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

[ProVobis]

And a final consideration: a liturgy needs to be is something very much apart from the common, everyday world.

I agree.

Anyone who studies theology knows what ‘transsubstantiation’ means.

One would think so but it is interesting that the Lutherans seem to understand the concept better than Catholics. So much so, they even formed the “consubstantiation” belief to contrast or counter the supposed beliefs of Catholics.

In any case morphing of a spoken word doesn’t matter, as what is in question here is the written text.

Theoretically that’s true, but judging by the declining reading scores in Angloshere, I wouldn’t say much of today’s written English will have too much of a demand in a hundred years or so. The study of English grammar and literature certainly isn’t growing, yet there is a growing desire for the classics. Go figure.

The Greek term is ‘Iesous’ (iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma), very similar to the Latin. The ‘v’ in classical Latin also stood for a ‘u’.

You’re correct. I had my Greek wrong. Shame on me.

 

[Phyllo]

We’re getting further and further away from the seventies.

I don’t think this is a throwback to before Vatican II. I think this is a further implementation of the fruit of Vatican II.

 

[manualman]

Please define your “JP II generation” so that I understand whom you speak of.

This generally means those Gen X and Y people who are actually interested and involved in the catholic faith (as opposed to those who abandoned the Church entirely once mom couldn’t make them go anymore).

These people generally are NOT interested in liberation theology, have no desire to be liturgical dancers, the women among them don’t agitate to be priests (nor give any other indications that they wish they were men instead of women), they don’t see the Church as an opportunity to socially organize with nice people, but as an opportunity to encounter God and be transformed by Him (as opposed to them changing/“reforming” the church). They want the Sacrements because they understand them as a fountain of Grace. When they investigate priestly and religious vocations, they do so because they desire to do the will of Christ (not because they desire merely to help people).

How’s that for a quick answer?

 

[FAB]

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

 

[FAB]

varda quinn;8594461:

We’re getting further and further away from the seventies.

What are the fruits of Vatican II?
Millions of Catholics leaving the church, including clergy. Nuns leaving the convents in droves-Protestantization of the Mass and Liturgy–modernism warned against by Pope Pius X–. I think Catholics are tired of the modern Mass and are hungry for the Latin Rite Mass again. That is if they can find one within travel distance of their home.

Vatican II was pastoral in nature and modernistic clergy took advantage of that. Every thing was done in the spirit of Vatican II what ever that means.

All these are false hood started by folks who want a reason not the like the renewal of VII. All of these have other causes.

 

[Phyllo]

Phyllo;8598675:

All these are false hood started by folks who want a reason not the like the renewal of VII. All of these have other causes.

All of what I said is true according to the Catholic Family News and Michael Voris.

 

[manualman]

Phyllo;8598675:

All these are false hood started by folks who want a reason not the like the renewal of VII. All of these have other causes.

You might be surprised. I agree that the quote you responded to is an over-reaction. But it is partially based on easily verified fact. Go ahead and buy the Vatican II documents (available in English, maybe even online). I dare you to find me where Vatican II:

1. demanded that we abolish latin in the mass.
2. permitted communion in the hand and the demolition of communion rails.
3. called for the suppression of novenas, adoration, rosary societies, Eucharistic processions, scapulars and all the other popular devotions that promptly nearly died out after the council.
4. required that the priest face the congregation at consecration.
5. asked that banal pop tunes replace hymans, actual psalms and chanted responses.
6. Instructed religious to cease wearing any form of readily identifiable habit.
7. Called for the tabernacle to be shunted off the altar and effectively into broom closets.
8. sought to have laity be 9/10 of the ministers of the Holy Eucharist at a typical mass.

The list is nearly endless. There WAS a cabal of determined and opinionated clergy that drastically over-reached the assignments given to them after Vatican II. The documents are there for anybody who can read to see it. The solution isn’t to toss out Vatican II, it is to read the actual documents and implement what they ACTUALLY say!

 

[Dirt]

FAB;8602920:

You might be surprised. I agree that the quote you responded to is an over-reaction. But it is partially based on easily verified fact. Go ahead and buy the Vatican II documents (available in English, maybe even online). I dare you to find me where Vatican II:

1. demanded that we abolish latin in the mass.
2. permitted communion in the hand and the demolition of communion rails.
3. called for the suppression of novenas, adoration, rosary societies, Eucharistic processions, scapulars and all the other popular devotions that promptly nearly died out after the council.
4. required that the priest face the congregation at consecration.
5. asked that banal pop tunes replace hymans, actual psalms and chanted responses.
6. Instructed religious to cease wearing any form of readily identifiable habit.
7. Called for the tabernacle to be shunted off the altar and effectively into broom closets.
8. sought to have laity be 9/10 of the ministers of the Holy Eucharist at a typical mass.

The list is nearly endless. There WAS a cabal of determined and opinionated clergy that drastically over-reached the assignments given to them after Vatican II. The documents are there for anybody who can read to see it. The solution isn’t to toss out Vatican II, it is to read the actual documents and implement what they ACTUALLY say!

That is a correct assesment, and that is why there is a small but growing call for a re-evaluation of the Documents of Vatican Council II as to what WAS requested and to authenticate what has happened to our Liturgy and Traditions in contrast to the documents.
Read +Bishop Schneider’s request here:
ewtn.com/library/bishops/schneider-proposte.htm

Pax Christi

 

[Irish_Polock]

This generally means those Gen X and Y people who are actually interested and involved in the catholic faith (as opposed to those who abandoned the Church entirely once mom couldn’t make them go anymore).

These people generally are NOT interested in liberation theology, have no desire to be liturgical dancers, the women among them don’t agitate to be priests (nor give any other indications that they wish they were men instead of women), they don’t see the Church as an opportunity to socially organize with nice people, but as an opportunity to encounter God and be transformed by Him (as opposed to them changing/“reforming” the church). They want the Sacrements because they understand them as a fountain of Grace. When they investigate priestly and religious vocations, they do so because they desire to do the will of Christ (not because they desire merely to help people).

How’s that for a quick answer?

Well, I am definitely of “generation X” and my parents are definitely of the “fallen away” generation that happened in the post-councilor era . Although, I don’t necessarily see the connection to JP II’s pontificate and Catholic orthodoxy. In fact, I could argue against such a stance.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[ProVobis]

Go ahead and buy the Vatican II documents (available in English, maybe even online).

ewtn.com/library/councils/v2all.htm

I strongly suggest people at least glance at some of the Latin. Some of the translations were perhaps too dynamic.

 

[FAB]

You might be surprised. I agree that the quote you responded to is an over-reaction. But it is partially based on easily verified fact. Go ahead and buy the Vatican II documents (available in English, maybe even online). I dare you to find me where Vatican II:

1. demanded that we abolish latin in the mass.
2. permitted communion in the hand and the demolition of communion rails.
3. called for the suppression of novenas, adoration, rosary societies, Eucharistic processions, scapulars and all the other popular devotions that promptly nearly died out after the council.
4. required that the priest face the congregation at consecration.
5. asked that banal pop tunes replace hymans, actual psalms and chanted responses.
6. Instructed religious to cease wearing any form of readily identifiable habit.
7. Called for the tabernacle to be shunted off the altar and effectively into broom closets.
8. sought to have laity be 9/10 of the ministers of the Holy Eucharist at a typical mass.

The list is nearly endless. There WAS a cabal of determined and opinionated clergy that drastically over-reached the assignments given to them after Vatican II. The documents are there for anybody who can read to see it. The solution isn’t to toss out Vatican II, it is to read the actual documents and implement what they ACTUALLY say!

to answer a few of these and most of these come from the direction of the documents that gave instructions for the Ordinary form of the mass, venacular, yes , preist facing the congregation, yes, revison of music, yes, instructions to the religious, yes, active participation of the laity , yes.
Communion in the hand and elimination of altar rails were part of the changes that were started by the council and continued to develope. the alter rails were part of turn the altar as part of eliminating a physical barrier between tha santuary and the people.
#3 was never part of the council, they may have faded, but are now as stronge as ever.
The movement of the tabernacle has been made to allow for the 24/7 adoration of our Lord, something that was not done pre council.
The liturgy and the church are also not fixed to one point in time. It is a living and it changes through the years to better meet the needs of the people. You might want to argue that they don’t meet your needs, but the vast majority of the faithful are not with you.
what more is that not all of the changes called for by the council have been implamented. At some point those with negative critiques will need to come to accept the work of the council and those changes made as a result of it. Other wise, they will be unhappy form now on.

 

[m134e5]

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

The Mass, which transcends time, is an actual participation in the sacrifice at Calvary. Sacrifice means giving something up. It isn’t fun, or pleasant to think about- although it can be beautiful. It’s main purpose is to save us from our sins- not to comfort us.

In the 60’s and 70’s, there was an increased emphasis in society on self-indulgence. Society also had a particularly serious problem of confusing morals with feelings. People mistook the real Jesus for a hippie Jesus, who just told people to be nice to each other. They also said that you could tell if a person was good by how nice they were and how good they made you feel. Sacrifice doesn’t feel good, so it didn’t fit with the unusually hedonistic culture of the day.

There was some emphasis in the Second Vatican Council on engaging modern culture. Many people took this to mean that the Church should become more politically correct and avoid things that might make the hedonists and relativists of the day uncomfortable. That has never been the Church’s teachings- even though it crept into the Church’s hierarchy. Many in the Church have seen that their approach is a failure, and so are bringing back a more faithful, authentic practice of Catholicism- and God bless them for it.

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

A meal is appealing, a sacrifice is not.

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? )

There is a higher concentration of this on CAF than in the world, but I do think tradition is making a comeback. Over the past ten years, I’ve started to see more Latin in Masses, more respect for traditional devotions, more reverence to the Eucharist, and an increase in other traditional practices. The world is full of despair, People don’t want to go through life like that, and the Faith is a refuge from it. I think more people are realizing that it is foolish to make the Church more like the world, when people turn to it to be saved from the hopelessness of the world.

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

Different traditions have developed in the Church over the centuries. Some stay for a long time- others are popular only for awhile. Each tradition has its story.

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?

I do not think it is a “throwback to before Vatican II,” and I do not think it is a fad. The Mass is the ultimate worship of Almighty God- no council has ever challenged that (at least not one approved by the Church). I think some of the practices that have been in place since the recent years following the council are fads- and they are, thankfully, passing.

 

[manualman]

to answer a few of these and most of these come from the direction of the documents that gave instructions for the Ordinary form of the mass,

1. venacular, yes ,
2. preist facing the congregation, yes,
3. revison of music, yes,
4. instructions to the religious, yes,
5. active participation of the laity , yes.
6. Communion in the hand and elimination of altar rails were part of the changes that were started by the council and continued to develope.
7. the alter rails were part of turn the altar as part of eliminating a physical barrier between tha santuary and the people.
8. The movement of the tabernacle has been made to allow for the 24/7 adoration of our Lord, something that was not done pre council.
9. The liturgy and the church are also not fixed to one point in time. It is a living and it changes through the years to better meet the needs of the people. You might want to argue that they don’t meet your needs, but the vast majority of the faithful are not with you.

1. You have to read carefully. The council called for the use of vernacular in SOME portions of the liturgy. But the documents EXPLICITLY state that latin remains the norm for much of the liturgy. Heard ANY latin in your local mass lately? I haven’t. Total misapplication.
2. Wrong. The Council calls for the priest to turn and face the congregation at SPECIFIC portions of the liturgy. The clear message is that he is turning towards the congregation at those times because he was standing WITH the people facing east along with them at the other times. Look it up.
3. The council documents EXPLICITLY call for Gregorian Chant to be given pride of place in the practice of the liturgy. It dicusses the introduction of other musical forms as supplements, but not the wholesale replacement that was jammed down our throats. More dissembling.
4. Religious were explicitly instructed to adapt their habits to a practical and evangelical form for modern times. I fail to see how dumping habits altogether so that you wouldn’t know a nun or a brother if you tripped on one can be said with a straight face to meet this mandate.
5. Active participation of the laity, meant that they were to be engaged in what is happening at mass, rather than reading the bulletin or praying their own rosary while mass went on around them. Show me where the documents call for “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.” You can’t because they don’t. Read them.
6. Communion in the hand came about via disobedience of activist bishops and priests. The Holy See (NOT the council, mind you) gave an after the fact indult after judging that the impacts of fighting the established practice would outweigh the benefits of such an ecclesial civil war. Altar rail removal and #2 above were the brainchild of Archbishop Bugnini who acted solely on his opinion without the guidance of the council and he is quoted as being motivated by a desire to de-emphasize the transcendent nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist and to instead emphasize the imminence of Christ in the people of God gathered together. One can argue that this is a good idea, but the catholic way would have been to have it approved by the actual council, not to hijack the implementation of it and insert one’s own novel theories.
7. Exactly right, but all Bugnini and Weakland’s personal pet innovations were NOT authorized or endorsed by the Council documents. They were their own theories that they pretended were the authoritative word of the Council.
8. This might apply well to nicely done Eucharistic chapels. It does NOT explain the way tabernacles in hundreds of parishes have been punted to a place of obscurity not conducive to adoration. In my parish, it is in a back corner hidden behind a massive brick pillar. Nobody can see it from any pew in the church or any kneeler. It’s an outright architectural insult and I’ve seen it hundreds of places.
9. I actually agree with this one 100%. I’m not a guy who believes we should fix the mass in time. I like most of the mass in English, I want the mikes to stay on during the consecration prayer, I don’t even mind guitars. But I AM a guy who believes the council documents should speak for themselves and be implemented in accordance with what they actually SAY, not what one (or a few) archbishop thought they really meant to say “in spirit.”

You sound like the 1980’s NCCB talking points. IMO, it is no coincidence that Bugnini’s main American protege and booster, Archbishop Rembert Weakland turned out to be arguably the largest episcopal embarassment in American catholic history (which is saying something) when his true character was revealed. (He covered up sexual abuse in his diocese, including a much younger seminarian that he himself had a personal affair with and used diocesan money to hush him up afterwards). Maybe that’s why he was so keen to downplay liturgical emphasis on a holy, magnificent and transcendental God? If you were living like him, wouldn’t you too? If that was potentially the motivating force behind some of the changes not rooted in the council documents themselves, shouldn’t we be concerned?!

Have you actually read any of the Vatican II documents specifically about the liturgy? They really aren’t all that hard to read. Give it a shot. You’ll be surprised.

 

[YoungTradCath]

to answer a few of these and most of these come from the direction of the documents that gave instructions for the Ordinary form of the mass, venacular, yes , preist facing the congregation, yes, revison of music, yes, instructions to the religious, yes, active participation of the laity , yes.
Communion in the hand and elimination of altar rails were part of the changes that were started by the council and continued to develope. the alter rails were part of turn the altar as part of eliminating a physical barrier between tha santuary and the people.
#3 was never part of the council, they may have faded, but are now as stronge as ever.
The movement of the tabernacle has been made to allow for the 24/7 adoration of our Lord, something that was not done pre council.
The liturgy and the church are also not fixed to one point in time. It is a living and it changes through the years to better meet the needs of the people. You might want to argue that they don’t meet your needs, but the vast majority of the faithful are not with you.
what more is that not all of the changes called for by the council have been implamented. At some point those with negative critiques will need to come to accept the work of the council and those changes made as a result of it. Other wise, they will be unhappy form now on.

I would like to ask you to qualify these statements with Church documents or at the very least, opinions from higher-ups in the Vatican. I don’t expect to see every little thing here backed-up, but I’m sensing the, “This is my opinion, and I’m supplying it as fact,” thing going on here.

 

[beehumble]

It is the impact of JPII and B16, but mostly the impact of a certain apparition.

God bless you.

 

[MontChevalier]

It is the impact of JPII and B16, but mostly the impact of a certain apparition.

God bless you.

The impact of JPII? I highly doubt it. JPII was highly influential in the Novus Ordo side. Most of what’s going on with the Latin stuff is all B16.

-MontChevalier

 

[Justin_Swanton]

1. You have to read carefully. The council called for the use of vernacular in SOME portions of the liturgy. But the documents EXPLICITLY state that latin remains the norm for much of the liturgy. Heard ANY latin in your local mass lately? I haven’t. Total misapplication.
2. Wrong. The Council calls for the priest to turn and face the congregation at SPECIFIC portions of the liturgy. The clear message is that he is turning towards the congregation at those times because he was standing WITH the people facing east along with them at the other times. Look it up.
3. The council documents EXPLICITLY call for Gregorian Chant to be given pride of place in the practice of the liturgy. It dicusses the introduction of other musical forms as supplements, but not the wholesale replacement that was jammed down our throats. More dissembling.
4. Religious were explicitly instructed to adapt their habits to a practical and evangelical form for modern times. I fail to see how dumping habits altogether so that you wouldn’t know a nun or a brother if you tripped on one can be said with a straight face to meet this mandate.
5. Active participation of the laity, meant that they were to be engaged in what is happening at mass, rather than reading the bulletin or praying their own rosary while mass went on around them. Show me where the documents call for “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.” You can’t because they don’t. Read them.
6. Communion in the hand came about via disobedience of activist bishops and priests. The Holy See (NOT the council, mind you) gave an after the fact indult after judging that the impacts of fighting the established practice would outweigh the benefits of such an ecclesial civil war. Altar rail removal and #2 above were the brainchild of Archbishop Bugnini who acted solely on his opinion without the guidance of the council and he is quoted as being motivated by a desire to de-emphasize the transcendent nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist and to instead emphasize the imminence of Christ in the people of God gathered together. One can argue that this is a good idea, but the catholic way would have been to have it approved by the actual council, not to hijack the implementation of it and insert one’s own novel theories.
7. Exactly right, but all Bugnini and Weakland’s personal pet innovations were NOT authorized or endorsed by the Council documents. They were their own theories that they pretended were the authoritative word of the Council.
8. This might apply well to nicely done Eucharistic chapels. It does NOT explain the way tabernacles in hundreds of parishes have been punted to a place of obscurity not conducive to adoration. In my parish, it is in a back corner hidden behind a massive brick pillar. Nobody can see it from any pew in the church or any kneeler. It’s an outright architectural insult and I’ve seen it hundreds of places.
9. I actually agree with this one 100%. I’m not a guy who believes we should fix the mass in time. I like most of the mass in English, I want the mikes to stay on during the consecration prayer, I don’t even mind guitars. But I AM a guy who believes the council documents should speak for themselves and be implemented in accordance with what they actually SAY, not what one (or a few) archbishop thought they really meant to say “in spirit.”

You sound like the 1980’s NCCB talking points. IMO, it is no coincidence that Bugnini’s main American protege and booster, Archbishop Rembert Weakland turned out to be arguably the largest episcopal embarassment in American catholic history (which is saying something) when his true character was revealed. (He covered up sexual abuse in his diocese, including a much younger seminarian that he himself had a personal affair with and used diocesan money to hush him up afterwards). Maybe that’s why he was so keen to downplay liturgical emphasis on a holy, magnificent and transcendental God? If you were living like him, wouldn’t you too? If that was potentially the motivating force behind some of the changes not rooted in the council documents themselves, shouldn’t we be concerned?!

Have you actually read any of the Vatican II documents specifically about the liturgy? They really aren’t all that hard to read. Give it a shot. You’ll be surprised.

Pretty much though I would argue about mikes and guitars. I don’t think we’ve yet seen the final resolution of the Bugnini hijack. Interesting times ahead.

 

[ProVobis]

Pretty much though I would argue about mikes and guitars. I don’t think we’ve yet seen the final resolution of the Bugnini hijack. Interesting times ahead.

I definitely oppose mikes and guitars for the most part, my ears are perhaps more sensitive than others. But reforms are reforms. I wish it weren’t so but we have to take the good with the bad if we are to accept reforms. Some of the good or the bad may not apply in one’s individual world, we are always able to vote with our feet, but it’s basically a package deal that’s part of the reform process. Just saying.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I definitely oppose mikes and guitars for the most part, my ears are perhaps more sensitive than others. But reforms are reforms. I wish it weren’t so but we have to take the good with the bad if we are to accept reforms. Some of the good or the bad may not apply in one’s individual world, we are always able to vote with our feet, but it’s basically a package deal that’s part of the reform process. Just saying.

Mmmm…I think one needs to nuance the Roma locuta est causa finita est. After all, it is Rome that has revised the ICEL English translation of the Mass, a reform that was given full weight of Ecclesiastical law when it came out quite a few decades ago.

Looking at what has currency in the Church, I think it important to distinguish between matter that is ex cathedra - definitive pronouncements on Faith or morals - and matter that is not. The latter comprises the entire liturgical reform. It can and does happen that non ex cathedra stuff that is to a greater or lesser extent harmful inserts itself into Church life for decades, even centuries, like a pebble in a shoe, before the Church finally gets rid of it. This is just a fact of life. Question is, what to do about it?

For non ex cathedra reforms that do not have the official sanction of the highest ecclesiastical authorities but are tolerated because they are too entrenched to be immediately removed, there is no problem - one rejects them. Thus guitars, handholding during the Our Father, etc.

For other non ex cathedra reforms that do have ecclesiastical sanction but are not beneficial, I say that one can reject or take them - but only take them in a degree or fashion that does not cause spiritual harm. In these situations Our Lord knows our need and supplies the lack. But I think it better to do without them if one can. I would put in this category the near total lack of silence in the OF, in a world of noise where one has so much need of silence in order to recollect oneself in God’s presence.

 

[ProVobis]

Mmmm…I think one needs to nuance the Roma locuta est causa finita est. After all, it is Rome that has revised the ICEL English translation of the Mass, a reform that was given full weight of Ecclesiastical law when it came out quite a few decades ago.

The translations were pretty much left to the bishops, or rather the bishops’ conferences in every country. I doubt if all the people in Rome were skilled enough to be able to translate into 500 vernaculars. They could only give full approval to those vernaculars which they were fully familiar with; obviously English had not been one of them.

Furthermore, there would be no need to retranslate the actual texts used in the Mass (and heavy possibility in the loss of credibility) unless there had been a translation in the first place. But let’s look at the possible domino effect of doing the vernacular. Almost naturally the priest had to face the people. (This had been true even in the pre-Vatican Mass when the vernacular readings and sermon were so done.) Then the mike, then the removal of low-tones in the Mass, then the extension of readings to the laity, new Mass songs, new instruments, etc. etc. In my opinion you just couldn’t have vernacular without compromising on many of the other Catholic traditions.

Having said that, maybe at one time the Anglicans were able to do the “ad orientem” in English. But that’s another story and you probably won’t find that too prevalent today.

Looking at what has currency in the Church, I think it important to distinguish between matter that is ex cathedra - definitive pronouncements on Faith or morals - and matter that is not. The latter comprises the entire liturgical reform. It can and does happen that non ex cathedra stuff that is to a greater or lesser extent harmful inserts itself into Church life for decades, even centuries, like a pebble in a shoe, before the Church finally gets rid of it. This is just a fact of life. Question is, what to do about it?

I’m not going to comment on “ex cathedra” per se but the Council of Trent was less ambiguous than many other councils on what was doctrinal and what was not. I feel much of Trent was compromised when some entity (spirit of Vatican II?) expressed that that former Council not only was no longer binding but that most, if not all, issues covered by formal doctrine were just relegated to simple disciplines anyone could change.