What is the cause of the recent rise in traditional Catholicism and spirituality?

[Paxvobis]

Today I had a very lively discussion talking about the upcoming new translation of the OF Mass with my father (non-practicing), who grew up in the late 60s and early 70s. Now I had just come back from my monthly visit to the Traditional Latin Mass yesterday, and I mentioned that the emphasis people put on the Mass’s meaning before the 1960s was on the sacrifice, and that after Vatican II it was more on the breaking of the bread: the Lord’s Supper. Then I said that the pendulum was shifting and that with the new translation and the increased popularity and visibility of the TLM of late were examples of this.

Now my father tells me he grew up with guitar Masses and that the environment was easy going and open. It was, to him, a community celebration. He told me then that what I was describing - the Latin Mass, the priest facing away from the people, the emphasis on sacrifice - seemed very “serious” when compared with the kind of Catholicism he grew up with.

He then asked why this was happening in the Church, and for the life of me I have no idea. He’s under the impression that Pope Benedict is somehow way more conservative than JPIII or Paul VI, and so he thought that the change in popes was the case. But I don’t think that the current Holy Father is an ideologue compared with his predecessors and that there has to be more to it than just Summorum Pontificum. Irregardless, all of this got me thinking about these questions:

1. Why is the pendulum swinging back among many Catholics to the emphasis on the sacrifice rather than on the meal?
2. Why did people start in the first place to view the Mass more as a meal than as the sacrifice of Christ?
3. Why is the Latin Mass and other pre-Vatican II practices (traditions, Friday abstinence, et cetera) suddenly in vogue again among so many Catholics? (Or, is it just us on CAF? )
4. Why and how do people come to these traditions?

And, finally:

1. Is this throwback to before Vatican II a fad, or as time goes on will things like the Latin Mass become part of ‘mainstream’ Catholic life?

A lot to think about, but I think it’ll make for another lively discussion.

 

[TrueLight]

A lot to think about, but I think it’ll make for another lively discussion.

Lively yes, but dangerous, especially for traditionalists…

 

[Melchior_1]

1. Why is the pendulum swinging back among many Catholics to the emphasis on the sacrifice rather than on the meal?
2. Why is the Latin Mass and other pre-Vatican II practices (traditions, Friday abstinence, et cetera) suddenly in vogue again among so many Catholics? (Or, is it just us on CAF?

A lot to think about, but I think it’ll make for another lively discussion.

And I have just the thing to make it even MORE lively!

I’ve been involved in the charismatic renewal for awhile now, including a local Life Teen program and a charismatic society of priests. I find in the circles I travel that the sacrifice of the Mass is being emphasized, much more than the meal. And myself and several of my friends have taken up several traditional practices, with priests in our area encouraging people to fast and abstain. I’m hoping my formation (starting in December, God willing) with the Lay Dominicans will open up even more traditional practices and vocations, especially to secular orders.

A lot of these practices are coming back, and it’s not just coming back for traditionalists it seems.

 

[TrueLight]

A lot of these practices are coming back, and it’s not just coming back for traditionalists it seems.

Awesome!

The pendulum swings.

 

[Melchior_1]

Awesome!

The pendulum swings.

This is why I don’t get some of the conflicts that happen here and in other places from charismatics and traditionalists. Most charismatics I know are huge into traditional practices. Last night I gave a 33 minute talk on Mariology to 30+ young adults and high school kids, and they ate it all up. Had people asking me after for more information on Marian devotions.

I seriously don’t get it

 

[BigFellaMick]

Well the whole thing with the Church changing things around is we realized we translated things poorly with the Missal and are trying to shift back to where it should have been at all along. Naturally the Mass is changing with it and falling more in line with Rome. And Rome, as many of you know, is very traditional. And why is that so bad? I don’t bash the charismatic movement but its too protestant-esque for my personal taste (again not bashing, I fully recognize it as equally valid and I know some people prefer it and whatever gets them to Christ is what I’m all about ) But I’m all for the traditions. Christ was all about tradition big T and little t when He established His Church and He has been guiding it ever since God Bless!

 

[ManOnFire]

More people are beginning to see how the liberal media has conned much of the public to abandon unconditional love in favor of the selfish instant gratification that ruins families. The media’s promotion of instant gratification for the Self is dangerous. Instant gratification costs money. That’s why we see those who have been conned complaining more about lack of money than about the erosion of the unconditional love that keeps families together.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

Because an “easy going” and “open” group of people does not fulfill the longings of the human soul to experience the great mystery that is God.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Oh yes, this is an interesting topic!

1. Why is the pendulum swinging back among many Catholics to the emphasis on the sacrifice rather than on the meal?

Because more and more Catholics are beginning to ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’ and realise that the Mass, before anything else, is a sacrifice.

1. Why did people start in the first place to view the Mass more as a meal than as the sacrifice of Christ?

They didn’t. Ask anyone who is objective and intelligent and was around in the late 60’s and early 70’s, if the changed emphasis from sacrifice to meal arose spontaneously among the faithful or was imposed on them.

1. Why is the Latin Mass and other pre-Vatican II practices (traditions, Friday abstinence, et cetera) suddenly in vogue again among so many Catholics? (Or, is it just us on CAF? )

My personal opinion is that the progressive reforming movement in the Church has nearly burnt itself out. There was supposed to be a great renewal after Vat II which never took place. What that renewal was meant to be is up for (hot) debate, but at least everyone knows that nothing happened except a marked dropping off of Mass attendance and a spectacular drop in vocations. Time now to look for something else.

1. Why and how do people come to these traditions?

A kind of spiritual instinct. The ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’. The Church is a Mystical Body and we are all part of it, and provided one has a reasonable amount of good will, one tends to gravitate to a Catholic way of thinking and acting.

And, finally:

1. Is this throwback to before Vatican II a fad, or as time goes on will things like the Latin Mass become part of ‘mainstream’ Catholic life?

Now that is an interesting question. In what concerns the Latin Mass my personal opinion, again, is that liturgies have always been based on the language of the people in which they arose. In the Eastern Roman Empire it was in Greek, the language of most of the people in that area. In the Western Empire it was in Latin. In Russia it was in Slavonic, in Abyssinia it was in Coptic, in India it was in Malabar, etc., etc.

The liturgy remained in Latin in the West after the fall of the Empire for the simple reason that Latin never really became a dead language. French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are derivations of Latin. Two-thirds of English words come from Latin. Education in the West until quite recently included Latin (I remember doing Caesar’s Gallic Wars when in Second Form at High School - not a Catholic school either). Westerners, until quite recently, were familiar with Latin.

Since about WWII that has all changed. Today your average young person is about as familiar with Latin as he is with Urdu. I suspect that the Church will never require a mass return to Latin (excuse the pun) as it is now a totally foreign language for nearly everyone. What we do need though, and what the Church has always implemented in the past, is a kind of reverent, sacred language in the liturgy, not street or pop English. The new translation seems a step in that direction.

A lot to think about, but I think it’ll make for another lively discussion.

You bet.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

1. Why is the pendulum swinging back among many Catholics to the emphasis on the sacrifice rather than on the meal?

Because the sacrifice is what saves us the meal does not, without the sacrifice the meal is just a meal.

1. Why did people start in the first place to view the Mass more as a meal than as the sacrifice of Christ?

Because they denied the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1. Why is the Latin Mass and other pre-Vatican II practices (traditions, Friday abstinence, et cetera) suddenly in vogue again among so many Catholics? (Or, is it just us on CAF? )

Because we have rediscovered our need for these things due to their absence.

1. Why and how do people come to these traditions?

Speaking for myself I came to these traditions during a crisis of faith I endured during my teenage years.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I believe that experiementing took us away from the truth, and now the church is waking up to that reality and returning to where it should be. It will take long to repare the damage, but things are definitely changing. People need authentic worship of God. All the converts I have ever met wanted authentic Christianity and not some easy going church with wishy washy teaching. I think that says a lot.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I believe that experiementing took us away from the truth, and now the church is waking up to that reality and returning to where it should be. It will take long to repare the damage, but things are definitely changing. People need authentic worship of God. All the converts I have ever met wanted authentic Christianity and not some easy going church with wishy washy teaching. I think that says a lot.

My experience as a recent, and young, convert.

 

[Joannm]

Because the sacrifice is what saves us the meal does not, without the sacrifice the meal is just a meal.

Because they denied the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Because we have rediscovered our need for these things due to their absence.

Speaking for myself I came to these traditions during a crisis of faith I endured during my teenage years.

I would argue with you that the meal aspect became prominent because the denial of the Real Presence. What happened in the 60’s was an attempt to involve the community by emphasizing the aspect of “sacrificial meal” for that is what the Last Supper was and that is what the Passover way. That somehow developed into a lessing of the sacrificial aspect but it was still there. Many of us still held onto the sacrificial aspect, the re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross. I think those who didn’t think of the sacrifice, didn’t really understand it because of poor catechesis on the Mass and on the sacrifice of Jesus in general. The Eucharist, for them, became a sharing in the life of Christ without the sacrifice. No one wants to take up their cross, a talk of sacrifice reminds us of that. But among most of the people I know in our parish, no one is denying the Real Presence aside from those who don’t come to mass anyway.

As far as things like fasting and other disciplines and devotions, yes people are looking for meaning and for a spirituality. Other spiritual traditions have such disciplines. Look at all the people following Eastern traditions which include fasting, sitting in meditation, physical exercises and spiritual reading. It is a trend that goes beyond Catholicism. I know a number of people while not Catholic, practice fasting and other practices that deny them of things. New Age stuff is full of that. It is good though that a good number of people are discovering that Catholicism has had these things all along.

 

[BluesPicker]

Oh this is a simple one for me. Besides having the Mass in Latin, I can get the Traditional Blessings for Salt, Oil, & Water. I don’t have to put up with blank stares and rehearsed denial of the Traditional Blessings that have exorcisms and have been around for hundreds of years. Furthermore, you may request a Traditional Blessing but in 4 Church Parishes around my home the priests refuse to do so. All of them say the same things. Oh, I know for a fact that the Bishops would not support what these priests do.

  For example,  the Blessings for St. Benedict medals & Rosaries & Epiphany Water are all gone from the New Book of  Blessings.  The rite of Blessing is not just  the Tridentine Blessing Formula for these important sacramentals. However, if you go where the Traditional Mass is said, the priests are amicable to Bless in the Traditional Manner.

Then there are priests who make observations like these:

kensmen.com/catholic/amorth.html

The old Latin exorcism Roman Ritual was effective, but the New Rite Italian translation is a “farce”, giving the upper hand to the demons.

"Point 15 treats of evil spells and how one should behave when dealing with them. An evil spell is an evil brought about on a person by means of recourse to the devil. It can be accomplished under a variety of forms like spells, curses, the evil eye, voodoo and macumba. The Roman Ritual used to explain how one should confront it. The New Ritual on the other hand categorically declares that it is absolutely forbidden to perform exorcisms in such cases. Absurd. Evil spells are by far the most frequent causes of possessions and evil procured through the demon: at least 90% of cases. It is as good as telling exorcists they can no longer perform exorcisms. Then Point 16 solemnly declares that one should not carry out exorcisms if one is not certain of the presence of the devil. This is a masterstroke of incompetence: the certainty that the devil is present in someone can only be obtained by carrying out an exorcism. What is more, the authors of the Ritual failed to notice that on two points they were contradicting the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For this points out that exorcism should be practiced in cases of diabolical possession and in those of evil caused by the demon. And it also recommends that it be performed on people as well as on things. And in things, there is never the presence of the demon, there is only his influence. The declarations contained in the New Ritual are very serious.
…Cardinal Jorge Medina, attached to the Ritual a Notification in which he specified that exorcists were not obliged to use this Ritual and that, if they wished, they could ask their bishop for authorization to use the old one. The bishops must in their turn ask for authorization from the Congregation.
We organized an international congress of exorcists near Rome. We asked to be received by the Pope. To avoid pressurizing him, …we simply asked to be received in a public audience…in Saint Peter’s. But on the day before the audience, Mgr Nicolo told us - to tell the truth, he was very embarrassed and it was very apparent that the decision did not depend on him - not to present ourselves at the audience, and that we had not been admitted. Unbelievable: 150 exorcists from five continents, men appointed by their bishops in accordance with the rules of canon law which requires that they be men of prayer, knowledge and good reputation - and thus in some way the cream of the clergy - ask to take part in a public audience with the Pope and are shown the door!

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_su_father_x.html

“Things are of great concern in this new (revised) ritual. The (original) Ritual of 1614 contains 21 directives for the exorcist… The former directives 4-6, 8-9, 13-17, 19-20 have no equivalent in the new ritual… This means that most (12) of the 21 are deleted:
#4. In order to better test these signs [of possession /(demonization)], the priest should question the demoniac (after one or other exorcism) as to what he feels in his mind or body, so that in this way he can also learn which words more greatly disturb the demons, so as then to bear down on them and repeat them all the more.”

  However,  I am not a sedevactionist nor am I an exorcist; but  I am not impressed when any priest makes statements that are just his observations he is reporting and contrasting the changes, mostly.

 I disagree on Fr. Amorth's statement that the New Rite of Exorcism is a farce because God loves us and will abandon us.  Fr. Amorth states that some of the changes have no parallels when a comparison is made from the Traditional  to the New Rites.  This has been my observation also.

BP

 

[TradionalWay]

1. Why is the Latin Mass and other pre-Vatican II practices (traditions, Friday abstinence, et cetera) suddenly in vogue again among so many Catholics? (Or, is it just us on CAF? )

Well I can answer it for my reason.

As our world is changing day by day, the only place you can find peace and love is i the TLM… I admire, the way the church, (TLM) won change to please the people, nut rather keep to what they know is right.

In the TLM you really can see that God is present in the host, especially the way its treated to the utmost care, and the humble way me receive it. Also the way the priest face God instead… The modern day people just want some direction, so they turning to the traditional way

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

I would argue with you that the meal aspect became prominent because the denial of the Real Presence. What happened in the 60’s was an attempt to involve the community by emphasizing the aspect of “sacrificial meal” for that is what the Last Supper was and that is what the Passover way.

I wasn’t talking about the 60’s, people started emphasizing the meal and threw out the sacrifice much earlier than the 60’s, it was done back during the protestant revolution, all people in the 60’s did was start adopting a more protestant theology.

 

[Barbkw]

I don’t go to EF Masses, but I do have a growing interest in the Early Church, learning some Latin, and wanting to develop a faith based on the saints.

I dislike how the devotion to Mary was dissolved over the years - I personally think that occured due to the contraception debates within the Church in the late 60’s and throughout the 70’s.

I was listening to EWTN “Faith and Culture” this weekend. Colleen was talking about the Catholic Medical Association. colleen-campbell.com/ I believe the program said that membership in CMA was once other 1,000, yet when Pope JP2 issued the ban on contraceptives, membership in the organization fell to 100. (People were openly dissenting from Human Vitae in a very protestant way.)

 

[TrueLight]

  For example,  the Blessings for St. Benedict medals & Rosaries & Epiphany Water are all gone from the New Book of  Blessings.  The rite of Blessing is not just  the Tridentine Blessing Formula for these important sacramentals. However, if you go where the Traditional Mass is said, the priests are amicable to Bless in the Traditional Manner.

BP

Yes, I had both of my medals blessed in the Traditional Rite in Latin. The St Benedict blessing was long!

It was awesome!

 

[Paxvobis]

Thanks for all the replies so far!

Keep 'em coming.

 

[ProVobis]

What we do need though, and what the Church has always implemented in the past, is a kind of reverent, sacred language in the liturgy, not street or pop English. The new translation seems a step in that direction.

You mean the new new this-time-it’s-right translation? And this will be sacred enough and sustainable enough to substitute for the actual languages of the cross? What are the odds that somewhere down the line some new line of bishops won’t find another reason to replace it again?