Bad Catholic/Good Catholic

A bit of elaboration on my point below, buried deep in the midst of scores of comments...

First, let me point out that I was born in 1960, so that means my direct experience of pre-Vatican II Catholicism is.....nil. I know what I know through what people tell me and what I've read.

Second caveat: as a person very interested in history, I try to nurture an illusion-free vision of the past. I am anti-nostalgia and own no rose-covered glasses. When you know your history you know what a weak and tragically compromised witness the Christian Church has been to the Gospel since the beginning. We seem to always run up against our humanity. The mystery is that this seems to be the way God wanted it - the humanity that is, not the compromised witness.

So, you're not going to tell me, for example, the Church today is in the worst shape it's ever been. That's nonsense. You're not going to tell me either that up until 1965, everything was great. The chaos of the post-Vatican II years, the violent pendulum-swinging, didn't come from a vacuum. All the people who were responsible for the post V2 chaos were formed and educated before V2. As David Carlin has written and mused over - something was going on in those years. I know not what, but something was obviously missing.

But the topic today (sigh) is labels and identity - a topic I usually try to avoid because I despise naval-gazing and think it's not what Jesus calls us to do. But in times of division, I guess it's inevitable and important.

As I said, I have no direct experience of the preV2 Church, but what I know I know from books: Flannery O'Connor, Frank Sheed, Graham Greene, Chesterton, Knox, Waugh, Merton...etc., etc. etc....

And what always strikes me when I read them is that as wildly different as they are, they all express a sort of unified and rather easily identifiable Catholic identity. There simply weren't the labels - oh, there were the "Catholic Worker" Catholics, sure, and ultramontanists, etc...but as a whole, looking at the Church in the West...there were simply...Catholics.

The most frequent label that I find is, as I said below, that of the "bad Catholic." And it's my impression that most people, to some extent, put themselves into that category. The really, really, good Catholics were few and far between, in the popular mind - the pious lady down the street, the saintly 90-year old nun....etc.

It's not that everyone thought that they were rotten and worthless and undeserving - it's that everyone was clearly aware that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

This, perhaps, had its negative consequences - what doesn't? So does the surfeit of self-described good Catholics we have now.

And if you doubt me, and if you doubt the worth of reclaiming this sense of humility and realism, I invite you to look in two place: Paul's letters and the lives of the saints.

In Paul, we find this perfect balance: between understanding how precious we are in God's sight, embracing the presence of Christ within us, yet always aware that we are weak and that it is not I, but Christ within me who is responsible for what is holy in me and the good that I do. We are loved immeasurably by God, but we are not God.

In the saints - canonized or not - you simply find none of this healthy self-esteem, I'm a great Catholic, God and His Church have to just accept me as I am because I'm special, and ultimately I'm the only judge of my life and faith. NONE. THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT. THEY DON'T LIVE THAT WAY. THEIR FAITH ISN'T ORIENTED THAT WAY.

And they are saints. They have healed the sick, embraced the abandoned, lived with the poor and seen Christ there. Because they know that as disciples, they are accountable, not to themselves and their own good feelings, but to God for how they have used this life, and they are always acutely aware that holiness is opening one's soul more and more to let God fill it, not to be self-actualized on one's own terms in one's own comfort zone.

Sure, it can lead to neurosis and extremes of self-abdegnation, and forgetfulness of God's mercy and a scrupulosity that is quite damaging. As I said, every perspective has its risks. But as a whole,If we've got to label ourselves, the understanding that in baptism, we are all Catholics, and we are unified as Catholic Christians through baptism, but that most of us - clergy and laity alike - are, to some extent, rather bad Catholics, even as we try to grow in holiness, seems a much more realistic, humble and firmly-rooted way than the alternative of "We are all good Catholics now."

Comments

[Mark Wyman]

Preach it!

[Geri]

Amen.

Heading out now to a novena at Our Lady Of Self Esteem, where we will use the psalm that goes "Have mercy on me, Lord, for I made made a mistake in judgement...." and dicuss the doctrine of Original Okay-ness.

[Sulpicius Severus]

So, you're not going to tell me, for example, the Church today is in the worst shape it's ever been. That's nonsense.

1. With all due respect, then, what is your explanation of the facts showing clear decline in Faith post-Vatican II? And the "spirit of the 60s" doesn't wash.

All the people who were responsible for the post V2 chaos were formed and educated before V2.

2. Of course, but that's no argument against the pre-Vatican II Church being the One True Faith. Yes, Bugnini, Teilhard de Chardin, Kung, Schilbexx, Mahony, Keeler, Law, Weakland, Bernardin, etc. all pre-Vat II formation. Doesn't that make them all the more culpable? Shouldn't they have known better? Wojtyla got a doctorate at the Angelicum under Garrigou-Lagrange, a preeminent anti-Modernist. JPII should definitely know better.

they all express a sort of unified and rather easily identifiable Catholic identity

3. It's called Catholicism, pre-Vatican II. It's what catacomb Catholics still practice. Go into a CMRI, SSPX, SSPV, independent, and perhaps even Indult chapel any given Sunday and you'll see unity of Faith and Charity. Any child can tell you they're practicing the same Faith. Can the same child say the same for the Novus Ordo Missae churches?

we are all Catholics, and we are unified as Catholic Christians through baptism

4. Ms. Welborn, even taking Indult vs. Novus Ordo Missae congregations -- they don't even have the same sanctoral cycle. They don't have the same MASS, the central act of Catholic worship. If you ask a protestant to go to an Indult service then go to a Novus Ordo Missae service, is he going say "you guys are all Catholics"?

Face it, conservative U.S. Catholics. You're going to have to pick; if not today, then in the very near future. The modernist church, or the Church of All Ages. UIOGD,

[George Sim Johnston]

I've just finished writing an article for Crisis regarding the post-Vatican II chaos. Most of the mischief was the work of bishops, priests, nuns and theologians who came out of the Tridentine system. Many of them had received an inadequate, rules-oriented formation, and the eruptions after the Council were a rebellion against the whole business. Maritain saw it all coming before it happened. Vatican II was a call to spiritual adulthood, and what we got instead from many clergy was adolesent rebellion, where everything smacking of pre-Conciliar Catholicism had to be turned on its head. Conservative bishops like Cardinal Spellman of New York were partly responsible for the post-V2 mess, because they refused to implement the teachings of the Council, thereby allowing it to be hijacked by liberals. The mess in the Church after the Council is proof enough that there was a need for a Council, paradoxical as that may sound.

[Brian Lester]

What's a santoral cycle?

[Bill]

GSJ,

Vatican 2 a call to "spiritual adulthood"? What does that mean? That the Tridentine mass had to be reformed to make it less infantile? That Catholics had to get away from childlike "rules" like the Baltimore Catechism and move on to -- something else? What teachings of Vatican 2 did Cardinal Spellman "refuse to implement"? I look forward to reading your article when its published, but from your comment I fear you may be smearing the "Tridentine system" in order to excuse the pastoral failure of the Pastoral Council.

[Sulpicius Severus]

Mr. Lester: The Ecclesiatical Year is composed of both

the Temporal Cycle: Christmas Cycle (Advent, Christmas, Time After Epiphany), Easter Cycle/Redemption Cycle (Septuagesima, Lent, Passiontide, Paschaltide, Time after Pentecost); and

the Sanctoral Cycle: the occurence of the various feast days of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the holy angels, the saints.

Notice even that the Indult (1962 Missal) Temporal cycle is even different from that of the Novus Ordo Missae; the Novus Ordo Missae does away with Septuagesima (it's "ordinary time" in their Temporal cycle), that time of preparation for Lent.

Hope that helps. UIOGD,

[Mark R]

It is quite an eye-opener to read Fr. Rutler's biography of the Cure' d'Ars. I do not know if the Church is in worse shape now, any more than the Church was in the years surrounding the French Revolution (and that was not too long after Trent!).

With all due respect, the saints worshipped in catacombs, not in schismatic cocoons.

[Carrie]

Having gone through parochial school in the pre-VII days, and not having to face the majority of changes in my own parish until after I was married, I have a clear memory of the time before the Council.

Amy is right. The laity were supremely conscious of sin. I think most of us wished we could go to heaven, but most of us also knew the other option was a daily possibility. We took confession quite seriously and rather often.

The focus of the Mass was always on God. The idea that Mass could be focused in any way on man didn't enter our thinking.

Anti-Catholicism existed then. It still exists now, so any intention on the part of the Council to move us closer to our enemies backfired.

The average Catholic in my experience saw nothing wrong with his parish. Priests were not rotated as often, and there were more of them. Their shortcomings were probably the most frequent subject of gossip. Their shortcomings did not include sex in any pre-VII scandal that I heard about. Drinking, however...

Parishes were not divided into factions. Parishioners belonged to groups such as the circles (neighborhood women's groups) and the Legion of Mary. Mostly these were service groups. The charitable work of the parish was done by the women who did not go off to work every morning.

I can't remember any doctrinal controversy prior to the Council. We all believed the same thing, and we all felt united just by knowing that we were Catholic.

The biggest disagreement in my childhood parish centered on a black priest. Remember this was before de-segregation. It took time before he was accepted. At the time I was old enough to learn that there had been a controversy, it had not dawned on me that he was different in any way. He was just Fr. S., one of the respected priests in my parish.

The priests had time to get to know their parishioners. A priest on the school playground was a familiar sight. He was invariably surrounded by a group of students.

One of the priests taught a catechism lesson in every classroom once a week.

We attended Mass before school began every morning of the week, and we followed the prayers of the Mass in our St. Joseph missals. And we had nuns whom I still remember fondly as the foundation of the Catholic school. The faith I have today I owe to those nuns, God bless them.

[Han Ng]

RE: Spiritual Adulthood
I agree with GSJ that even if Vatican II was intended to transcend the intellectual into the spiritual, what happened in fact was a regression into the merely emotional. I wonder if this was because the ethos of the era was one that rejected adulthood in favour of "celebrating youth culture" or what not. Perhaps what is needed now is not a jump to spiritual adulthood, but rather a rules-based "Tridentinism" just to get us back into high school.

RE: Good/Bad Catholics
I agree with Amy. I have also noticed a strange disconnect in catachesis that actually believes that the big problem today is that we are all so very scrupulous and in danger of forgetting God's love. On the contrary, we are more prone to presumption with the "God's-love-means-never-having-to-say-sorry" attitude. The Orthodox, have a term for the attitude of the saints that Amy describes--Penthos. The saints all seem to believe that they are the greatest sinners in the world because they still sinned even though they had been so greatly graced by God. They understand that every grace puts them further into God's debt and weep because they recognise their unowrthiness.

Thanks for reading,
Han

[T. Marzen]

Sulpicius Severus:

For all its positive features, the culture of pre-VII Church had become in many ways a dissicated, hollow shell: legalistic, ritualistic, and dominated by shallow devotionalism and ridiculous and/or childish self-satisfaction. Anyone who consciously lived through the 40's or 50's knows precisely what I'm talking about. This is what you want to return to? You are apparently living with a fantasy version of the past and enjoying the cozy delusion that you are now among the oppressed, gnostic Elect. How very self-indulgent.

The "facts" you point to as "proof" of the decline of the post-VII Church are indicia of what the pre-VII Church bred and came to fruition post-VII as much as what the post-VII Church has wrought. Consider also that all of the bishops and most of the priests involved in the recent Scandals were born, educated and ordained pre-VII. It was the seedbed of the homosexual/pedophile scandals. Something rotten was going on back then in your One True (i.e., Tridentine) Churchy culture, and it wasn't do to modernist theology.

Until Trads face up to the gross, pervasive, and infantile clericism and the collapsing, repressive Jansenism that permeated Church culture pre-VII, they have no credibility whatsoever to anyone who lived through those times with their eyes open. These pre-VII problems are at the root of the present crisis as much as the virtually inevitable excesses that occured in reaction to and in fulfillment of them.

[Craig Neumeier]

So, you're not going to tell me, for example, the Church today is in the worst shape it's ever been. That's nonsense.

1. With all due respect, then, what is your explanation of the facts showing clear decline in Faith post-Vatican II? And the "spirit of the 60s" doesn't wash.

Did you not notice the word "ever"? That covers an awful lot of ground when you're talking about the Church. The most obvious example of worse shape is the Late Middle Ages/Renaissance era, but there are others. (The nadir of the Papacy was arguably in the middle 900s, for instance).

[Rod Dreher]

Han: I have also noticed a strange disconnect in catachesis that actually believes that the big problem today is that we are all so very scrupulous and in danger of forgetting God's love.

Oh man, you have just described nearly every homily in our parish! I'm wondering where all these Christians are who are so obsessed with a sense of their own sin that we forget that God loves us. Our problem -- my problem -- is we love ourselves too much.

[Michael King]

Speaking from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, I'll only say that the Catholic Church, pre-Vatican II, was a lot closer to Orthodoxy in its spirit and ethos than the post-Conciliar Church. Usually, there is a sense of Godliness that is present at the Tridentine Mass that I've rarely experienced with the Novus Ordo.
Intricate rubrics, statues, high altars, more severe fasting rules, etc. They're all part of the package that, for all their supposed problems that just happened to pop up in the 1960s, make Traditional RCism close to Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, many Trad RCs have a severe view of the Christian East-the Orthodox are not schismatics! (One good thing to come out of V2!).

[Rod Dreher]

I think my friend George is onto something. I'm always startled when I read the actual documents of Vatican II to discover how conservative they really are. Startled, because I always hear the Council described by liberals as (effectively) license for all of us to be good Protestants now, and by traditionalists as the End of the World.

As George and Amy point out, something went seriously wrong in that generation before the Council, else we wouldn't have had such a rapid and complete collapse. I think what George means by "rule-based formation" is the old model of being told what to believe without it being explained to one. The first priest to do my personal instruction (I bailed on RCIA because it had zero content, and was all about feeling good about Jesus) was an elderly Irishman formed in that system. I appreciated him at first because he cared about doctrine. But I quickly saw that he was unable to explain in any depth why the Church taught what it did. He thought it was sufficient to say, "Look, here's what the Church teaches, accept it if you want to, or reject it, but here's the deal." You can imagine how frustrating that was for somebody like me, who had great sympathy for the Church, but really wanted to know where this doctrine comes from. Yet I don't feel harshly toward this good priest. That was how he was raised.

I'm thinking that a lot of folks in that Conciliar generation were never taught the deeper reason why the Church teaches what it teaches, and when confronted with a culture, but within the Church and outside it, that forcefully challenged the Church ... found that they couldn't withstand the blast.

Let me find a political analogy, and see if that helps. I wrote a cover story for Natl Review that examined in part why the Netherlands went from being one of the most religious and conservative countries in Europe to being the most secular and liberal in a single generation. In a nutshell, it's like this: the Dutch are a strongly consensus-oriented people, very averse to conflict. In the 19th-c., leaders of the three blocs in the country -- the Protestants, the Catholics and the Socialists/secularists -- got together and worked out a power-sharing system, called "pillarization." The idea was that the country rested on three pillars, and that maintaining social and political unity depended on everyone trusting the leadership and falling into line. Disputes were worked out at the top, and everybody stayed in their own little pillar. They even had Catholic grocery stores, Catholic soccer teams, etc. Everybody stayed in his own pillar, and got along fine.

The Second World War broke all that up, and by the time the 1960s came, people began to question why they were still living according to pillarization, and all that entailed (esp. religious devotion). The leaders had no answer for them. And lacking the ability to articulate why it was impt to live this way, the old order collapsed. People had ceased to believe in it, because at some point they had grown comfortable in their belief that the world would always be the way they arranged it.

Holland has never recovered. And because the Dutch are strongly consensus-oriented, when the leadership stopped being able or willing to articulate its raison d'etre, the people crumbled too.

I think that dynamic may explain a lot of why the Church collapsed as it did post-Vatican II, even though in America, the 1950s were a golden age.

[Bill]

T Marzen,

The Church before V2 had become a "dissicated hollow shell"? I wasn't born until 1966, but your description seems hard to square with Carrie's recollections above, which are similar in kind to many such recollections I've heard over the years. I don't know if SS thinks of himself as among the "gnostic elect", but if he has any sort of devotion to the old Mass, he is certainly among the "oppressed". Don't you see anything problembatic about a church hierarchy trying to suppress its own tradition. As does GSJ above, you seem to be smearing the past to make the disaster of Vatican II appear "virtually inevitable".

[Gerard E.]

GSJ's article in Crisis is superb. He, and Rod-above- identify some vastly important factors on How We Got To Where We Are Now. As strongly traditionalist as I am now, coming out of the wildest craziest educational and liturgical experiments in the GoGo60s and 70s, I would never argue that there was a golden age of Catholicism between WWII and end of V2. Mostly a lot of dry tinder, ready to burn from the sparks of dissent- or those who misinterpreted V2 for their own lib agendas. Combined with other factors:

1. I'm a precisely mid-period Baby Boomer. The explosion of births in Western nations following WWII will have implications lasting well into our twilight years.

2. Those Western nations, including ours, enjoyed the greatest period of economic growth in human history. More money. More college students. More toys. More time to think/speculate/experiment. More opportunities to go "slip-sliding away."

3. The accompanying horrors of the 60s- drugs, sexual experimentation, etc. George Weigel wisely notes in The Courage To Be Catholic that just as the Church wanted more dialogue with The World, The World was heading into a long dark tunnel with poisonous fumes.

Hey, there's no out-and-out persecution of Catholics. Yet. We still have the freedom to pray, worship, and even blog as we please. Look at the incredible culture-shifting success of TPOTC and related projects,such as the booklet on the Passion co-edited by Mark Shea. We may well be heading into a true Golden Age. Tempered through the fires of the past four decades.

[Mark Windsor]

http://yawpings.stblogs.org/archives/013742.html
http://yawpings.stblogs.org/archives/013741.html
http://yawpings.stblogs.org/archives/013740.html
http://yawpings.stblogs.org/archives/013737.html

I posted a series on something last year that's similar. I put the links to the most important pieces above. Rod, check out the last one. It's beyond just catechesis, but it still applies.

[Maclin Horton]

Amy--

Right on.

SS--

I converted as an adult in 1981 and never set foot in a Catholic church while growing up, so I have absolutely no personal knowledge of the pre-VII Church. And as a typical post-VII convert under the influence of Chesterton et.al., I have experienced the unfortunate but
also typical alienation from the liturgy, psychologism, and all the rest.

So, partly as a result of that alienation, and in search of reverent worship, I've attended Indult masses on several occasions. On none of them have I felt myself to be in the presence of the Faith and Charity you describe. As a matter of fact they were nearly as dispiriting as the typical suburban parish, although in a somewhat different way. The common denominator was the absence of a sense of transcendence. Instead of icky We Are Church sentimentality the Indult Mass was simply dry--a priest muttering Latin that could not be followed because it could not be understood from more than ten feet away, a congregation seemingly off somewhere else mentally.

I am willing to believe that the Church is overall worse off now than it was pre-VII, but not that those days were so very marvelous, or that the loss of the Tridentine rite is the major problem or its restoration the answer.

Having said all that, though, I think the single greatest problem facing the Church, and the predominant feature of the sad shape we all seem to agree it's in, is the very large number of Catholics--priests, religious, bishops, laity--who no longer actually believe, but who continue to use the vocabulary of faith, only with the referents of the words being psychological states rather than external realities. (Many of them of course are not aware of this; many theologians are very well aware of it.) I do sometimes wonder if in this respect we aren't worse off than ever before.

[Sulpicius Severus]

Mr. Marzen:

1. I wasn't around pre-VII, so I'll take your word for it. As to whether your personal assessment is the accurate one, I've found it depends on whom you ask, so again, I'll take your word for it (as I'll take Ms. Carrie's word for it that it was how she remembers it).

2. We both can torture the statistics however we want, and tie them to whatever temporal correlation we want. While the Res Ipsa Loquitor will convince most reasonable people, I guess the better question to ask you is: what was the theological view of those who affected the changes? Everyone that formulated and implemented the VII changes was of course formed pre-VII. You're countering what you see as a false correlation with another false correlation (those responsible for the changes were formed pre-VII; therefore, pre-VII = the problem). If the VII leaders had stayed true to the unadulterated Faith, we'd be in better shape.

Let me put it this way: If Bishop X learned 2+2=4, then he came of age and started teaching 2+2=5 after 1962, it's *not* his learning 2+2=4 before 1962 that's the problem.

2+2=4. "Pro Multis" = "For Many". Procreation is the primary end of Marriage. The Jews must convert to Catholicism to be saved. Etc.

3. Ignore the problems VII modernism has caused if you wish. All I and others have "returned to" is the Faith practiced up to VII. I'm hoping you're not one of those people from the older generations that can't see that, yes, your generation might actually have made some mistakes. Regardless of who was/is culpable for the rampant modernism, my eyes are open *right now*, and the VII modernist church that I see doesn't look good. I *do see* that there is a Remnant catacomb Church that maintains the Faith.

Mr. Neumeier:

Point taken. I read Ms. Welborn's comment to mean that VII had little-to-nothing to do with the present state of Catholicism. You're right, Holy Church has been in a bad way in the past, and catacomb Catholics realize that persecution is the rule, rather than the exception, when it comes to Our Faith. However, if the Arian Heresy (for instance) was indeed bad, the Modernist Heresy is even worse.

Heretical hierarchy there have always been, but Remnant Faithful have always been around, as well. UIOGD,

[Bill]

But Rod, look at the Mass. As Chris Ferrara and Tom Woods have pointed out in their book The Great Facade, the V2 Constitution on the Liturgy was not a conservative document. All of the innovations regarding the Mass are authorized by the Liturgy Constitution and the Church has confirmed that the new Mass is what the Council authorized. As the fruits of that Mass become manifest, it seems that it has become fashionable among some conservatives to say that the Mass was somehow hijacked and that the V2's Liturgy Constitution was never really implemented at all. But this is an attempt to deny the obvious. The new Mass is the Mass of V2 and if its not the "End of the World" it has at least been very unfortunate.

As for the reasons for the utter collapse of the Church in the wake of the Council, I think it may have been analagous to the situation described in Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars, his book on the English Reformation. Duffy describes a well-catechized and devout English laity before the Reformation, which relatively quickly, gave up their faith. In England, it seems that the laity understood too well that the Church is a hierarchy, so when the bishops apostacized, the laity did likewise. Perhaps the laity of the 1950s were too deferential to the hierarchy, in that they accepted the hierarchy's boneheaded innovations, when, in retrospect, they should have mounted the barricades in defense of the faith.

[Don Boyle]

On the lighter side:

Gee, I thought that the "Santoral Cycle" was eco-friendly transportation utilized by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

[Sulpicius Severus]

Mr. Horton: Thanks your your insights. Have you tried an SSPX, CMRI, SSPV or independent chapel? Your experience with the Indult is similar to mine. A priest begrudgingly going through the motions, a congregation somewhere between Williambsurg-esque tourists and scaredy-cat Catholics, everyone fearful that they're least peep will upset their modernist bishop. Again, just personal experience -- but you're not the first one to relate such an experience with the Indult.

The problems with the Indult can take up another whole thread.

You do see my point, though, that even the Indult and the Novus Ordo Missae themselves are essentially different? UIOGD,

[Peggy]

This is very interesting to me, born in '65, the last year of the V2 council [right?]. I have no firsthand pre-V2 experience, though looking back and comparing masses today w/what we experience in the 70s, we did not lose everthing at once [in spite of felt banners, guitars, etc.--which we mostly experienced at the outdoor Shrine of OL of the Snows]. We had Jesus on the cross, crucified (lacking in many Churches today--no longer in my childhood parish either!); we chanted, though in English; our whole school attended daily masses; we attended Stations as a school during Lent, etc.

It is interesting that perhaps, we [collectively, those who were alive then] pre-V2 perhaps just followed through not understanding what undelay all our practices and beliefs. I found that also in my experience in a 1970s parochial school. I have been eager to know and understand as much as I can since I've been back for 10 years now.

I am wondering if the real legacy of V2 has been the factionalism that has erupted. It seems as thought there was (thought to be) some decentralization, which seems to have gone all the way down to individual conscience, resulting in individualized deism by Catholics. This decentralization and independence of judgment has resulted in much disagreement and a great lack of unity among Catholics in what our most important values are and whether we are really obligated to follow beliefs such as those prohibiting contraception.

Can we return to some level of unity--obviously, not like before, but with true understanding and implementation of the V2 council's intent?

[Ignacio]

SS says "2+2=4...Procreation is the primary end of Marriage". Not quite even in the times before VCII. Take a look at the Roman Catechism and then to G. Grisez's "Living a Christian Life" on how 'Procreation is the end of marriage' without nuance never was as 2+2=4.

[Cathy Johnosn]

With the distinct feeling I'm in over my head, I have a question: if V2 was such a disaster, at least in terms of the Mass, what do you (we) do about it? I was also born post-V2, with the attendant silly color-in-Jesus CCD texts. With the help of family and friends more informed than myself I moved past that bad start....but I am not willing to go back to a Mass in a language I don't understand (and neither did my 70+ year old mom--she's not sentimental about the past), nor am I willing to become, frankly, a marginal schismatic preaching to the SSPX (or whomever) choir. All discussion about "Indult", etc. services are about as relevant to the general experiences of Catholics in America as recitals about the virutes of the Amish are. I am a conservative, contemporary Roman Catholic--and it seems that you, Amy, and Rod, and some others who post here are as well. What can we do to affect our parishes, our dioceses, the RC church in America? Suggestions?

[Tim]

I was also born post Vatican II or as it was closing. As to the fact that the culprits of the current mess (whoever that is) being formed in the pre-Vatican II church. Of course they were. The trouble started happening too soon after the council for any post-Vatican II priest or bishops to have an impact. What has not been mentioned here is all of the encyclicals by various Popes ,Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius IX, Pius XI about the threat of Modernism. They knew the threat was from within. Perhaps the Modernists just won. The question is whether is was by having Vatican II called, hijacking it after it was called, or hijacking the implementation of it.

[Cris]

Megadittos to Dreher and G.S.J.,
The Catholic parishes and schools I've been involved with make almost no effort actually to explain the faith. It's presented as a set of rules, but those rules are never explained.
This is fine, maybe, for young children. But by the time a person hits high school or college, he looks for explanations. If they aren't on offer at his school or parish, the culture and academia is perfectly willing to provide their own explanations (i.e., that Christianity and Catholicism is anti-woman, anti-sex, hidebound, etc, etc.). Nature abhors a vaccuum right? When parishes and schools (and parents, of course) don't provide an explanation of the faith, society will, and we won't like the results.

BTW, I think that this is why young Christians get so excited when they discover a writer like C.S. Lewis (and Amy Welborn, for that matter)--- he actually EXPLAINS the faith.

[Christopher H.]

I happen to believe that this phenomenon (which we are identifying as a breakdown of the church, faith, etc. ) is not isolated to the church. I believe that there has been an almost universal movement towards more freedom, tolerance and "democratic means" in the U.S. and western countries. Secular Humanism and the deification of freedom and tolerance have crept into the church through that window that was opened to the world. Instead of being countercultural, we have succumbed to the cultural. Although some of us still strive.

[Sandra Miesel]

I have to speak up since I seem to be the oldest person here. I was at the end of college when VII started. I'd gotten all my formation and thought I was marching into a future of a more beautiful liturgy, revival of seasonal customs, greater intellectual accomplishment by Catholics, etc. My grade school religious education was bad, focussing on piety and anti-Communism, this within a Mediterranean local culture where faith had no logical basis. High school and college were better, all our activities integrated into a more aware Catholic culture, regardless of bad religion classes. But after the Council, traditional Catholic culture disappeared, done in by the authorities. (Oh, Father and Sister must know what they're talking about...)
Yes, the situation was a lot like Duffy's STRIPPING THE ALTARS and even more like his new VOICES OF MOREBATH, where the devout little parish is slowly coerced into Protestantism and simultaneously loses its cohesion.

[Jason]

I think it's necessary to use the "labels" of Orthodox and Heterodox.

We are all, in a way, bad Catholics; sure. But it is essential to being a Catholic that you seek to understand and obey the Doctrinal and Moral teachings of the Church.

Even if you don't always understand, or don't always live up to them, humble acceptance of them is absolutely necessary. Without it, how can one even be considered a Catholic, good or bad?

The Scriptures themselves use such distinctions (eg, False Prophets, Anti Christs, etc).

>>>"the Orthodox are not schismatics!"

They are, they're just not formal Schismatics. We assume that they remain invincibly ignorant, and so are only in a material schism. But, that's a subject for another time.

[Bill]

Cathy,

The new Mass is a perpetual battleground and will remain so for the foreseeable future. (John Allen's current Word from Rome has some thoughts about the shape that the fight will take in the short term.) As important as the issues at stake are, however, it is an impediment to prayer and worship to be constantly harassed with "sisters and brothers", altar girls, Eucharistic ministers, standing for communion, etc., etc. More importantly, if you are raising children, as my wife and I are, you don't want to have them continually exposed to all that garbage. As a result, my wife and I moved 50 miles to another town to be near an indult chapel (since our "conservative" bishop, who allowed a few weekly indult Masses, would not permit a traditional chapel or parish in his diocese). We thank God that we were able to move such a relatively short distance to be near a traditional chapel and realize that most Catholics in the US, due to the perversity of their bishops, are not so fortunate. While I think it is admirable to want to affect change in your parish and in the US church generally, I would recommend that you remember your own salvation first and that you reconsider the "relevance" of the traditional Mass.

[Tim]

Gerard E.

I love to read your comments on this blog as well as CAEI. But something bothered me about this.

" I would never argue that there was a golden age of Catholicism between WWII and end of V2. Mostly a lot of dry tinder, ready to burn from the sparks of dissent- or those who misinterpreted V2 for their own lib agendas."

and then this

"Look at the incredible culture-shifting success of TPOTC and related projects,such as the booklet on the Passion co-edited by Mark Shea. We may well be heading into a true Golden Age. Tempered through the fires of the past four decades. "

Mel Gibson's movie was wonderful and Shea's blog is fun and informative(somethimes), and Catholic Exchange is a gem, but I don't think these things or anything else is going to usher in a new Golden Age. Then again, I guess a Golden age to most people is that which they prefer. I'll just wait for the Golden Age when Christ comes again, thank you.

[Rod Dreher]

I'm wondering now where the fallout from the scandal leads re: the cohesion of the Church. I remember talking with a prominent conservative Catholic over dinner exactly one year ago, and I was moaning about the state of the Church, and he said, "I'm the happiest Catholic in America today."

"Why?" I asked. "You know as well or better than most how bad the corruption of the clergy and the episcopate is."

"That's right," he said. "But look, we can talk about it now. It's not hidden anymore. People have known about this for years, but it was always hidden. Nobody dared to mention it. Even when our side was able to see it clearly for what it is, we kept our mouths shut out of a misplaced sense of deference to the hierarchy. So we confirmed them in their misrule."

He went on to explain that however this shakes out, at least we can now proceed in an atmosphere of greater truthfulness and flat-out honesty.

I think he's right. Better to know the ugly truth and deal with it than shore oneself up with a comforting lie. We are better off now than we were at the beginning of 2002, when the thing was just starting.

That said, I wonder where to go from here? Speaking for myself, here's what I trust: that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, and everything she teaches is true. I remain intensely skeptical about nearly everything else church-related in this time and place. I don't trust the bishops, in general, and I don't trust priests, except those I know personally (that is to say, I proceed in my dealings with Church authorities and interpreting their actions with a "hermeneutic of suspicion"). I agree with Fr. Wilson's frequent point that this is emphatically not simply a scandal about sexual behavior, but that the sexual is only the most lurid aspect of a crisis that has been metastasizing for 40 years. Frankly, I don't know how it's going to be dealt with.

I certainly don't trust the left's answers, which amount, at bottom, to further Protestantizing and liberalizing the Church. That way lies madness, and death. Nor do I think the right has the answer either. The trad response -- let's all say the Tridentine mass and all will be well -- strikes me as very near to magical thinking. The neocon response -- that this is entirely a matter of "fidelity, fidelity, fidelity" -- does not address the deep structural problems that come with clericalism. And let us note that for all his holiness and wise teaching, John Paul, perhaps because of his clericalism, has not given us an example of strong governing leadership. He has not in most cases given us bishops whose leadership inspires us to have faith in them and their capacity to deal with the crises upon us.

I don't want to belabor this, but the point I want to make is: where do we turn? Maybe it's a Catholic thing to want to look for a leader, for a shepherd. I'm just so tired of feeling so Protestant, where my own personal devotions and prayers and Catholic reading seems to have nothing in common with the wider Catholic community, and I feel that I'm stuck in my little platoon, to educate my sons in the faith to protect them from what they may be taught by institutional Catholic authority, and I have to sit in mass week in and week out repeating the words "ex opere operato" like a mantra to keep me from walking out and going to catch a matinee of "The Passion of the Christ" so I can at least have the sense, aside from what I know in my head, that I've encountered the living Jesus on the Sabbath.

The deal is this: I crave, we all crave, unity. But the sheep have been struck, and I see no real shepherd. I'm not willing to play along with the official lies and pretenses that everything is basically okay. And I'm sure not willing to abandon Christ's Church. So, what next?

I bet some of you are in the same position.

[Anastasia]

I wonder how different the Church is from God's perspective- perhaps there are as many people of true faith now as there are then. Only God can know what is in someone's heart. Admittedly it would be easier to believe in one's faith if the culture surrounding you also believes or at least pretends to...this is the test of our time. We don't have the masses with us on this one as our parents/grandparents did.

Jesus said it is harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven then a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Couldn't the drop-off in faith have something to do with our widespread prosperity and security? The "rich" have less need of God (so they think) - they (we) feel in control of their destinies, more autonomous and independent. I wish we would pray for the rich during the Prayers of the Faithful - it is harder for them to seek and find God. Of course many of us don't consider ourselves rich, but compared to the lives and prospects of our ancestors, we are.

And I agree with Rod, that many lovely devout Catholic priests are out of touch with their flock. Every week I get a variation on how much God loves me. God comes across as some kind of annoying relative saying "Love me back, please, please, please...". This doesn't arouse respect or awe, but something like contempt on the part of many. Just take a look at the way some people dress for Mass - sneakers, shorts, sweatpants, etc. I know clothes are only an exterior but how we dress for an occasion says something about how important we consider that occasion. Apparently Mass is on a par for many with lying on the couch.

[Cathy Johnson]

That posting is why Rod's a journalist and I'm a scientist. That's exactly where I am. And Bill, you're right in one sense: your solution of moving 50 miles will not work for most Catholics--and I also do not want to leave the Roman Catholic church, which is where I ultimately see that type of activity leading to. If I did leave, it wouldn't be over standing for communion, either. I guess I'm not willing to give up on the Catholic Church in the US. Sounds like a battle cry. So back to Rod's question: what's next?

[Kirk]

Yes, Bill ... modernizing the Mass has been such a disgrace. Imagine, girls having the opportunity to serve at the altar that we all know God intended only males to step near. And, for goodness sakes, actually celebrating the Lord's sacrifice in a language that the people understand! If God had intended that to be the case, he'd have sent his Spirit down and placed tongues of fire on the heads of priests so that while they spoke in Latin, the people would have the ability to hear God's word in their own language. And don't get me started on the topic of non-clergy even touching the Holy Eucharist let alone distributing it. My goodness, when I was young, mother made us kids race to the kitchen after Mass to get a drink of water lest we actually touch our teeth to the host. And just when did our parishes get the idea that lay people could read from the Holy Book at Mass??? Isn't that a job reserved for a Priest???

Oh the damage. Oh the heartbreak. Oh the satire.

[Carolyn]

Rod, your anxiety makes me so sad for you. Remember, the single most important thing we all have to do is live the Gospel and spread the Good News. It is important to stay focused on that. You are doing so much good for the Church - your friend is right.

I do worry whether the Church will even be around in a century or two and if it is, would I even recognize it? We are a bit leaderless at the moment, but we have one another for supporting and strengthening our faith. The earliest Christians were a bit leaderless at times and they pulled through.

[Jeff Culbreath]

"The trad response -- let's all say the Tridentine mass and all will be well -- strikes me as very near to magical thinking."

Rod knows, of course, that the above is really a bad carciature of the "trad response", which is much more comprehensive.

The answer is that the Church must have true shepherds again, and that the "hermeneutic of suspicion" we laymen must now employ for survival is deadly poison in the long run.

The last time I saw my own bishop he was descending from the high altar with mitre and staff to sounds of Gregorian chant and wafts of incense. Tears welled up -- because for just a moment, I realized what a tragedy it is not to have bishops who lead, who love the truth, who give themselves up for the good of their flocks, who are bold apostles, soldiers of Christs, men of God who will stand up and be counted.

In short, if we are truly Catholic, we hunger for bishops we can rally around and turn to for instruction and edification. When our chastisement is over -- perhaps at the conclusion of 40 years in December 2005? -- we will have such bishops again.

[Brian]

I guess I'll never understand the need to be a member of a secret, opressed, keeping-the-truth society rather than Christ's Church warts-and-all. It is so easy to just point to the council and say, "See! Blasphemy!" Yet it really isn't that much more difficult to pick up a few books containing the documents of Vatican II and say, "Oh. You mean VII didn't say anything about defacing our churches? It didn't demand that confessions stop? It didn't even tell us to smite Latin from the Mass?"

How hard is it for people to read the actual documents? Or perhaps it's not a question of difficulty? Maybe people are happy being schismatic and being one of the few elite? I suppose there is some thrill in knowing that you are one of a small number that "gets it".

All I can really do is pray for our seperated brethren.

[Carrie]

For all its positive features, the culture of pre-VII Church had become in many ways a dissicated, hollow shell: legalistic, ritualistic, and dominated by shallow devotionalism and ridiculous and/or childish self-satisfaction. Anyone who consciously lived through the 40's or 50's knows precisely what I'm talking about. This is what you want to return to?

I seriously disagree. That was certainly not my experience at all.

[Bill]

Rod,

It is a caricature to say that the traditionalist position calls for the restoration of the Mass as a panacea. A restoration of the Mass is definitely necessary, but it is not sufficient. In my experience, calls for a restoration of the Mass are usually a shorthand way of calling for a Catholic restoration generally. Included in that would be Eucharistic adoration, the rosary and novenas. Study of the catechism and the practice of mental prayer, as recommended by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and in The Divine Intimacy of the Carmelite Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdelan -- both of whom, by way of example, were quite popular back in the time when GSJ would have it Catholics were mired in obscurantism. A serious effort to lead a virtuous and moral life and to practice the works of charity. The practice of mortification and observance of the traditional disciplines of fast and abstenance. (I'm sure GSJ is aware that St. Josemaria, who recommended all these things also, was formed in what he seems to disparage as the "Tridentine system".) A restoration of tradition would also entail a rejection of Koran-kissing. So its not just the Mass. If it were merely about the Mass, I don't think the enemies of tradition would have fought so hard against it. A return to tradition (involving a restoration of the Mass, but including so much more) would seem to be the only way the Church will be rebuilt after what has been done since Vatican II.

[Tom]

I'm wondering where all these Christians are who are so obsessed with a sense of their own sin that we forget that God loves us.

Perhaps they're at Mass, sitting in the middle pews.

Or perhaps they're home, calling the parish every two weeks to see if Father has some time to talk.

Or perhaps they're standing at the ambo, preaching to themselves in our hearing, in which case scorn may not be the best reaction.

[Bill]

Rod,

It is a caricature to say that the traditionalist position calls for the restoration of the Mass as a panacea. A restoration of the Mass is definitely necessary, but it is not sufficient. In my experience, calls for a restoration of the Mass are usually a shorthand way of calling for a Catholic restoration generally. Included in that would be Eucharistic adoration, the rosary and novenas. Study of the catechism and the practice of mental prayer, as recommended by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and in The Divine Intimacy of the Carmelite Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdelan -- both of whom, by way of example, were quite popular back in the time when GSJ would have it Catholics were mired in obscurantism. A serious effort to lead a virtuous and moral life and to practice the works of charity. The practice of mortification and observance of the traditional disciplines of fast and abstenance. (I'm sure GSJ is aware that St. Josemaria, who recommended all these things also, was formed in what he seems to disparage as the "Tridentine system".) A restoration of tradition would also entail a rejection of Koran kissing. So its not just the Mass. If it were merely about the Mass, I don't think the enemies of tradition would have fought so hard against it. A return to tradition (involving a restoration of the Mass, but including so much more) would seem to be the only way the Church will be rebuilt after what has been done since Vatican II.

[Mark Windsor]

Rod - Before you can get there, ya gotta know where you're going. I know you've been to Blessed Sacrament in Oak Cliff...at least I think you wrote the piece that got me to visit there once. Is that the answer?

(Blessed Sacrament in Dallas used to do a Latin Mass every Sunday. The priest really did a magnificent job of making the Mass feel...different. It felt unlike any other that I've ever been to. But the language was, to me, secondary to the way the priest conducted it. i'll try ot explain more later, but out of ti

[Brian]

Bill,

You believe we need a return of Eucharistic adoration? It is already at my parish Tuesday's 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm and growing. Rosary? Every weekday before the noon mass. Novenas? We have a perpetual Novena to St. Anthony of Padua every Tuedsay. How about bible study? Father Arthur is leading us in bible study every thursday night. Lay bible studies are all around us. Confession? Lot's of Catholics being led back to confession all the time. Morality? First Saturday rosaries at the abortion clinic every month? More and more people coming to that. Homily's touching on abortion more often than I can count. Fasting and abstinence? A great emphasis on personaly prayer, fasting, alms-giving, and reconciliation from the pulpit.

Please explain to me why this is supposed to only be able to happen if we have Tridentine Rite Mass?

[ottanbrus]

The new Mass is a perpetual battleground and will remain so for the foreseeable future. --Bill

I'm not a Tridentine-pusher (never even been to a Tridentine Mass), but I believe that Bill pretty much sums up the Church's problems with the sentence above. I'm a convert, so I have no memory or experience of pre-Vat2 culture. All I know is the contemporary Church in America--the one we are dealing with right now.

Ms Welborn points out something important about the Church That Was when she writes: And what always strikes me when I read them [Catholic writers from the 40s and 50s] is that as wildly different as they are, they all express a sort of unified and rather easily identifiable Catholic identity.

It seems to me that, whatever we might think about the Church and her various problems and issues, none of us ever experiences anything approaching a "unified" and "easily identifiable" Catholicism. If such a unity was prevalent among American Catholics at some point in the not-too-distant past, it is no longer. And the battleground--the locus for the clashing of every agenda from every labeled subgroup--seems to be the Mass. In practice then, regardless of whatever we say we believe about the Mass being our point of unity, I would wager that none of us really experiences the Mass that way. There are just too many games being played out there--too many liturgical abuses, too many banalities.

I don't know what's to be done about all this. But it does seem pretty obvious to me that the Mass has to be "fixed". Difficult as it will be to do, somebody (yes, someone with a miter and a shepherd's staff) will have to start pushing the toothpaste back into the tube.

[amy]

The answer to the liturgy issue, in my mind, isn't language. It's prayer. If the presider is praying - the liturgy will be prayerful. If the liturgical ministers are doing what they do out of prayerfulness, the liturgy will be prayerful. If we're praying, instead of being critics, the liturgy will be prayerful.

The trick is to set aside egos and just pray. The genius of the traditional liturgy was that it had evolved into something that had built-in barriers against egos running wild. How can the presider bore us with us his extemporaneous ramblings when it's in Latin and when he's got his back to us? I don't particularly get into that myself, but there are times when I can really, really see the point.

There is no reason that a norvus ordo liturgy cannot be as "prayerful" in its ambience and effect as a Tridentine rite liturgy or an Eastern Rite or Orthodox liturgy. I've participated them - in monasteries, mostly - and that's because every person there and the entire community was oriented towards prayer.

[Rod Dreher]

Bill, Jeff, I know I was overgeneralizing re: the trad stuff, but I write too long in these things anyway, and I wanted to encapsulate my experience of trads, with whom I have a lot in common otherwise. I get Latin Mass magazine, and agree with a lot in it. I've just been put off by the semi-gnostic attitudes I've dealt with in those communities, and I don't think traditionalism is the answer -- though I certainly believe the indult should be widely offered and encouraged.

Mark's right: I did worship at Blessed Sacrament from time to time, before Bp. Grahmann wrecked the place. Fr. Weinberger was a real model: a Novus Ordo priest who celebrated so reverently and enthusiastically that you have absolutely no doubt that you were in the presence of the Holy God when he held up the Host at the altar. And he really was orthodox, and loved his people, and was very open to them.

[Carrie]

More and more I find myself in sympathy with the RadTrad position. But not enough, unfortunately, to feel comfortable joining up.

Neither do I completely belong in Neocon Novus Ordo-land.

And sometimes, since the scandal broke, I find myself in sympathy with the liberals.

Which means, I guess, that I don't belong anywhere at present.

It's a very unsettling feeling. Some days when the weight of this confusion is especially heavy, I even wonder if there really is a God, and have to go through the process of reacquainting myself with why I believe there really is.

When the moment comes that I can no longer accept and cope with this mess, I won't be decamping for another denomination. Rather, I will have lost my faith. Because I really do believe there is nowhere else to go.

And more and more I come to the conclusion that a large part of our confusion is the fault of the man at the top. Which makes me unpopular just about everywhere.

One thing I do know...it is way too late for Catholic political correctness. Either we get the truth or we thumb our noses at whatever we are given instead. You can't stuff this Pandora back in the box.

[Maclin Horton]

Excellent and often heartening comments, all.

You know, what I want maybe most of all from the Church, after the sacraments and sound doctrine, is worship that feels like worship. I know ex opere and all that, but, lemme tell you, twenty-plus years of telling yourself that something undetectable is happening somewhere is dessicating.

I have mentioned this before (I think)--if there are any Anglican Use people out there I would love to hear from you.

Rod--

Do I ever hear ya. I'm somewhat older than you. Allow me to discourage you even further by observing that in my experience the sense of isolation and helplessness get even worse as your children enter adolescence and you can no longer keep as much of the sleaze culture away from them and feel like you aren't getting much help at all from the Church. But hang in there and pray a lot.

SS--

No, actually I did not think of the Indult Mass as being essentially different from an SSPX et.al. liturgy, but I can imagine you might have a point as far as general liturgical attitude is concerned (although that may not be what you mean). But still--I just ain't goin' there. Ain't goin' nowhere that is not clearly in communion with Rome. Otherwise I'm just back in the wilderness of Protestantism, wondering where the real thing is.

I'm really not even interested in the arguments in favor of these semi- or fully- schismatic groups, because I have no way of determining their validity. There are three things I know a little about: computers, literature, and music. I am not now, do not wish to be, and never will be either a theologian or a liturgist. And I shouldn't need to be in order to locate the Church. I'll just have to stick with Ubi Petrus... or however that goes.

[Han Ng]

Again because I like to see myself type,

RE: Kirk's damage, heartbreak and satire.
I think kirk pretty much sums it up, albiet unintentionally. As a matter of fact, we know that heresy is greater now than it was before, we know that reverence is less now than it was before and I am willing to bet that on balance people are less spiritual than they were before (I mean by this authentic Christian spirituality, not "how-does-Jesus-make-you-feel"). While we cannot blame this present sad state of affirs entirely on the new Mass, the new Mass contributed mightly to the damaging and heartbreaking satire of Catholicism becase our rule of belief is our rule of prayer. While the new Mass is not heretical, it is not, in most cases, orthodox in the sense that orthodoxy is the proper (orthos) glorification (doxa) of God. What we have, rather, is a sort of self-glorification which focuses on what we can be doing duing liturgy. Altar girls, "extraordinary" EMs, in-and-out of teh sanctiary non-tonsured lay lectors &c. are all examples of a pseudo-pelagian, psuedo-messalian mentality that hold that one is not worshiping if one does not feel oneself moving about and saying stuff.

RE: Traditionalists today
Whatever the problems with spirituality in connexion with the Mass were in the past, I find in my experience that on balance, the traditionalists today tend to be the most genuinely spiritual Roman Catholics today. Despite their disgruntlement with the current state of affirs, they tend to be better informed, more charitable and happier than your average Catholic. Since this was not the case before the new Mass, it is likely that what we have is a self-selection going on here. It is not that the old Mass will magically cause people to become orthodox and devout, but rather orthodox and devout persons tend to choose the old Mass--because it is better (almost as good as Divine Liturgy)!

RE: The Orthodox and Traditionalism,
I agree with Mr. King that the mentality of traditionalist Catholics is closer to the Orthodox mentality, probably because both are heavily into tradition. The irony, of course, is that much liturgical "reform" was done in mimicry of the Orthodox, e.g. Anaphora (sort of) of St. Basil in Eucharistic Prayer 4 and the introduction of a Eucharistic Acclaimation after the consecration in the Mass in imitation of the "We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we pray to Thee O our God" before the consecration in the DLs of Ss Jn Chrysostom and Basil.

Thanks for reading,
Han

[Brian Lester]

Re: where all these Christians are who are so obsessed with a sense of their own sin that we forget that God loves us.

Tom wrote in response to Rod:

"Perhaps they're at Mass, sitting in the middle pews ... Or perhaps they're standing at the ambo, preaching to themselves in our hearing, in which case scorn may not be the best reaction."

Amen! I don't want "I'm ok, you're ok, stop worrying" homilies either, and I assume that's what Rod was getting at.

But some of the most profound, deeply moving homilies I've experienced are focused precisely on God's love. And how we're so blinded by trying to earn it instead of accepting it. Prodigal Son homilies. "You are precious in my sight" homilies.

Pelagianism lives, and Grace and Mercy need to be heard. Not cheap grace, and not ignoring sin, but the real deal Grace and Mercy.

[whitcomb]

First, sorry for the misdirected post of yesterday ("Catholic writers"). That was an e-mail intended for Amy.

Second, today we have Bill speaking of "all that garbage" at Mass harassing him and his family--Eucharistic ministers and altar girls among the refuse.

It's one thing to object to these ministries in principle, but I suggest that a more careful writer would have avoided the word "garbage." I speak as the husband of a Eucharistic minister and father of two (former) altar girls.

Third, Anastasia is on target when she writes of the deplorable attire worn by many at Mass. My "favorite" example, if that's the word, was the, yes, Eucharistic minister who offered me communion while wearing his Chicago Bears Super Bowl T-shirt. Kind of ruined the moment. I can happily report he has disappeared, at least as a Eucharistic minister.

This is not even the worst example I could give, just the most memorable. Whenever someone disagrees with me raising the issue of attire at Mass, I tell them of the Baptist church I visited in the worst neighborhood in town, where all the worshipers, poor as they might be, go to service dressed like a million dollars.

[Vincent]

Many of them had received an inadequate, rules-oriented formation, and the eruptions after the Council were a rebellion against the whole business. -- George Sim Johnston

Let me guess: Nominalism.

George's observation reminds me of something I read in Dr. Mark Lowery's book, Living the Good Life: What Every Catholic Needs to know about Moral Issues:

"The manualist tradition erred precisely in failing to integrate ethics with Scripture and into the other great mysteries of the Christian faith. It also made the mistake of imposing the rules of ethics rather than allowing a discovery of the truth. Many priests and theologians were trained under the heteronomous manualist methods, and it's sad but no surprise that they reacted as they did: They fell into an autonomous view of the moral life and dissented from Catholic moral teaching. When the Catholic faithful and they themselves were beseiged by the moral relativism of a secular age, the tried and true moral rules cracked under pressure-- for those rules were not integrated properly into the full texture of the Trinitarian Christian life" (p. 45).

[Bill]

Rod,

I still think it is wide of the mark to imply that the Latin Mass crowd is "semi-gnostic". They are anything but. They champion the Mass prayed by St. Thomas championing philosophy and the natural law and by St. Therese, truly a saint for the unlettered common man. The Mass haunted a genius like James Joyce and riveted the washer women and servant girls he disdained. The Catholicism of the traditionalists is readily accessible to every one, regardless of his state in life or the state of his soul. This shouldn't be surprising, since, as Tom Woods and Chris Ferrara put it, traditionalist Catholics are simply trying to uphold the faith and practice of the Church as it had developed organically up to 1960. That such Catholics would now seem to many to be cult-like and purveyors of superstition is more an indictment of the current state of the Church and its human leadership than it is a comment on the merits of the traditionalist proposition for reform and restoration.

[jerry]

A bit off topic, but has anyone read "Benedicamus Domino" by Attila Mikloshazy? He is a jesuit bishop theologian in Toronto and the book deals with the theological bases for liturgical reforms and discusses the liturgies of the 7 sacraments from that perspective. He supposedly adopts a middle path between traditionalists (he favours some Latin being retained) and progressives (the host should be real bread, not the wafer). Just wondering if anyone has any info on the book before I spend my hard earned dollars.

[Rod Dreher]

Bill, what I mean by "semi-gnostic" is this feeling of superiority I have often experienced from some Tridentine mass devotees, who behave as if God really hears prayers especially well in Latin. Plus, there's the matter of the bitterness I've observed on the occasions that I've been present in Latin Mass communities. I don't blame these folks, I'd be bitter too (and am bitter). But we cannot survive on gall. I became a Catholic Christian joyfully, and the joy of knowing Christ in His Church sustains me. If the slap-happy enforced cheerfulness and optimism of most parishes is a deadly trap, so is the anxious pessimism of so many traddies. My temptation these days is to anxious pessimism. I remember going to a Latin mass in Washington a few years ago, and at coffee hour, everybody was talking about the hated liberals, and how the Church was going to hell in a handbasket. There was a sense of angry besiegement there. Not a lot of peace and joy. I didn't go back (besides which, I couldn't understand a bloomin' thing the priest said, because he mumbled throughout the whole mass; I much preferred the sung Latin Novus Ordo then offered at the Basilica).

[Gregg the obscure]

Anastasia makes a great comment above regarding how the increased wealth of Americans after WWII changed the Church in America. I'd suggest that other changes in the broader society have also had large impacts.

Especially important are some factors that may in some senses seem to contradict each other: (1) the radical reduction in deference to law that came about during Prohibition and the onset of (widely vilified) traffic laws; (2) the hedonism born of WWI -- after all the divorce boom started in the 1920s; (3) a sense, largely based on technological advancement, that we are somehow wiser than our forefathers; (4) despair at the spectacular evils wrought by [insert name of totalitarian regime here]; and (5) the constant drumbeat of secular ideology, particularly in pop culture.

People in the Church in America imbibed of all of those. In Europe they didn't have the first listed factor, but they had the collapse of the entire social order between 1912 and 1945 to make up for it.

It's easy for us to forget that the Council was called soon after the two most destrutive wars in human history to that date (wars in which Catholic nations were leading participants) and in days when a unimaginably more destructive war seemed imminent. The Council Fathers were all men who had been formed in part by those experiences. As they saw it, there were crises to be addressed.

To suggest that all problems of the post-conciliar Church are attributable to the Council is as inane as to suggest that all problems of the post-conciliar Church are attributable to pre-conciliar attitudes. Other than the Sacraments themselves, any activity in which sinful humans participate is
going to be tinged by the effects of sin.

The Church in the days of St. Francis or St. Pio Bruno Lanteri faced sick societies too. The Church in those days looked at least as bad as it does now in many ways. The Church muddled through - more due to the Holy Spirit than to human efforts.

Bl. John XXIII used the analogy that the council was like opening the windows. To carry that analogy a bit farther, in the unfiltered light, people may see things that weren't evident when the window was shut. There may have been some substantial differences between various Catholics that went unseen and unnoticed. Once the bright light shone on them, the differences became more evident and some people directed more of their attention to those differences than to the Cross to which their attention would better be directed.

[Donald R. McClarey]

I was born in 57. My hazy recollections of pre-Vatican II masses are of packed masses with the men in suits and ties and the women in dresses and hats or headscarves. I also recall the incense and the Latin and everyone receiving communion kneeling at the altar rail. Everything about the Mass shouted out that what was being done was of infinite importance.

[TSO]

Concerning Vat II -- I wonder if part of the decline of the American church was simply because of a decline in anti-Catholicism (as shown by JFK's election).

What's interesting is how persecution - even the unbloody, mild anti-Catholicism in America prior to 1960 - seemed to keep many of us in line even if for the wrong reason - i.e. out of solidarity to family, clan, church (small 'c') instead of more directly to Christ. (After all, like it or not, the mass of us in this life will never achieve any degree of real holiness and Flannery O'Connor said that some religion is better than none.) A strengthened loyalty is the unintended effect of prejudice. African-Americans call each other brother due to a solidarity born of white prejudice.

The time the Church seems to grow is when it's being persecuted. In China, missionaries had little impact until the state began to persecute Christians - at which point the Church began growing wildly. In Ireland, the Irish faith seemed strengthened by Prots, by making the stubborn Irish even more stubborn in their faith. In England however, where Anglicanism became the official state church, Christianity is dying on the vine (less than 20% go to church).

It's inbred in us that that which we sacrifice for we will become closer to. Persecution - either very minor or major - brings about a greater holiness because it uses both natural means (i.e. the loyalty one feels toward that which you have suffered for) and supernatural means (i.e. that God is never closer to us that when we suffer).

[Bill]

Rod,

I recognize what you discribe as the bitterness of Catholics you encountered at an indult Mass in Washington. As you say, it's understandable, given what these folks have had to put up with for so long. However, I think part of the bitterness is the result of the way the indult has been implemented. In D.C., there is no daily Latin Mass. I know many Catholics who attend an indult Mass on a Sunday and new Masses during the week. They are forced into the incessant fighting I mentioned in a previous post that makes prayer impossible, or at least very difficult. In the context of a traditional chapel, these problems do not exist. There are other problems, to be sure, but the fundamental problem of liturgy-as-culture-war isn't one of them. As for the mumbled low mass in D.C., I would (and do) take that over a sung Latin novus ordo. But even there, I imagine that you are aquainted with the Missa Cantata at St Agnes in NYC. I would be surprised if you did not think it compared favorably to a sung Novus Ordo mass.

[RP Burke]

Two items to think about.

1. The first is the success of the Catholic educational system, and higher education in general, spawned by (among other things) the GI Bill and the baby boom.

Over a period of a couple of decades, the number of college-educated Catholics has ballooned. Thanks to the very education we received, in part because of the church, we have learned to think critically.

What this means is that the nature of how the church can demonstrate its goodness, its rightness and the need for its authority has changed radically. I, for one, from the last wave of pre-Vatican II Catholic schools, find the appeal to authority (we are right because it is in our very nature to be right -- shut up and obey) unconvincing.

We wouldn't accept this anywhere else: why in the church??

2. The other is the effect of the changes wrought by Vatican II in the perception of the church's "indefectibility."

After being taught in the catechism that the church never changes -- that its structure, its rules, its worship is exactly as Jesus intended, including College of Cardinals, curia, and coadjutors -- all of a sudden things changed.

Some were superficial, like abstinence on Friday (imagine how liberating it was to go to the spanking new McDonald's on a Friday night with the guys and not have to order a filet-o-fish) and the Mass in Latin. Others touched the very core of the church's essence, like the shift from referring to "heretics, schismatics and infidels" to "separated brothers and sisters," and the drop of the demand that, once Catholics become a majority, the U.S. drop the nonestablishment clause and make Catholicism the official religion of the land.

Why is this important? Because it demonstrated that the teaching that the church could and would never change was false. What else could change? Married priests? (We DO have them, you know, even in the Latin rite -- you just have to be a Protestant to become one)

[Bill]

Whitcomb,

I intended no offense to you or your family by my comment. However, Eucharistic ministers (esp. the way they are imposed in most parishes) and altar girls are an abuse and should be surpressed, regardless of how well-intentioned a particular Eucharistic minister or altar girl may be.

[Julia]

Re: "the introduction of a Eucharistic Acclaimation after the consecration in the Mass"

Just last week a friend with a PhD from Louvain told me there is no longer a "consecration" - it's the "institution". Also, there is no particular moment when when the bread and wine become the body & blood of Christ.

I was also told that we no longer believe that there is a particular moment in the Sacrament of Matrimony when the couple actually become "married", that it occurs over a period of time as they live together.

???? Anybody want to explain these developments?

I was born in 1944 and have fond memories of the old Mass. We all had missals to follow what was going on and it didn't matter if we could hear what the priest was saying. In fact, there was a part of the Mass called the "Secret" because it was not said outloud. In some Eastern churches you cannot even see the altar - but, boy, are the services awsome with reverence.

Part of why the Mass was changed was to clear away some accumulations that had become like meaningless barnacles. For instance, it was rather difficult to figure out exactly which Mass was being said - a very complicated chart had to be consulted. There were feasts of the 1st degree trumping minor feasts of the 4th degree, high masses, low masses, Masses for virgins, Masses for martyrs, Masses for bishops, etc.

Now I think we have a simple 3 year cycle, right? I heard there is going to be a return to an official Communion prayer - which is from the Psalms. That's nice, I guess.

The problem I may have with the modern Mass is that it often seems so casual and like an Elks Lodge meeting. As long as the new Mass is reverential & a sense of transcendence is maintained, I don't have a problem with it.

But it was nice to be in any country in the world and "get it" because all Missals were the same. That's where our unity disappeared. I didn't have to join hands and hug the folks in the 17th arrondissement - we were united in our beliefs and participation.

[KH]

There must also be a connection made between parish and school; the latter reflecting the intent of the former. The current state of Catholic schools is what is fanning the successful flames of homeschooling. However, not all of us have the ability or temperament to homeschool. How do we give our children a Catholic education? It certainly isn't being done here in NY. And as someone above said, it only gets worse as they approach adolescence. The other parents are as clueless as the teachers/administrators are and so go the kids. There is no support for orthodox Catholic families. My sanity and blood-pressure are often saved by visiting St. Blog's, but it's still only a virtual community; not very good for family/children interaction, education & support.

It is my opinion that Pre-VII Catholic elementary and high schools were vastly superior to what's offered today, both in religion (no such thing as obligatory daily mass today - and isn't that really the MOST important thing for any child?) and academics, although I will say that the better private Catholic schools do make an attempt at teaching rigorous academics but seem to include liberal-agendized classes and thought. (Electives like "Yoga & Prayer", what every 16 year old needs...) A couple months ago my husband went to the Regis open-house. For those that don't know, it's one of the premier Jesuit high schools in the country - if you pass their test, it's full scholarship, so competition is extremely keen and they choose from the cream of the crop. How can it be that their student-written opinion journal offered pro-stem-cell research articles? And printed it with the Regis name on the cover? Why did they have "gay day" this past year, as if Regis students, of all people, would be first in line to beat up open homosexuals? It's only an example, but from what I've seen, typical. How can we change the culture if our young aren't educated in their faith? I firmly belive that it can be done, and I'm doing what I can, but it's extremely discouraging, especially when my life-work of raising my children as orthodox Catholics is contradicted and impeded every day.

[James Kabala]

Suplicius:
I agree that it is kind of strange that the Novus Ordo and Tridentine masses do not have the same liturgical calendar. Don't forget, though, that the Eastern Rite Churches have always had a calendar that was very different from Latin Rite churches, and they were just as Catholic.

[Bill]

Amy,

The difficulty I've found with even a "reverent Novus Ordo Mass" is that the form of the Novus Ordo is imprinted so strongly with the personality of the celebrant. Obviously, this is a problem when some crazed heretic is presiding and spouting nonsense. However, it is also a problem with conservative priests who self-consiously follow the rubrics, choose to say the Roman canon, skip the sign of peace, etc. Even when the good guys are winning, the kulturkampf is no substitute for prayer. With the old Mass, there is only one way to say it, regardless of whether it is mumbled or sung. The priest doesn't get in the way.

[Glenn Juday]

On the Liturgical questions. It’s simple. You should participate in that form of the approved liturgy that is of most genuine spiritual benefit to you (and of course has the lowest quotient of liturgical abuses and doctrinal errors). We are called to worship in spirit AND truth. It must be a balance of approaching the mystery of the Divine and the spirit of prayerfulness. When we exercise the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety and Fear of the Lord) then the 12 virtues that are the Fruits of the Holy Spirit are produced in our lives - Charity, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Generosity, Gentleness, Faithfulness, Modesty, Self-control, Chastity. We produce these Fruits in our lives when we are loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, generous, gentle, faithful, modest, and when we exercise self-control and are chaste and pure. If there is a noticeable improvement in your condition with respect to these virtues after attending one form of the Mass, then that is the one you should go to.

Personally, it has turned out to be the Traditional Latin Mass for my family. Our Mass is in a small chapel (30 to 50 people), we use simple wooden candle holders, folding chairs, cheesy statues are all we have. But something beautiful happens. The (self-selected of course) congregation really prays hard, respects Father in his role, know their prayers and responses in Latin and don’t mumble them, and are quiet and reverent at the appropriate time – even the little children. You can sense something HOLY there. My grown sons who had no exposure to the Latin Mass experience it too. That may be the source of fanatical enthusiasm of the Traditional Latin Mass types – they want you to experience it too.

Alas, that may not happen. Maybe it’s you, maybe it’s the hang-ups of the Latin Mass community. Instead, maybe a reverent celebration of the new Mass is for you. But in no way can the Traditional Latin Mass be denigrated. In addition to being Holy and sacred, it is a crucial part of our Catholic heritage and it has shaped world culture. I’ve been to some Traditional Latin Mass communities in North America, and the comments here about bitterness, political views, etc. among the attendees have a basis in reality.

The Latin Mass congregation in my town is a typical cross-section of early 21st century America. They don’t live in a dead past. Some are converts. The Latin Mass community has provided nearly half of the bodies for the “Catholic” day to picket the local abortion facility. Some ARE bitter, and political too. The community is generally denied access to parish bulletins, the Priests Council disapproved a resolution asking the bishop to abolish the Latin Mass after some tough debate. But most of the congregation would walk on glass to preserve access to this form of the Mass which means so much to them and helps them so much in their ONE Catholic faith. For me, those are “good” Catholics, because they know what they NEED and they SUBMIT themselves to Christ’s Church, even with all their quirks, political views I may not like, and the occasional slight I might perceive. My membership only adds another sinner to their ranks. If that is what you experienced pre or post Vatican 2 then that is what you experienced. If today you find it in a vernacular or a Latin Mass, then worship God in spirit and truth there.

[Rod Dreher]

KH: How do we give our children a Catholic education? It certainly isn't being done here in NY.

You've hit on one big reason we moved out of NYC and to Dallas. Homeschooling is HUGE in Texas, and there's lots of support. I don't know what the parochial school situation is like here with the Catholics, but there are a significant number of solid conservative Christian schools. I'd sooner send my kid to a good Presbyterian (PCA) school than to a Catholic school where he'll be taught blandoid pseudo-Catholicism. We're going to try homeschooling with our boys (the oldest is four and a half, but he's already reading at a third-grade level), but if that doesn't work, we've got a pretty great set of affordable options, at least compared to what we had in NYC.

Also -- and this cannot be underestimated -- the ethos in Dallas is incomparably more Christian than in NYC. I hate to admit it, because I think NYC is the greatest city in the world, and the five years I lived there were the happiest of my life. But this is a much better place to raise kids, because the culture is so much more supportive of Christian faith.

[Rod Dreher]

RP Burke: Some were superficial, like abstinence on Friday (imagine how liberating it was to go to the spanking new McDonald's on a Friday night with the guys and not have to order a filet-o-fish)

When did this change? I thought we were still supposed to fast on Fridays. I certainly do. How petty to call being able to eat a Big Mac on Friday "liberating." Sheesh.

[ottanbrus]

A related matter....

Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. --Pope John Paul II, ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA 52

I heard a rumor that the juridical document the Holy Father has called for will be promulgated on Holy Thursday. I am eager to see it, and I am trying to be hopeful.

[Bill]

Brian,

Re you comment much earlier today, I do believe the Latin Mass is necessary for a general restoration of the Church. If your parish is doing positive things, I am pleased to hear it. By no means do I believe that the only good Catholics are the ones who attend the Latin Mass (or that all the ones that attend the Latin Mass are good Catholics). However, there is an adage that the law of prayer is the law of belief (lex orandi, lex credendi). The faith is formed by the manner in which we pray. That's why Kenneth Jones's Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, which tries to quantify the collapse of the faith in the US, is so damning with respect to Vatican II. Ultimately, I don't think that the new Mass and Eucharistic adoration can co-exist side by side. Either one or the other will go. Why would someone who believes in the Real Presence and worships Christ in the Eucharist consider a Novus Ordo Mass to be a fitting manner in which to worship God? The monstrance itself is a stinging rebuke of the mentality that created the Novus Ordo.

[Sulpicius Severus]

Here's Pope Pius XI of blessed memory in Quas Primas (On the Feast of Christ the King):

"For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life." (para. 21. Emphasis added).

Yes, the Mass is a panacea, for if God wants us to worship Him a certain way, ought we not obey Him? Pius XI Magesterially hits it on the mark: every Catholic -- from street cleaner, to philosophy professor, to scullery maid, to Emperor assisted at the SAME Mass. It is the Mass that counts. It safeguards our Doctrine and belief. Of course, every Catholic isn't going to go out and read the Vatican II documents, right? But every Catholic goes to Mass. So Mr. Horton, you're right. You're not supposed to be some theological expert. Find the True Mass and pray it. Keep your heart open to the graces Christ will confer on you through it.

Mr. Dreher, you (and other commenters) are ripe for conversion to traditional Catholicism, and I pray you find the way. That is the answer: "cleave to Tradition." Don't let the bitterness of humans (in the congregation) dissuade you. We're not supposed to be happy on this earth all the time, but we are supposed to save our souls. It's a narrow way and a low gate these days, but traditional Catholicism is the answer.

Mr. Juday's right. You just have to open your hearts and go try it -- go get on your knees and receive Christ Our King as Catholics have always received Him.

I'm happy that commenters older than myself have offered their views on the pre-Vatican II Church. I say to them that many of us younger catacomb Catholics are doing our best, please God, to preserve the Faith you have handed down to us.

So Ms. Johnson, as to "what's next", I pray it's that you will find the traditional Catholics in your area and worship with them. Dig out your modest dress and chapel mantilla (guys, dust off your suit and tie), get down there, and pray the Old Latin Mass. Put aside any intellectual pride and just try it; it's something different than fulminating on-line, yes? Praying for you. UIOGD,

[Han Ng]

Rod:
I think that the change was that in the old days (pre-Vatican II) there was no meat every Friday *of the year* whereas today it is only no meat on Fridays of Lent.

Ottanbrus:
This is only tangentially related to your post, moderately related to tradition, and not at all related to Good vs Bad Catholics, but here it is anyway. I seems to me that while new norms would be good to curb liturgical abuse, we have seen the Vatican cave into pressure to normalise abuse by means of new norms rather than curb it (e.g reception in the hand). I also think that the idea that more rules will fix things is not a healty attitude. I remember serving a (novus ordo) Mass for a priest, who afterwards rebuked me for having kissed the cruets before handing them to him and having made a profound bow at the consecration. He said that because such gestures could not be found in the Missal or in the GIRM, they were "no longer part of the Roman Liturgy." This was not a dissenter priest. The problem with this legalistic minimalism is that by these standards, they were not part of the old Roman liturgy either. Yet such gestures *were* part of the liturgy because liturgy does not exist in a vacuum but rather within a tradition. Pace to the Pope of Rome, but the very fact that he sees need to promulgate more norms demonstrates either that mere obedience to the existing norms does not in fact "quietly but eloquently demonstrate love for the Church" (but rather a good and proper, but perhaps minimalistic, obedience to the rules) or that the norms are not in fact being followed in spirit and a "prescriptions of a judicial nature are needed." What I think is needed ultimately are not new norms (which may nevertheless help) but respect for tradition, even within the context of the new Mass.

Thanks for reading,
Han

[Han Ng]

Bill,
While I think that the new Mass and Eucharistic Adoration can co-exist, I agree that there does seem to be a disconnect between receiving the Body of Christ in the hand from somebody in a Chicago Bears T-Shirt Sunday morning and then Sunday afternoon seeing the priest touching the monstrance holding the Blessed Sacrament only through the humeral veil.

[Patrick Quinlan]

Two out of three ain't bad-
That's my formula for what I want in a homily, and how i want Catholicism to be lived and known.
#1- We are made in God's image and likeness, and we are wonderfully made.
#2- Original Sin has distorted human nature, so our intellects and will have been darkened.
#3- We have a savior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Jesus loves you, Jesus loves you, Jesus loves you
I greatly enjoy and am appreciate homilies that tell us that God loves us, but I always hope that the priest and the rest of the people know that two out of three ain't bad! (Why have I been blogging so much recently? Oh well)
Peace,
Patrick Quinlan

[ottanbrus]

Mr Ng:

I don't see that the Holy Father is calling for new liturgical norms. Rather, I think he is trying to deal with the problem of abuses of the current norms, and he is doing so (as stated in the encyclical) because he has heard so many complaints from faithful Catholics about widespread liturgical abuses. The fact that the Pope calls for a document with "prescriptions of a juridical nature" means (I think) that he wants specific sanctions applied to certain kinds of liturgical abuses. (I guess we will know when the document is promulgated.)

Anyway, I try to be hopeful, not because I expect any of this to "fix" the problem overnight, but because it may signal the beginning of...well, something. Notice that I used the word "may". I'm very cautious with my hope.

[Patrick Rothwell]

"Alas, that may not happen. Maybe it’s you, maybe it’s the hang-ups of the Latin Mass community. Instead, maybe a reverent celebration of the new Mass is for you. But in no way can the Traditional Latin Mass be denigrated."

Not true! Liturgical abuses abounded in the pre-Vatican II Church.

A lengthy, but delightful selection from the wondefully hilarious book "Ceremonial Curiosities and Queer Sights in Foreign Churches
Ecclesiological and other notes from the travel diaries of
Edward J. G. Forse, M.A., F.R.G.S."
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/england/forse.html

Adrian Fortescue says cheerfully, "The High Altar of a church will normally have six larger candlesticks with candles" (Ceremonies of the Roman Rite, p. 7).

On July 17th, 1926, there were no candles at all on the High Altar, or any other altar, of the Cathedral of Huesca in Spain. On December 30th, 1913, there were no candles at all on the High Altar of the Cathedral of Chartres in France, but six fine candlesticks were arrayed, three north and three south of the altar, on the altar steps. At the famous Cathedral of Milan the High Altar is adorned with only two great lights, with a crucifix but no Tabernacle. At the noble church of San Petronio in Bologna you may find four candles on the High Altar, or you may find two: you will not find six. At the High Mass at the High Altar of Seville Cathedral on July 7th, 1912, there were only four lighted candles throughout the service. In the Cathedral of Huesca in Spain and in both the Cathedrals of Zaragoza you will find only two very small candles on any High Altar, and those set on the mensa at the extreme western edge. They are chained to the Table (as at S. Saviour's Cathedral in Southwark) and a lavabo towel is tied with tape to the Epistle Candle: but they are taken away directly after the Blessing and only replaced in time for the next Mass. But in both these dioceses the scarcity of candles is compensated for by the presence of a huge glazed circular recess, full of Sanctuary Lamps, high on the east wall above the altar: a thing I have found nowhere else in all Europe.

I am sorry to say that the six lights on many a French and Italian altar are nowadays often crowned with an electric light bulb instead of a wick, but there are usually two actual candles lighted as well for Mass, although I should not like to inquire too closely how much beeswax they contain. But the two candles always lighted for Mass are by no means always either upon or above the altar. For example, for the 9 o'clock Mass at Poitiers Cathedral on March I5th, 1908, the only two lights were placed in revolving brackets screwed to the east wall, north and south of the altar: and I have often found the same practice elsewhere. Candle practice is indeed vague and various. In Seville Cathedral on July 7th, 1912, processional candles were carried in the Sanctuary like maces, that is, slantwise across the shoulder: and the cascade of wax that flowed down the backs of the embroidered tunicles must have cost some hours of labour to remove after the service.

Mortuary candles are no less various. On September 8th, 1919, I saw twenty-four small candles standing round a coffin in the Cathedral of Sees in France: they were of white wax, with black bands painted round them. But on September 3rd, 1923, at Forli Cathedral in Italy, there were only four candles round the coffin. They were large white candles, and each of them had three separate wicks: which I have not seen elsewhere.

Lengthy preachers, like myself, will appreciate this: on July 28th, 1907, I attended the 9 a.m. Mass in the Liebfraukirche at Zurich, ready to start for a long tramp as soon as it ended. A Capuchin in a brown habit mounted the pulpit and when the three ministers descended to the banc d'oeuvre, the celebrant sent the server to put out the six lights on the altar, presumably for economy's sake. After thirty minutes of the Capuchin, the celebrant sent the server back to light the six candles once more, presumably as a gentle hint. The Capuchin waited in a stony silence until the sixth was lighted, and then he gave us another twenty minutes more! When I hear how preferable to a cast-iron uniformity is "diversity in unity" I sometimes wonder if the speaker is really intending to praise the practices of the Roman Catholic Church on the continent of Europe!

[Matt W.]

It is only during Lent that no-meat Fridays are required, but it is recommended/suggested that we follow that throughout the year. Failing that, we are required to substitute some other penitential act. The idea was to make abstaining an act of prayer and not an act of legal obedience. Unfortunately, whether through poor communication or an unwillingness to listen, only the "meatless Fridays no longer required outside of Lent" part was received.

[AB]

How Catholics Changed

The education of American Catholics changed dramatically over the 20th century. In 1900 there was still significant immigration from Ireland, Italy, and Poland. These immigrants were mostly peasants. I suspect the great bulk of them were illiterate.

By the mid-20th century, most Catholics probably had a high-school education. They would have been the first generation to learn how to read. There jobs were simple, generally using their muscles, not their minds.

By the late 60's, the young generation coming could not only read, but generatlly had a college education and was moving from a life of physical labor to one of mental work.

This moved much faster than Catholic education.

In 1900, the education had to be aimed at peasants and the children of peasants.

By 1940, the first generation in which the Priests could assume litteracy were coming up, but their lives did not involve many intellectual chalanges. The traditions and outlooks of their parents were still intact.

By the 1960's, the Church had to educate a generation heading to college. Not only was their education phenomonally advanced, but they were heading to colleges where the professors had no use for religion, especially Catholicism. The reinforcment of ethnic neigborhoods fell away.

A 65 year old priest in 1965 would have been born in 1900. He would have seen all these changes, but if like most people, would have clung to the ways of his youth.

He would have grown up among simple people, spent his middle age with literate people and been out of his depth with the professors.

I doubt he would have any clue about what was to hit his charges when they went to college.

[Barbara]

I understand why it may be unnerving or disheartening to take communion from the hands of someone in a football T-shirt. This is a common dilemma: between the notion that the server ought to show respect and reverence by dressing up and the concept that the universal church includes everyone, including those who can't afford or who don't know what it means to dress up.

I see this as a bit of a metaphor for the entire discussion on this thread: There is the Pre-VII world of, for lack of a better expression, "law and order" Catholicism that stressed a kind of stoic piety, and obedience to authority. FYI, according to my mum, who attended Catholic schools for 16 years, between 1941 and 1957, what strikes her most in retrospect about the life of the church, divorced from its social aspects, was the attitude of the nuns and priests that people needed to accept their lives for good or ill. I will go out on a limb and recount that her memory is that at least where she grew up, her teachers, in particular, were Irish, and reflected the gravitas of the Irish church at the time. It was, as she says, a lot of gloom and doom, and no questioning why on anything. It emphasized rigid adherence to obligations, and minimized dialogue and explanation.

I would also say that it's one thing to attend a Latin mass said by a priest you know in a relatively small setting. It's another to attend a Latin mass in an anonymous suburban church -- which is what many churches became by the late 50s and early 60s (as I recall -- I was born when Amy was born, and I do remember going to massively packed church services in a yawning church as a small child). In addition, no one has mentioned the entire role of suburbanization, at least in the U.S., and of what that did to social identity: it undercut religious/ethnic identity, in favor of national identity, and this was seen as a good thing overall. That is why, in large part, church building ceased being so "ethnic." People didn't want to see themselves as "Italian Catholic" Americans, they wanted to be Americans. They wanted to assimilate, and they wanted their church to assimilate, at least to some extent.

That doesn't mean that they wanted chaos (the server in the t-shirt) but it's safe to say that neither they nor JPXXIII anticipated the extent of social upheaveal in the 60s. Remember, the paradigm of the 60s -- "Question Authority." So it was. I really think VII is just a convenient watermark -- that the seeds for many of the changes that are found to be so distressing started as early as 1945, at the end of WWII, and would have occurred one way or another whether VII came about or not. I would not disagree that VII accelerated them, or gave them credibility. In many ways, what has happened is the shedding of religious identity in favor of other identifying traits: political, educational, professional, mostly. For those who continue to identify themselves first and foremost through religious affiliation, I understand why this drives you nuts.

What I see, increasingly, is the occurrence within the Church of what happens in the world of Protestants through the creation of churches: the fragmentation of believers into groups that more or less reflect the comfort level of the believer with regard to the intensity of religious experience.

[Jason]

>>>"Yes, the Mass is a panacea, for if God wants us to worship Him a certain way, ought we not obey Him? Pius XI Magesterially hits it on the mark: every Catholic -- from street cleaner, to philosophy professor, to scullery maid, to Emperor assisted at the SAME Mass. It is the Mass that counts. It safeguards our Doctrine and belief. Of course, every Catholic isn't going to go out and read the Vatican II documents, right? But every Catholic goes to Mass. So Mr. Horton, you're right. You're not supposed to be some theological expert. Find the True Mass and pray it. Keep your heart open to the graces Christ will confer on you through it."

Your defiance to changes in the Liturgy run contrary to that Pope of Blessed Memory, Pius XII:

"The Sovereign Pontiff ALONE enjoys the right to recognize and establish ANY practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve NEW rites, as also to MODIFY those he judges to require modification.Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission... It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is ENTIRELY subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.(Mediator Dei, 58/60)

Unless a person had a Missal in hand, and could follow the breakneck speed of the priest, they had no idea what he was saying at Mass. All the beautiful prayers of the Liturgy were just mysteries. And Missals were a historical innovation. People didnt get their faith from the prayers at Mass. They got their faith from Catechesis, and brought it with them to Mass, at which they were functionally regarded as observers, not the Body of Christ offering, in unison with Christ their head, the Sacrifice of Calvary.

[Sulpicius Severus]

Among the many good points being made in this discussion, I'd hate to see RP Burke's point fall through the cracks:

The other is the effect of the changes wrought by Vatican II in the perception of the church's "indefectibility."

This is a sticking point for traditional Catholics. The Traditional Sacraments (Mass, Extreme Unction, etc.), traditional Catechesis ("Why did God make you? To know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world so that we may be with Him in the next"; Satan, Hell, Purgatory, indulgences, "evil spirits wandering throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls", guardian angels, etc.), traditional practices (yes, no meat on Fridays; also, fasting throughout all of Lent non-Sundays, head covering for women in His Presence, daily Angelus, Eucharistic fast from midnight prior, etc.), the Traditional Faith -- Holy Ghost gave us these things over Centuries. Weighed against 40 years of innovation, we cleave to Tradition.

40 years has shown that Vatican II modernism is more Man's way than Our Lord's way. Vatican II "switched everything up." Holy Church does not "switch everything up."

It's a unique, trying time, but we have Our Faith. UIOGD,

[Sulpicius Severus]

Jason, please don't cite Pope Pius XII as authority in support of the Vatican II changes. From the same document you cite:

First of all, you must strive that with due reverence and faith all obey the decrees of the Council of Trent, of the Roman Pontiffs, and the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and what the liturgical books ordain concerning external public worship. (para. 187)

Let us recall, as well, the decree about "not introducing new forms of worship and devotion."[170] We commend the exact observance of this decree to your vigilance. (para. 190 citing Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree of May 26, 1937.)

Pius XII most certainly did not wish to see the promulgation of protestantized guitar and hula "masses".

Yes, it's not that difficult to follow your Missal at Holy Mass (the kids in our parish do so just fine), but even if you can't read you can still go to Mass. See, it's not what the people bring to the Mass. It's what's going on at the Mass, and what's going on at the Traditional Latin Mass (Christ Our King's unbloody sacrifice) is not what's going on at Fr. Joe's Clown Mass. UIOGD,

[Brian]

Bill and Han Ng,

You do realize that there is nothing in the Norvus Ordo that requires disrespecting the Eucharist during Mass? Disrespect towards the Eucharist during Mass is an abuse and is not a sanctioned norm of the Norvus Ordo. Extraordinary Ministers are not supposed to be ordinary. The Norvus Ordo if done the way it was meant to be done, can be just as reverent towards the Eucharist as the Tridentine Mass.

Norvus Ordo is not incompatible with Adoration. Otherwise, why would parishes like mine and others in the area be increasing the amount of adoration rather than decreasing the amount of adoration?

[Sulpicius Severus]

Jason, I also notice how you skipped over para 59:

This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice (emphasis added)

"Vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice" = BAD. Tell me, then, how is Pope Pius XII's Church the same as Paul VI/JPII's? UIOGD,

[Jason]

Sulpicius,

You are blinded by Rad Trad propaganda.

I will pray for you.

God Bless.

[Joe]

>"Vernacular in the celebration of the august >eucharistic sacrifice" = BAD. Tell me, then, how is >Pope Pius XII's Church the same as Paul VI/JPII's? >UIOGD,

Suplicius, that's easy. The Church of Pope Pius XII is the same as the Church of Paul VI/JPII because it is the same Holy Spirit that is alive in both, the bishops in both are the successors to the apostles--and what makes them bishops was that they received the seal of the sacrament of orders validly.

"[the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places" (Council of Trent, session 21, chapter 2; Denzinger 931)

[Tom]

Why would someone who believes in the Real Presence and worships Christ in the Eucharist consider a Novus Ordo Mass to be a fitting manner in which to worship God?

"And your wife's ugly, too."

[Maureen]

It grieves me to read posts like Rod Dreher's and Carrie's that are so despairing about the state of the Church. My experience has been much more like Brian's. My parish is orthodox, has tons of outlets for the traditional devotions. I've only gone to a Latin Mass two or three times and can't really say it thrills my soul, though it's okay, I guess; so though I'm not hostile to it, I find it difficult to understand those who need a dose of Latin every week. (Though a missal might have helped. It's heck trying to make out what someone's saying or singing and then translating it in your head. Especially since I took Classical Latin, so the church Latin pronunciations sound so modernistic to me....) I've only run into unorthodox stuff a few times, though of course there was lots of silly stuff back in the seventies when I was growing up. I learned to ignore the silly stuff and keep my attention on the actual Mass. And I'm a nitpicky person, so that wasn't easy. But since my mom would give me a sharp elbow whenever it looked like I wasn't paying attention....

But honestly, I get so much spiritual wealth from the good old plain vanilla, badly translated Novus Ordo Mass that I find it hard to understand how anyone could complain. It's almost too much as it is. A good translation might just lay me out, like that one priest saint who kept going into ecstasies half the time he celebrated Mass!

All aesthetic questions aside, it really doesn't matter to me where I go to Mass as long as it's not openly heretical. I'm not there to listen to music (much though I love good music and singing) or to hear good preaching (though God knows that's helpful). I just want to _go to Mass_. If it's in Spanish or Vietnamese or Latin or Greek or Aramaic -- so what? My God is the Word, not the Vulgate. As long as I show up, I will find God there, Really Present. That's all I care about.

And if sometimes everybody at Mass is annoying, and the hymns are all lame, and God Himself seems to be hiding from me -- well, too bad for me. I'm a grownup Catholic and Christian, and I know that sometimes things are going to be less than fun. But I also know that if I show up every Sunday, I'll see things get better. Every dark night of the soul ends, even if it is only when we stand in the eternal light of God in Heaven. (So don't get discouraged, Rod and Carrie.)

Sorry for rambling on like this. I just wish I could translate my faith more into action. If anybody's a "bad Catholic" on this thread, it's m

[gerald kerr]

Fellow Catholics,

I was born in 1944 and raised in the
Faith. Clericalism as it affects both professed Religious and the laity was a huge problem in the 50's and 60's and probably for decades or even century's before. This sin when acted out by the Laity allows for their abandonment of living in the Kingdom because of a supposed primary responsibility to get and spend and live in the World. This sin when acted out by the Clergy allows the Religious to think that He/She is the Heart and Soul of the Church and the Laity are somehow the lesser parts, mere appendages ordered to the use and support of the heart and soul. The modernist coopting of Vatican Two and the recent scandals prove once and for all that the sin of Clericalism transcends Old Church, New Church, Tridentine liturgy or Vernacular liturgy. The sin of clericalism allows the laity to skate and do what the hell they damn well please and allows the Religious to plunder the organization and good name of those whose sacrifices have built the church over the centuries. The sin of clericalism has eaten out any real defense against the sterile rationalism spawning modern falling away of faith and pious practice that has been building for several hundred years and reached critical mass in Europe shortly after world war I and in the USA shortly after WW2. Please lets not argue about the liturgy as somehow having a primary role in the apostasy of the modern era. Clericalisma and Clericalism as practiced by Laity and Clergy alike are the leading accelerants of the present great falling away.

gkerr fort scott, ks.

[Woody Jones]

Joe said: "because it is the same Holy Spirit that is alive in both".

Excuse me for not having been back to the books first, but how do you know that(as opposed to having an a priori opinion)?

A parable from the political world: Vichy was the duly constituted successor to the Third Republic, all constitutional norms having been scrupulously followed in its having been instituted. But de Gaulle and his ilk who eventually prevailed evidently thought the spirit was not the same.

And the statues of the gods remained in the Forum long after Rome abandoned paganism.

Woody

[James Kabala]

Woody: We know it because Christ gave us the assurance that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. He never gave us that assurance about the Third Republic.

[James Kabala]

I was born in 1980 have never known anything other than the so-called "Novus Ordo." I don't understand the contempt some people have for it. I understand that Mass in the vernacular was a shocking break with tradition. I understand why people might not like innovations like the sign of peace. I think that the introduction of multiple eucharistic prayers was probably a bad idea. I am glad that we now have the Indult Mass for those who prefer the old ways. But I really don't understand the fury that the Novus Ordo arouses. It seems as if some people have contempt for their own mother tongue. I think that Latin is a beautiful language, but English is also a beautiful language. Latin isn't magic. I don't want to seem like a snotty youngster, but I can't even begin to comprehend the mentality behind a statement like "How does someone who believes in the Real Presence consider the Novus Ordo a fitting manner in which to worship God?"

[Joe]

Woody,

We know that the Holy Spirit has not abandoned the Church because Christ promised to be present to his Church, repeatedly in the Gospels. If you received "traditional catechesis" (to use a term from Suplicius) then you know that the Church is indefectible. Christ shall be with His Church until the close of the age, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He gave his apostles (and their successors, the bishops) a share in his prophetic, priestly, and kingly mission. Thus bishops teach, santify, and govern with the very authority of Christ. They form a college, and the successor of Peter stands at the head of that college. This is the clear testimony of Scripture and Tradition, and it is also classic Catholic doctrine.

Article IX on the Creed of the Catechism of the Council of Trent seems prophetic: " First, as St. Augustine observes, the Prophets spoke more plainly and openly of the Church than of Christ, foreseeing that on this a much greater number may err and be deceived than on the mystery of the Incarnation. For in after ages there would not be wanting wicked men who, like the ape that would fain pass for a man, would claim that they alone were Catholics, and with no less impiety than effrontery assert that with them alone is the Catholic Church."

" That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral."

[Sulpicius Severus]

it is the same Holy Spirit that is alive in both

Joe, of course this is where traditional Catholics part ways with Vatican II modernists. We say the spirits of Vatican II were something altogether different than the Holy Ghost.

As to the quote you extracted from the 21st Session of the Council of Trent, you'll note that in context the passage you cite bears specifically on the topic of Communion under one species being sufficient:

Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,--from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,--she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself. (emphasis added).

In context, this has nothing to do with mass in the vernacular, changing the words of consecration (i.e., changing Holy Scripture from "FOR MANY" to "FOR ALL"), non-priests administering Holy Communion, ignoring above-quoted passage and going ahead with administering both species, and all of the other travesties Bugnini and his 6 protestant buddies stirred into the Novus Ordo Missae recipe.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us. UIOGD,

[Joe]

Suplicius,

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that I quoted the passage out of context. This claim is not warranted. It is true that the passage that I quoted had to do with communion under both kinds. But I think you are ignoring the fact that the passage is set up in the form of an argument. In the passage, the Fathers of the Council are trying to explain why they can offer communion under only one kind. The Fathers argue that they may do this because it is within the Church's authority to change the rites (as long as what is required for validity remains) by which the sacraments are administered.

The Fathers are saying that they could restrict communion to only one kind, because the Church has the power to alter the liturgical rites. The general principle was what was relevant to this discussion. The specific application of this principle was not relevant to this discussion, nor does it change the context in which the general principle was given. Thus in quoting only the general principle, I did not quote out of context.

[James Kabala]

Sulplicius: I don't see what the problem is. The passage you quoted says that the law can be changed by the Church. If the Church has changed the law, as she has, then quoting a no-longer-operative passage against it is invalid. The passage does say that communion under one species was instituted for "weighty and just reasons", but is that really binding on all our consciences, or just the equivalent of what in secular law is called an obiter dictum?

[Joe]

Suplicius,

Moreover, on some of the changes that you cite at the end of your last post:

1) The Latin of the Roman Missal still says "pro multis". It seems [scroll down to 55d] that "for all" may be a legitimate translation. It certainly is orthodox. And it definitly does not invalidate the consecration (the essential words being "this is my body" and "this is my blood")

2) On communion under both kinds. The passage that I quoted from Session 21 of Trent said that it couldn't be changed without Church authority, but it was changed with Church authority.

3) Bugnini and the Concilium (which consisted of more than Bugnini's six Protestant buddies), being human, of course did not do perfect work. Their work is not above criticism. But it's one thing to constructively give voice to frustrations, and quite another to flirt dangerously with heterodoxy by being ambiguous about the clear relationship between Christ and His Church.