What is the "Crisis"?

[Brennan_Doherty]

Interesting observation by Father Brian Harrison.

How it happened is anybody’s guess but it’s more than obvious that in these days of post-Vatican II, the two exreme groups have revealed themselves. What’s most remarkable to me is their mutual chant; more than anything it is anti-Papacy in tone. They wave the same banners; all insult the Pope - and that is the heart of Protestant belief. So it’s as easy for me to believe that the actions of Vatican II REVEALED that these views existed, rather than CAUSED such views to exist in the first place.

Hi Catharina,

First, any references or articles I refer people to such as on the liturgy do not “insult the Pope” unless one holds that opposing or disagreeing with a prudential decision of the Pope is the same as insulting him or acting like a Protestant. For an example of disagreeing with a prudential decision of the Pope without being insulting see the article in my signature link below.

And actually, in one way I agree with you. For instance, there has probably always existed various differences among Catholics in how they view Papal authority and react to it, and here I am thinking of primarily conservatives and traditionalists. And the release of the New Mass seems to have allowed (or caused) those differences to break out in the open. With the conservatives it seems as if they uphold small t traditions, whatever they might be, mainly because the Vatican allows them. Traditionalists tend to uphold them because they make sense in and of themselves regardless of whether the current Vatican policy is to allow it or not (though all have to be obedient).

So, with the TLM, in a way this division was not out in the open. With the release of the New Mass, however, these divisions did come out into the open, unfortunately, as night follows day.

And then there are the liberals who often abuse the liturgy or form the music and other things to their more progressive taste (which technically may not be an abuse). And of course tradtionalists and conservatives oppose liturgical abuse.

 

[catharina]

Hi Catharina,

First, any references or articles I refer people to such as on the liturgy do not “insult the Pope” unless one holds that opposing or disagreeing with a prudential decision of the Pope is the same as insulting him or acting like a Protestant. For an example of disagreeing with a prudential decision of the Pope without being insulting see the article in my signature link below.

And actually, in one way I agree with you. For instance, there has probably always existed various differences among Catholics in how they view Papal authority and react to it, and here I am thinking of primarily conservatives and traditionalists. And the release of the New Mass seems to have allowed (or caused) those differences to break out in the open. With the conservatives it seems as if they uphold small t traditions, whatever they might be, mainly because the Vatican allows them. Traditionalists tend to uphold them because they make sense in and of themselves regardless of whether the current Vatican policy is to allow it or not (though all have to be obedient).

So, with the TLM, in a way this division was not out in the open. With the release of the New Mass, however, these divisions did come out into the open, unfortunately, as night follows day.

And then there are the liberals who often abuse the liturgy or form the music and other things to their more progressive taste (which technically may not be an abuse). And of course tradtionalists and conservatives oppose liturgical abuse.

Brennan, hi. First I wasn’t imply at all that you or the quoted priests have insulted the Pope. Speaking of the two extreme groups though, yes I believe they fully share a lack of love and sense of service to the Holy Father whoever he might be. Instead, they seem to feel the right to sit back and judge the papacy. (To that, I can only say: “Huh?”)

I know you got my point and thank you for making that clear because really, I believe what I said: *“How it happened is anybody’s guess but it’s more than obvious that in these days of post-Vatican II, the two exreme groups have revealed themselves. What’s most remarkable to me is their mutual chant; more than anything it is anti-Papacy in tone. They wave the same banners; all insult the Pope - and that is the heart of Protestant belief. So it’s as easy for me to believe that the actions of Vatican II REVEALED that these views existed, rather than CAUSED such views to exist in the first place.” *

(BTW, there’s a very similar thread - much overlap - that’s also current: “sspx and post-Vatican II canonizations.”)

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan, hi. First I wasn’t imply at all that you or the quoted priests have insulted the Pope. Speaking of the two extreme groups though, yes I believe they fully share a lack of love and sense of service to the Holy Father whoever he might be. Instead, they seem to feel the right to sit back and judge the papacy. (To that, I can only say: “Huh?”)

I know you got my point and thank you for making that clear because really, I believe what I said: "How it happened is anybody’s guess but it’s more than obvious that in these days of post-Vatican II, the two exreme groups have revealed themselves. What’s most remarkable to me is their mutual chant; more than anything it is anti-Papacy in tone. They wave the same banners; all insult the Pope - and that is the heart of Protestant belief. So it’s as easy for me to believe that the actions of Vatican II REVEALED that these views existed, rather than CAUSED such views to exist in the first place."

(BTW, there’s a very similar thread - much overlap - that’s also current: “sspx and post-Vatican II canonizations.”)

Hi Catharina,

I do agree that the Pope must be obeyed even in prudential matters and even if one disagrees with the decision. Dietrich von Hildebrand once put it succinctly regarding some prudential decisions of the Vatican: “We obey, but do not agree.” I also think the Pope must be addressed or spoken about in a respectful manner. I am reminded of a talk given by Dr. William Marra called “The Pope, The Council, and The Mass” which I consider one of the best talks on the traditionalist position regarding the liturgy:

keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=479

One of the things he said (I’m paraphrasing) is that anyone calling himself a traditionalist really needs to stop using expressions like “JPII” when talking about the Vicar of Christ. That we really did not need that type of talk and it was not helpful.

Whether or not I would be considered insulting to the Pope (I hope not) or just like a Protestant I must admit that there are prudential decisions by Popes or the Vatican I have found unfortunate (to put it mildly). Issues such as the changes to the liturgy (and not just the abuses), altar girls, communion in the hand, and others. Nevertheless, I, and most other traditionalists (I hope), would recognize that the Pope does have the authority to make those decisions and must be obeyed even if we disagree (and voice that disagreement in a respectful manner).

 

[catharina]

Hi Catharina,

I do agree that the Pope must be obeyed even in prudential matters and even if one disagrees with the decision. Dietrich von Hildebrand once put it succinctly regarding some prudential decisions of the Vatican: “We obey, but do not agree.” I also think the Pope must be addressed or spoken about in a respectful manner. I am reminded of a talk given by Dr. William Marra called “The Pope, The Council, and The Mass” which I consider one of the best talks on the traditionalist position regarding the liturgy:

keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=479

One of the things he said (I’m paraphrasing) is that anyone calling himself a traditionalist really needs to stop using expressions like “JPII” when talking about the Vicar of Christ. That we really did not need that type of talk and it was not helpful.

Whether or not I would be considered insulting to the Pope (I hope not) or just like a Protestant I must admit that there are prudential decisions by Popes or the Vatican I have found unfortunate (to put it mildly). Issues such as the changes to the liturgy (and not just the abuses), altar girls, communion in the hand, and others. Nevertheless, I, and most other traditionalists (I hope), would recognize that the Pope does have the authority to make those decisions and must be obeyed even if we disagree (and voice that disagreement in a respectful manner).

I do find it horrifying that the extremes seem to feel free to pass judgment on the popes and, maybe worst, to describe them in the most viturperative and un-Christian ways. It boggles my mind.

Have they no fear of God? (Again, by “they,” I do mean both sets of extremists.) It might be worst among the (clearly very tiny) group who consider Popes to be publicly evil - and they say so! Truly “God is not mocked.” The grace of the Holy Spirit is invoked when a Holy Father is chosen and we are mandated to pray for the Pope!

 

[John_Higgins]

Maybe the only “crisis” is some people continually saying there’s a crisis. Now there WAS a crisis at Crisis. Hmm.

John

 

[catharina]

Maybe the only “crisis” is some people continually saying there’s a crisis. Now there WAS a crisis at Crisis. Hmm.

John

A la Henny Penny: “The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!” and both extremist groups get to run around in circles and be irritable and hysterical. Like that?

 

[japhy]

Maybe the only “crisis” is some people continually saying there’s a crisis.

I look at the average Mass in the Ordinary Form today and I recognize that something is wrong. Some call it a crisis – an “identity crisis”, if you will – and some use less inflammatory language. Suffice to say, there are people who consider themselves in between the “Traditionalists” and the “Progressives” who wish to see the 1962 liturgy reformed according to Sacrosanctum Concilium. And in the meantime, we’d love to see a reverent celebration of the Ordinary Form in keeping with the dictates of the same SC without the assumptions of today… in particular, a Mass, celebrated mostly in Latin (with the smattering of Greek and Hebrew) with some vernacular as deemed appropriate, celebrated ad orientem, with Gregorian Chant, with the ordained ministers in proper attire (chasuble OVER stole, thanks), etc.

Is that too much to ask for?

 

[stmaria]

newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=1007-notes-sinking
A 2005 survey polled Catholic attitudes on “Helping the poor,” and found that 84 percent of Catholics said it is “very important.” Excellent. Polling on “The Catholic Church’s teachings that oppose same-sex marriage” found that only 47 percent said it is “very important.” As for “The teaching authority claimed by the Vatican,” only 42 percent of Catholics said it is “very important.” This is substandard.

A 2003 survey asked, “How essential are these teachings…?” Only 38 percent said that “Private confession to a priest” is “essential.” Only 29 percent said that the “Belief that only men can be priests” is “essential.” Terrible.

Surveys over the years asked, “Can you be a good Catholic without this?” “Without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching regarding abortion”: In a 1987 survey, 39 percent of Catholics answered “yes”; in a 2005 survey, 58 percent said “yes.” “Without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching on divorce and remarriage”: In 1987, 57 percent said “yes”; in 2005, 66 percent said “yes.” “Without their marriage being approved by the Catholic Church”: In 1987, 51 percent said “yes”; in 2005, 67 percent said “yes.” “Without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control”: In 1987, 66 percent said “yes”; in 2005, 75 percent said “yes.” A trend is readily apparent.

 

[Brother_John]

japhy sezs: I look at the average Mass in the Ordinary Form today and I recognize that something is wrong. Some call it a crisis – an “identity crisis”, if you will – and some use less inflammatory language. Suffice to say, there are people who consider themselves in between the “Traditionalists” and the “Progressives” who wish to see the 1962 liturgy reformed according to Sacrosanctum Concilium. And in the meantime, we’d love to see a reverent celebration of the Ordinary Form in keeping with the dictates of the same SC without the assumptions of today… in particular, a Mass, celebrated mostly in Latin (with the smattering of Greek and Hebrew) with some vernacular as deemed appropriate, celebrated ad orientem, with Gregorian Chant, with the ordained ministers in proper attire (chasuble OVER stole, thanks), etc.
Is that too much to ask for?

An interesting list…I personally prefer the Mass, 1970-style. In the vernacular, with traditional hymns, pipe organs, but plainspeak wording. I don’t mind shaking hands, or holding hands during the Our Father, but I can live without it.

Communion on the tongue is horribly awkward for me, so I prefer by hand, but either way will work for me.

As an altar server, I served Mass in Latin after 1970. I never attended TLM with the priest facing the rear. So, that would seem odd to me, while the Masses that I served (priest facing congregation though speaking in Latin) would seem odd to others.

Guess I’m a little of both.

 

[markadm]

Maybe the only “crisis” is some people continually saying there’s a crisis.

Oh, yeah, right(!)

That’s why a city of 450,000 people only has 14 Priests, is planning for 12 in 5 years’ time, and 8 in ten!

 

[Sure]

Oh, yeah, right(!)

That’s why a city of 450,000 people only has 14 Priests, is planning for 12 in 5 years’ time, and 8 in ten!

Are you referring to Edinburgh? Or some other diocese?

 

[markadm]

Are you referring to Edinburgh? Or some other diocese?

Maybe… It’s what I heard.

By the way, I mean Diocesan Priests.

 

[Sure]

Maybe… It’s what I heard.

By the way, I mean Diocesan Priests.

I’m just curious what diocese has so few priests, because I have never heard of such a thing. If your going to make claims about a statistic proving a crisis, you should really be able to prove the statistic exists.

Can you mention the specific diocese?

Thanks

 

[markadm]

I’m just curious what diocese has so few priests, because I have never heard of such a thing. If your going to make claims about a statistic proving a crisis, you should really be able to prove the statistic exists.

Can you mention the specific diocese?

It is not the whole Diocese. It is the number of Parish Priests in the City of Edinburgh.

 

[Sure]

It is not the whole Diocese. It is the number of Parish Priests in the City of Edinburgh.

Because as an archdiocese, they have a pretty sweet deal. They have 112,978 Catholics and 99 diocesan priests and 36 religious priests. That works out to 1 priest for every 836 Catholics - that’s a pretty good ratio! That’s one priest for every 250-300 families.

 

[mschrank]

I think Inquisition is the answer for much of the problems within the Church.

 

[markadm]

Because as an archdiocese, they have a pretty sweet deal. They have 112,978 Catholics and 99 diocesan priests and 36 religious priests. That works out to 1 priest for every 836 Catholics - that’s a pretty good ratio! That’s one priest for every 250-300 families.

Oh! Well that’s good news; I never knew it was that good.

I count myself as a true Edinburgher, so I guess I get a bit defensive about the provisions for the City.

 

[anthony022071]

In regard to the shortage of priests,it should be remembered that prior to the 1960’s,Catholics were having more children than they have been since then;and so in some families it was almost expected for one of the sons to go into the priesthood – like a family tradition.

Also,many men would go into the priesthood not because they were especially devout,but because it was a career opportunity (as with the writer Andrew Greeley,who pretends he is a Catholic) – they were careerists. After Vatican 2,a lot of young men joined the priesthood thinking that they would be allowed to get married and lead more “secular” lives.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The crisis? It’s the hemorrhage of Catholic faithful from the Church. The dramatic decline in Mass attendance, the dramatic decline in vocations. The loss of belief in the Real Presence, not only among the laity, but tragically among some of the clergy as well. The clergy who are leading innocent souls astray. The poorly catechised children who grow up to be indifferent adults with no clue that it is wrong to contracept or support abortion. People who apparently don’t believe in sin, hence no need for confession. The divisiveness between traditional and NO Catholics. Yes, there’s a crisis, and yet some will deny it or say that it will “take care of itself”. No, it won’t. We need to strenghen the armies of the Church Militant, and it’s not going to happen on it’s own.

i so agree with you, on that the matters have to be addressed.
My priest is just like that. is if nothing is wrong in the church. while i am very vocal in the catechism class, he continues to deny problems within. and this is a problem that has been going forever. because of lack of communication among clergy and laity we have lost so many souls to all kind of different religions. catholics have to find out the bad things from outsiders and people are left confused.

 

[Brother_John]

Also,many men would go into the priesthood not because they were especially devout,but because it was a career opportunity .

Whoo-boy…I’ve thought that for a long time, but figured I’d let someone else get bashed for posting it.

As a strictly personal opinion. I often think that this same thing accounts for the influx of “foreign” priests. I am NOT saying that they aren’t good, devout priests. But, in some countries, the priesthood does represent a good, solid, safe, and steady career, as opposed to their “other” opportunities.

During high school, I lived in a rather poor town in south Alabama. It was very common (and still is) for high school graduates there, to join the military right after graduation. A similar situation.

In the US, the lure of the secular “good life” is apparently just too much to resist.

While some may believe that Vatican II is the root cause of lost vocations in the US, there were/are other factors too. Just think back to the time since V2. Moral decay is all around us, not just among Catholics. Unwed motherhood and divorce used to bring shame, but no more.

How many of us remember the Gideons coming into our schools and passing out pocket New Testaments? How many of us remember a daily prayer over the intercom with the Pledge of Alligience?

I personally believe that this same moral decay is what is feeding the explosion of non-denominational churches in the US. “Make your own rules, God forgives everything if you just ask, All I have to do is believe to be saved…”

It all adds up over time. It’s not just V2, it’s all around us, and not limited to Catholics by any stretch.