Traditional Catholicism - Indigenous Friendly?

[MrSylvester]

Of course it is possible to use sweet grass within a liturgy for Native Americans who might feel that it enhances their faith. You yourself stated that it would be fine to use it as incense, and I agree. No one is suggesting that the faith be supplanted by culture, only that culture can enhance faith. And whether one admits it or not, every liturgy is filled with the practices and nuances of local culture. Indeed, you ask the question concerning every Catholic Church taking cultural themes from various countries and whether that would break the unity of the Church. Well, such churches existed in the United States and modern American Catholicism attests to the presence of culture within liturgy. In all the major cities of the United States we had national churches where Germans attended German churches, Italians attended Italian churches and Irish attended Irish Churches. The unity of the Church was never broken. Now, I don’t suggest we return to national churches in American Catholicism, but I do think that if the Irish could celebrate St. Patick’s Day and celebrate their national saint in a special liturgy and the Italians could do the same on St. Joseph’s feast day and set up their St. Joseph altars, then Native Americans can certainly celebrate a liturgy using elements from their own cultural background. Far from breaking the unity of the Catholic Church, I think such celebration of culture within faith is a sign of the Catholicity of the modern Church; a sign that all are welcomed within her fold.

True, but one should be careful. Eastern rite Catholic Churches have their own liturgy yet it is still a bit familiar to what Western Catholics are used and vice versa. However, we don’t want this:



Yes, these pictures are real, they’re from world youth day 2008. I won’t judge what Benedict was thinking but whoever organized this poor excuse of honoring God should be ashmaed of himself; what where they thinking!? Not only are people carrying a picture of most Holy Mary half naked, the things they’re doing are far from Catholic and are pagan. Would you attend such a ‘mass’? I certainly wouldn’t.

 

[Tsuwano]

True, but one should be careful. Eastern rite Catholic Churches have their own liturgy yet it is still a bit familiar to what Western Catholics are used and vice versa. However, we don’t want this:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images (201-300)/270_WYD02.jpg

Yes, these pictures are real, they’re from world youth day 2008. I won’t judge what Benedict was thinking but whoever organized this poor excuse of honoring God should be ashmaed of himself; what where they thinking!? Not only are people carrying a picture of most Holy Mary half naked, the things they’re doing are far from Catholic and are pagan. Would you attend such a ‘mass’? I certainly wouldn’t.

While I find the pictures odd and a challenge to my own cultural sensibilities, I do not know what is actually pagan about them. You seem to think that bare chested men should not carry a picture of Our Lady in a processional. Well, they certainly shouldn’t in my home parish is Louisiana, but I’m not so sure about a parish in the Fiji Islands. I leave that up to the local Bishop and the liturgical experts from that part of the world. Would you object to men in kilts carrying a picture of the Blessed Virgin? What about men in traditional Japanese or Korean dress? What, exactly, is Catholic dress? In the end I think God is honored when men and women turn their hearts to him and follow his will.

 

[Filii_Dei]

True, but one should be careful. Eastern rite Catholic Churches have their own liturgy yet it is still a bit familiar to what Western Catholics are used and vice versa. However, we don’t want this:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images (201-300)/270_WYD02.jpg

Yes, these pictures are real, they’re from world youth day 2008. I won’t judge what Benedict was thinking but whoever organized this poor excuse of honoring God should be ashmaed of himself; what where they thinking!? Not only are people carrying a picture of most Holy Mary half naked, the things they’re doing are far from Catholic and are pagan. Would you attend such a ‘mass’? I certainly wouldn’t.

Hold it!

Are you even sure that’s a mass? I see planes in the background of the second picture. Does the Holy Father celebrate mass in an airport these days? Does he celebrate mass in choir dress?

The second and third pictures are just of welcoming ceremonies for the Pope. It’s appropriate that they perform for him in the highest expression of honour in their own culture, so long as it does not cause blasphemy. There’s nothing liturgical here.

As far as I know, the first picture is the closest, but it was part of an array of performances scheduled some time before mass begun.

In any case, I disapprove of incorporating such cultural practices into liturgy. As far as extra-liturgical celebrations are concerned, they’re fine, but they must be done reverentially and without sacrilege.

 

[MrSylvester]

While I find the pictures odd and a challenge to my own cultural sensibilities, I do not know what is actually pagan about them. You seem to think that bare chested men should not carry a picture of Our Lady in a processional. Well, they certainly shouldn’t in my home parish is Louisiana, but I’m not so sure about a parish in the Fiji Islands. I leave that up to the local Bishop and the liturgical experts from that part of the world. Would you object to men in kilts carrying a picture of the Blessed Virgin? What about men in traditional Japanese or Korean dress? What, exactly, is Catholic dress? In the end I think God is honored when men and women turn their hearts to him and follow his will.

Catholic dress isn’t western modest dress; modest western dress IS Catholic. Were the apostles sinners because they wore robes instead of pants? The thing is, whats important is not the color but the modesty. I’ve seen japanese women dress in a red dress for marriage instead of our traditional white one; nothing wrong with that. But the ‘dress’ in the above picture is immodest beyond belief. If going around half naked is what is traditional in australia, I don’t want to be australian! No offense to australians but the people who actually dress like that are a minority today. In fact, while mssionaries in the past had to put up at first with the immodesty of African natives at first (else, how can you tell people who don’t view nudity as bad that they are sinners?), many, many of them thaught them the ways of modesty and reverence. The Church exists not to encourage the religions of others but to encourage its own religion and its virtues.

As for the shirtless man comment, I DARE any man to go inside a Church shirtless. Well? You wouldn’t do it, would you? The thing is, in my opinion at least (moral relavatism; bah!) that, just as women going shirtless wearing nothing but a bra or a bikini or even nothing at all on top is unacceptable, the same goes for men. Not meaning to sound crude but because men don’t have huge chests doesn’t mean its A-ok for them to take their shirt off. Men look at women in swimsuits with lust while women look at shirtless men with lust also. Also, gays look at men in swimsuits the way men look at women in swimsuits according to Unicorn Mountain (a novel). So if the men in ones parish goes shirtless, he’s doing wrong and sinning.

 

[PhilOSophia]

You know Catholics have lost the plot when women are dancing in church. Yet you’ll find people who, with sweet reason, will defend it. Just as some would be happy with priestesses.

Many small changes over time mean a Mass that looks very different after forty years. In the 60’s, the Church made some MASSIVE changes. So small ones are hardly a big deal. So why not ceile dancing before the altar of the Most High? No biggie.

The kids love it, the organisers feel great and the women go ‘awwwww’.

Except one has a nagging sense that this is not good enough for the King Of Kings. Not by a long chalk. In fact, once you get over the banality of these add-ons, it is shocking, in comparison with how Mass was said before.

I’m remnided of how God gave strict instructions to the Jews how he was to be worshipped and how displeased He was when the started incorporating local i.e. pagan culture. Deja vu?

 

[severus68]

Catholic dress isn’t western modest dress; modest western dress IS Catholic. Were the apostles sinners because they wore robes instead of pants? The thing is, whats important is not the color but the modesty. I’ve seen japanese women dress in a red dress for marriage instead of our traditional white one; nothing wrong with that. But the ‘dress’ in the above picture is immodest beyond belief. If going around half naked is what is traditional in australia, I don’t want to be australian! No offense to australians but the people who actually dress like that are a minority today. In fact, while mssionaries in the past had to put up at first with the immodesty of African natives at first (else, how can you tell people who don’t view nudity as bad that they are sinners?), many, many of them thaught them the ways of modesty and reverence. The Church exists not to encourage the religions of others but to encourage its own religion and its virtues.

As for the shirtless man comment, I DARE any man to go inside a Church shirtless. Well? You wouldn’t do it, would you? The thing is, in my opinion at least (moral relavatism; bah!) that, just as women going shirtless wearing nothing but a bra or a bikini or even nothing at all on top is unacceptable, the same goes for men. Not meaning to sound crude but because men don’t have huge chests doesn’t mean its A-ok for them to take their shirt off. Men look at women in swimsuits with lust while women look at shirtless men with lust also. Also, gays look at men in swimsuits the way men look at women in swimsuits according to Unicorn Mountain (a novel). So if the men in ones parish goes shirtless, he’s doing wrong and sinning.

African natives? What about those shameless Polynesian women? Thank goodness the good and holy Christian missionaries put them into 'Mother Hubbards" and taught them to know the ‘sin’ they were innocent of.

Please do not judge others by your culture and norms.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, these pictures are real, they’re from world youth day 2008. I won’t judge what Benedict was thinking but whoever organized this poor excuse of honoring God should be ashmaed of himself; what where they thinking!? Not only are people carrying a picture of most Holy Mary half naked, the things they’re doing are far from Catholic and are pagan. Would you attend such a ‘mass’? I certainly wouldn’t.

Oh. My. Goodness.

 

[Walking_Home]

MrSylvester:

Catholic dress isn’t western modest dress; modest western dress IS Catholic. Were the apostles sinners because they wore robes instead of pants? The thing is, whats important is not the color but the modesty. I’ve seen japanese women dress in a red dress for marriage instead of our traditional white one; nothing wrong with that. But the ‘dress’ in the above picture is immodest beyond belief. If going around half naked is what is traditional in australia, I don’t want to be australian! No offense to australians but the people who actually dress like that are a minority today. In fact, while mssionaries in the past had to put up at first with the immodesty of African natives at first (else, how can you tell people who don’t view nudity as bad that they are sinners?), many, many of them thaught them the ways of modesty and reverence. The Church exists not to encourage the religions of others but to encourage its own religion and its virtues.

As for the shirtless man comment, I DARE any man to go inside a Church shirtless. Well? You wouldn’t do it, would you? The thing is, in my opinion at least (moral relavatism; bah!) that, just as women going shirtless wearing nothing but a bra or a bikini or even nothing at all on top is unacceptable, the same goes for men. Not meaning to sound crude but because men don’t have huge chests doesn’t mean its A-ok for them to take their shirt off. Men look at women in swimsuits with lust while women look at shirtless men with lust also. Also, gays look at men in swimsuits the way men look at women in swimsuits according to Unicorn Mountain (a novel). So if the men in ones parish goes shirtless, he’s doing wrong and sinning.

African natives? What about those shameless Polynesian women? Thank goodness the good and holy Christian missionaries put them into 'Mother Hubbards" and taught them to know the ‘sin’ they were innocent of.

Please do not judge others by your culture and norms.

---

Yep. Destroying the innocence they had – and “teaching” them darkness of mind and heart.

 

[Tsuwano]

Catholic dress isn’t western modest dress; modest western dress IS Catholic. Were the apostles sinners because they wore robes instead of pants? The thing is, whats important is not the color but the modesty. I’ve seen japanese women dress in a red dress for marriage instead of our traditional white one; nothing wrong with that. But the ‘dress’ in the above picture is immodest beyond belief. If going around half naked is what is traditional in australia, I don’t want to be australian! No offense to australians but the people who actually dress like that are a minority today. In fact, while mssionaries in the past had to put up at first with the immodesty of African natives at first (else, how can you tell people who don’t view nudity as bad that they are sinners?), many, many of them thaught them the ways of modesty and reverence. The Church exists not to encourage the religions of others but to encourage its own religion and its virtues.

As for the shirtless man comment, I DARE any man to go inside a Church shirtless. Well? You wouldn’t do it, would you? The thing is, in my opinion at least (moral relavatism; bah!) that, just as women going shirtless wearing nothing but a bra or a bikini or even nothing at all on top is unacceptable, the same goes for men. Not meaning to sound crude but because men don’t have huge chests doesn’t mean its A-ok for them to take their shirt off. Men look at women in swimsuits with lust while women look at shirtless men with lust also. Also, gays look at men in swimsuits the way men look at women in swimsuits according to Unicorn Mountain (a novel). So if the men in ones parish goes shirtless, he’s doing wrong and sinning.

You write “the dress in the above picture is immodest beyond belief.” I ask immodest to whom? To you, obviously, but who are you to determine what is appropriate or immodest in a culture you know very little about? I presume you also think that such dress is displeasing to God, but I ask why should it be displeasing to him. What sin is committed when such dress is not recognized as immodest in that man’s understanding of what constitutes modesty? Are people who do not view nudity as bad sinful? You obviously think they are, but I would question the purpose of the nudity. If a person is nude for the express purpose of enticing someone into committing a sexual or lustful act, I concede your point, but that doesn’t seem to be the purpose of the man in the above picture. The problem, it seems, is yours and not his. Perhaps he thinks he is as Catholic as you are, and if dress is the only means by which we may judge such things, I agree with him. In short, dress is not the means by which we should judge whether someone is pleasing to God or not. Now, I agree that there should be standards of dress and behavior when attending a Catholic liturgy, but I don’t necessarily think that your standard or the standard that is held in the west should necessarily determine standards throughout the world. That is best left to the local Church and the experts who determine such things. For those of us who are not of the local Church, I think it is best to withhold judgement on what is modest or immodest in cultures different from our own. I would also warn against judging the holiness of others according to their dress. I think it is best to assume that the men in the picture above are attempting to serve the Church and God the best they can and withhold judgement concerning their sinfulness.

 

[Tsuwano]

You know Catholics have lost the plot when women are dancing in church. Yet you’ll find people who, with sweet reason, will defend it. Just as some would be happy with priestesses.

Many small changes over time mean a Mass that looks very different after forty years. In the 60’s, the Church made some MASSIVE changes. So small ones are hardly a big deal. So why not ceile dancing before the altar of the Most High? No biggie.

The kids love it, the organisers feel great and the women go ‘awwwww’.

Except one has a nagging sense that this is not good enough for the King Of Kings. Not by a long chalk. In fact, once you get over the banality of these add-ons, it is shocking, in comparison with how Mass was said before.

I’m remnided of how God gave strict instructions to the Jews how he was to be worshipped and how displeased He was when the started incorporating local i.e. pagan culture. Deja vu?

Why should dancing not please the King of Kings? David danced before the Lord and pleased him. I would think dancing is a means of prayer in the same way song is. Now, I wouldn’t suggest dancing at every liturgy just as I wouldn’t suggest singing the same song over and over at every liturgy, but if done prayerfully, I see no reason why the Lord should be displeased.

 

[TrueLight]

Why should dancing not please the King of Kings? David danced before the Lord and pleased him. I would think dancing is a means of prayer in the same way song is. Now, I wouldn’t suggest dancing at every liturgy just as I wouldn’t suggest singing the same song over and over at every liturgy, but if done prayerfully, I see no reason why the Lord should be displeased.

Not in the temple though.

 

[severus68]

You write “the dress in the above picture is immodest beyond belief.” I ask immodest to whom? To you, obviously, but who are you to determine what is appropriate or immodest in a culture you know very little about? I presume you also think that such dress is displeasing to God, but I ask why should it be displeasing to him. What sin is committed when such dress is not recognized as immodest in that man’s understanding of what constitutes modesty? Are people who do not view nudity as bad sinful? You obviously think they are, but I would question the purpose of the nudity. If a person is nude for the express purpose of enticing someone into committing a sexual or lustful act, I concede your point, but that doesn’t seem to be the purpose of the man in the above picture. The problem, it seems, is yours and not his. Perhaps he thinks he is as Catholic as you are, and if dress is the only means by which we may judge such things, I agree with him. In short, dress is not the means by which we should judge whether someone is pleasing to God or not. Now, I agree that there should be standards of dress and behavior when attending a Catholic liturgy, but I don’t necessarily think that your standard or the standard that is held in the west should necessarily determine standards throughout the world. That is best left to the local Church and the experts who determine such things. For those of us who are not of the local Church, I think it is best to withhold judgement on what is modest or immodest in cultures different from our own. I would also warn against judging the holiness of others according to their dress. I think it is best to assume that the men in the picture above are attempting to serve the Church and God the best they can and withhold judgement concerning their sinfulness.

Oh, well said.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Oh. My. Goodness.

These pictures depict cultural shows held outside the context of liturgy for the benefit of the pope and the delegates. Don’t worry. No masses were harmed in the making of these photos.

 

[trickster]

While I didnt read the thread in its entirety, the Church before the Second Vatican Council did inculturate the Mass for the aboriginal peoples with the so-called “Indian Masses”. Of course I don’t know for sure if this was done for your particular Nation, but traditional Catholicism has precedent for much of what you describe.

mysite.verizon.net/driadzbubl/IndianMasses/GeneralCharacteristics.html

Not saying that it should be revived, but it most certainly can be looked at again and adapted for current pastoral needs.

Yes, you are right…that is kind of my point…for Catholics to think that the pre-Vatican II mass was this singular event is to misunderstand what was happening in many communities…so thanks for that…

Bruce

 

[severus68]

Why should dancing not please the King of Kings? David danced before the Lord and pleased him. I would think dancing is a means of prayer in the same way song is. Now, I wouldn’t suggest dancing at every liturgy just as I wouldn’t suggest singing the same song over and over at every liturgy, but if done prayerfully, I see no reason why the Lord should be displeased.

Agreed.

 

[PhilOSophia]

Why should dancing not please the King of Kings? David danced before the Lord and pleased him. I would think dancing is a means of prayer in the same way song is. Now, I wouldn’t suggest dancing at every liturgy just as I wouldn’t suggest singing the same song over and over at every liturgy, but if done prayerfully, I see no reason why the Lord should be displeased.

Yes, that’s the single biblical often used to defend dancing in church. The only one.

Dancing is not right because of its connotations. They are secular and in the West, often, sexual. They are display behaviour: “look at me moving around up here”. It has no history in the Roman rite. It looks stupid. It is done because people want to do it, not because it glorifies the Lord. Gregorian chant was delberately written without rhythm so people couldn’t dance to it.

But, hey, if a KING wants to dance at a Mass, well, that would be something. Still wrong, but, I’d be a gawker

And then there’s this:
youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+colbert+liturgical+dancing

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes, that’s the single biblical often used to defend dancing in church. The only one.

Dancing is not right because of its connotations. They are secular and in the West, often, sexual. They are display behaviour: “look at me moving around up here”. It has no history in the Roman rite. It looks stupid. It is done because people want to do it, not because it glorifies the Lord. Gregorian chant was delberately written without rhythm so people couldn’t dance to it.

But, hey, if a KING wants to dance at a Mass, well, that would be something. Still wrong, but, I’d be a gawker

And then there’s this:
youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+colbert+liturgical+dancing

What makes you think dancing as prayer needs defending and why do you think more than one defense from a biblical source is necessary? Singing carries certain connotations as well, but we still sing. Indeed, eating and drinking carry connotations, but the central act of our liturgy is one of eating and drinking. It doesn’t matter what connotations dancing may have in an environment separate from prayer because those connotations do not apply. The rest of your post is mere opinion, which I can respect, but not accept as authority or law or the last word on the matter. Simply because you think something looks silly, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have meaning for others. It certainly wouldn’t be wrong, except in your opinion, of course, but hey, you would just be a gawker, right? So, I would think that those who dance and those who appreciate the dance wouldn’t have much use for your opinion.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Since an authority is needed, an authority will be given.

This is a 1975 essay from the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship regarding dance in the liturgy.

What is notable is that it does not preclude all dancing. In principle, some dancing is actually extant in a very limited form in the Ethiopian, Syriac and Byzantine liturgies. In practice, none of this ‘dancing’ is like the so-called liturgical dance of today. One cannot use these as a reason to incorporate dance into a liturgy.

Dance by its very nature draws people’s senses to focus upon the moving body, which is antithetical to the principle of focusing worship upon God. Even music is constrained by these same principles, which is to promote prayer and reverence in mass, and hence the discouragement of the use of secular melodies or excessive dissonance that would be a distraction to God-centered worship. To my knowledge, there are many African cultures which consider dance part of their language, but even they conduct their Holy Masses with reverence and restraint.

Tsuwano, I agree with you that dancing is indeed a wonderful show of joy, but in the Holy Mass, we are asked to revere God’s Holy Presence with utmost respect. We are to worship in solemnity with the fullness of our body and mind, and not to control of either in the House of the Lord.

 

[ProVobis]

My major problem to Traditional Catholicism both as a Catholic who remembers the old mass when I was a kid and a teen that welcomed the changes that we saw in the 70s and 80’s. I am very much a post-vatican II kind of guy.

Mass reform was begun as early as 1948, if not before. Monsignor Bugnini was hired for the purpose of reforming the Mass by Pope Pius XII. What you saw in the 50’s was the reform well under way. By 1955, Holy Week was changed and by 1962, the very “canonized” Canon of the Mass would have words added.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Whoops, critical correction.

We are to worship in solemnity with the fullness of our body and mind, and not to control of either in the House of the Lord.

We are to worship in solemnity with the fullness of our body and mind, and not to lose control of either in the House of the Lord.