Posted on 05/04/2008 4:16:11 PM PDT by NYer
The liberal rebellion in American Catholicism has dogged Benedict and his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "Vatican II," which overhauled much of Catholic teaching and ritual, had a revolutionary impact on the Church as a whole. It enabled people to hear the Mass in their own languages; embraced the principle of religious freedom; rejected anti-semitism; and permitted Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity.
But Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged." They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.
Rome pushed back, and the ensuing struggle defined a movement, whose icons included peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan, feminist Sister Joan Chittister, and sociologist/author Fr. Andrew Greeley. Its perspectives were covered in The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America. Martin Sheen held down Hollywood, and the movement even boasted its own cheesy singing act: the St. Louis Jesuits. The reformers' premier membership organization was Call to Action, but their influence was felt at the highest reaches of the American Church, as sympathetic American bishops passed left-leaning statements on nuclear weapons and economic justice. Remarks Tilley, "For a couple of generations, progressivism was an [important] way to be Catholic."...and long live the "Great Et Et."
Then he adds, "But I think the end of an era is here."...
Then, the movement received a monstrous reprieve. The priest sex abuse scandal implicated not only the predators, but the superiors who shielded them. John Paul remained mostly silent. A new reform group, Voice of the Faithful, arose; the old anger returned, crystallizing around the battle-cry "They just don't get it."
Benedict's visit, however, changed the dynamic. And that's a problem for progressives. Says Fr. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center whom Benedict famously removed from his previous job as editor of America, "Reform movements need an enemy to organize against. As most bishops have gotten their acts together on sex abuse, they have looked less like the enemy and more like part of the solution. Enthusiasm for reform declined. With the Pope's forthright response, it will decline even more."
Adios ping!
bump
I think the whole abusive-priest thing was a deliberate plot by homosexual activists to undermine the Catholic Church.
Well, with the liberal media, almost every other paragraph written/spoken/televised about the Pope’s visit mentioned abusive priests and speculated what the Pope should or would do. For the layperson, it seemed that every priest was under suspicion and those who were abused were being ignored. For the media, who thrive on making everyone a victim, it was a story ready made for them.
I’m a relatively new convert to Catholicism, and I have a question for you old timers. The MSM always talks about Vatican II allowing Mass in the vernacular, but I’m assuming that the reading and of course the homily were always in the vernacular, with Latin being limited to the preparation of the Eucharist.
Can someone shed light on this for me?
Liberal Catholicism: was it ever alive?
Hey! I LIKED their music!
Actually Latin was expected by the council fathers to remain the dominant language of the Mass. It was definitely expected to remain the language of the entire canon of the Mass. AFTER the council a committee took over the job of writing the rubrics for the New Mass. That committee and circumstances essentially ushered the whole Mass into the vernacular.
What a disaster.
Homily always in the vernacular.
People had side-by-side (Latin/English) translations of the Mass.
The whole mass was in Latin except for the sermon. It was an option to repeat the gospel and/or epistle in the vernacular.
First Sunday's we sing all of the songs and prayers in Latin.
I know many older Catholics feel something was lost, but I don’t think I get it. What is to be gained by conducting Mass in a dead language, especially as the Latin is a translation itself?
What is bad about the vernacular?
What is bad about the vernacular?
_________
America is a nation of immigrants, and when the Catholic Church came here, they came from a score of different European countries. The common language, even a dead one, provided some unity
“Liberal Catholicism: Dead? “
We can only hope.
Although it would be decades before it could ever happen, English is now the universal language (lingua franca) that latin used to be, and could be the easiest way to have uniformity within the universal Church.
But there are benefits to using the dead latin language, the most obvious being that as a dead langauge, it won’t evolve and “scholars” can’t pretend that black means white - as they so often do in English.
An immediate benefit in the USA would be if the novus ordo was celebrated everywhere as VII ensisioned it - in latin.
Then parishes would not need to have spanish and english masses. Everyone would join to worship in the neutral language of the Church. It would be a real unifying experience.
It would take much catechesis, but it would be quite do-able. If there’s a will, there’s a way.
Sure, but it wouldn't seem to serve their children very well. Even for immigrants, not knowing Latin as a living language would greatly diminish the readings would it not? And as we now have Masses in several languages, any immigrant community of size could have a Mass in their particular language.
I just don't understand why you would want to do the readings in a language that almost everyone is deficient in.
One of my favorite lessons with the children in Science class, is to teach them about Binomial Nomenclature, and Carolus Linnaeus.
The kids love to discuss how language has evolved, even in the last 50 years.
The theme song of The Flintstones sure takes on a new meaning using today interpretation of certain words.
You wrote:
“I know many older Catholics feel something was lost, but I don’t think I get it.”
I am not “older” by the way. At least I don’t think so! ;)
“What is to be gained by conducting Mass in a dead language, especially as the Latin is a translation itself?”
The Latin Mass is not a translation. The prayers were written in Latin. Ever wonder why the Kyrie is still in Greek in the old Latin Mass? It was never translated into Latin.
“What is bad about the vernacular?”
Inaccurate, bland, dull and even bad theologically at times. That’s why the last two popes have been so disgusted with the language of the New Mass in English. Think of it this way. The New Mass came out in 1970. We STILL do not have a Vatican approved translation of it. It’s been 38 years!
http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/pontificale.asp
To get to where it should be we actually have to go closer to the Latin: http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/012304/012304e.php
We were just better off with the old Mass. Millions of sould lost in the meantime! What a horrible waste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.