve some credit for her “improved” disposition.

That person wasn’t anyone I knew, just someone I saw post some about her conversion on a thread. So no, no credit .

For hundreds of years, there had been many conversions to the Catholic faith. Catholics had been respected for their adherence to stricter rules such as Friday abstinence and fasts, their religious orders, their higher moral standards, their charity, and their educational system, amongst other things. Then sometime during the 60’s, the Church suddenly became the butt of a lot of jokes. And it was mostly Catholics who were spreading these jokes. Discipline went out the window. The Catholic identity was lost and Catholics left in droves.

Sure, the Church gained some converts in the process but at what expense?

I don’t know why you blame this on the Vatican Council. Our vocations decline was very severe in the 50’s, a decade before the council started. Immorality exploded all over the US and elsewhere in the West in the 60’s, and it infected the Catholic world horribly. It was a poison that spread all over society in general, including in Protestantism as well as Catholicism, and in other religions. There also were a lot of liberal Catholics who started talking about a “spirit of Vatican II” which actually had nothing to do with the council’s teachings, and they used this “spirit” to assent to all kinds of abominations.

I don’t know why all this evil erupted at that time, but I don’t see the Vatican Council as responsible for this international moral crisis.

It seems, though, that since JPII, the pendulum has been swinging back. Brick by brick, as Father Z likes to say.

Yes, things have been greatly improving . Thanks be to God, and to Mary’s prayers.

I have high hopes for the success of the ecumenical and evangelistic movements at uniting many Christians. I am deeply, deeply eager for their success. I pray and pray for it.

 

[Modern_Revert]

One of the reasons I returned to the Church after a twenty year absence was a chance attendance at a Tridentine Mass. I almost fell over when I realized what I was experiencing. I really like my current parish, it is large and thriving, but it lacks reverence.

 

[HelenRose]

Please be nice to me - I’m a college student and recent convert to the Church and I’m just trying to figure things out. I really, really don’t want this thread to turn into a fight.

To get to the point … I have attended OF Masses since I became interested in the Church and throughout my conversion process. I love the Mass, but as my spiritual life has deepened I have begun to be troubled by certain elements (i.e. the “sign of peace”, a - to me - distracting episode that for some reason has been placed at the pivotal moment after the consecration and before asking God for mercy) as well as some significant abuses that I have seen from a number of different priests lately, at different parishes - some of these abuses were extensive and appalling, and the laity just went along with everything. I go to daily Mass and these Masses are reverent but I have begun to actually dread Sunday Mass for various reasons.

Largely because of this, yesterday I went to the only local EF. It was a low Mass with a very elderly priest and almost no one there. It was beautiful … but I can’t even express how miserable I felt afterwards and still feel … taking part in the ancient rite only confirmed the painful growing feeling that the current OF was a real misstep for the Church. It is incomprehensible to me why the old rite was done away with so drastically. It was also painful to see how few people there were, and how much difficulty this priest has in being able to celebrate this Mass. And it’s perplexing to me to see so much hostility aimed against those who love this rite.

I have a strange feeling of mourning as if it has finally been brought home to me how much the Church that I have just joined, that I love, is struggling. I don’t know how to express it. I keep crying uncontrollably. I feel adrift as if I don’t know anymore how or where to anchor myself spiritually. When I pray I feel abandoned by God and I wonder if I have done something wrong.

Has anyone felt this way … and if so … how do you cope?

You may be experiencing what is called, “The dark night of the soul”. You may have entered that period of growth in which your faith is being tested.

Continue going to Mass. Daily if possible. God is working on your soul. Do not be discouraged. Trust in the Holy Spirit. He will guide you.