Posted on 07/08/2002 9:20:41 PM PDT by narses
This is an excellent point!! As catholicism spread around the world, the RC rite had to mature with the expansion. Take for example the Russian or Greek Orthodox rites. People of those cultures relate well to the rituals used in their masses. Outside of their respective "russian" or "greek" audiences, these rites have never been embraced by other cultures.
The Latin rite came out of Western Europe. I tend to believe that the original intent behind Vatican II was to breathe some fresh air into the mass by reflecting local cultures. It appears that some have taken this concept too far.
I grew up with the Tridentine rite and appreciate the richness of its liturgy but would not want to go back to all aspects of that mass. It is more of a spectator liturgy rather than the present format where I can participate through prayers spoken in my native tongue. Our parish offers 4 weekend masses ... each one holding appeal to different members of the congregation. The 9am mass draws families with young children. They like the contemporary music ministry; whereas I prefer the more traditional music offered up at the 11am mass.
Exactly. It's just like Luther or Calvin's false claim "to return to the charism and purity of the Early Church."
If you're taking an actual count, put me in the "Not me" column.
Liberals are awfully good at polling only one another. (I read years ago a column by a former war correspondent -- I don't recall the name -- who wrote that in covering one war, after a slow news day, the American reporters would gather in a local bar for a few beers, discuss the war, and in their next day's reports would quote each other as "unnamed sources.")
I once saw a Catholic conservative magazine condemn "polka masses" and later in the same article "masses where Indians wailed songs".
Well, when I went to a "polka mass", I found it merely had Polish folk song hymns sung instead of the usual US music: no polkas at all, merely polish songs.
And the "wailing" was merely hymns sung in the tradition of Lakota singing in the local language.
Similarly, in Africa, they used hymns sung in the tradition of African music, and in the joyful seasons, people danced with joy, usually at the end of Mass. This would be absurd in the English tradition, but there was no blasphemy.
So if "hula masses" means that American tourists watch semi naked white Hawaiians dance at mass, forget it. But if it means that in an area of native Hawaiians they sing traditional music, with dancing at the end of the ceremony, then it's really nothing to worry about.
Your post to me gives one the impression that you will not accept any change, even if it means to the detriment of the future Church. If the Church fails to become relevant and appealing to the masses ( and in case you haven't noticed that means the 18 - 50 age bracket) then there will be NO Catholic Church in America.
I find your reasoning foggy and difficult to comprehend. If you are a Catholic that means that you are obedient to the Church and its representatives. We are not a democratic organization to which you allude when you refer to the Baptist, et.al. We abide by the decisions of the Church councils, the Bishops and the priests. If you are unhappy with one parish priest you can go to another parish. Democracy is not an option in the Catholic Church.
See post #46 for a description of the "hawaiian" mass.
My statement of diminishing returns is just what it implies. The old Church was made up of mostly old people who were more worried about getting into heaven after age 50 than they were about religion as a gift from God. I cannot comprehend the belief by some that the Church should go back to the "old ways." If that happens that will mean the numerical end of Catholic Church membership within the United States within one generation.
I sadly do not have a copy of the new Catechism, so I am not able to see this statement myself. But I will go along with it because I am not surprised that this would be the new meaning that the liberals are trying to put in our Catholic minds. For the mass, or the past purpose pre VII, was the sacrafice to God his only Son so that we might be able to atain heaven. In my old missal, which I use in mass states:
The Mass is the real sacrifice, made by Jesus, as real and actual as the sacrifice of His Life unto death on Calvary. How? Why? Both on Calvary in His suffering Body, and on the alter in His Sacramental Body, Jesus is ever offering, ever offered as Priest and Victim before His Eternal Father. On Calvary Jesus suffered a physical death when His Blood was drained from His Body. In the Mass there are two separate consecrations; on for His Body, the other for His Blood. These words of consecration are like a sword, which of themselves would actually separate His Blood from His Body. However, in point of fact Jesus is entirely present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity under each appearance of bread and wine. This mystical death of Jesus on the altar can express His willingness to die again just much as His real death on Calvary. Moreover, on the altar, Jesus is present in the state of a victim, one immolated on Calvary and now offered again in the Mass. All this makes the Mass a real sacrifice. ... Because of man's original and actual sin, both his prayer and sacrifice are unable to satisfy God himself. Hence Jesus as Head of the human race offered the sacrifice of His own Life that the "world might know" of a Sacrifice acceptable to teh Father and one that fully atones for our sins. .. It restored the balance between God and man since sin is a double evil, a turning from God by refusing obedience to the Creator, a turning to a creature by preferring it to God Himself.
There is more in-between where I put the periods. When I first read this I was brought to new understanding to the mass. I was brought up with the new Vatican changes so it was astonishing to read this. I again wish I had a new Catechism so I can read that myself. Not saying you are wrong, just saying how sad it is that the meaning of our Holy Mass has changed. Our new generation (including Me.) of Vatican II is a misfortune to not knowing the full meaning of the Mass. Why go to Mass then if it is not a Sacrifice of Jesus to God, for there would be no meaning.
Dominus Vobiscum
That's ridiculous. I have repeatedly mentioned that I accept the council, vernacular, etc. Bad taste in lirturgical music HAS damaged the Church.
"I find yout reasoning foggy"
No one asked for your opinion. Who cares what you "find"? Since you have decided to personalize this, I really could care less about your FUZZY interpretations. FYI - there are some parishes which do NOT have traditional music, art, or architecture of any kind. There are some parishes where the folksy New Age crap is at the 12:00. I suggest you get around more and travel BEFORE casting these kinds of neo-modernist stones which expose a lack of familiarity which current Catholic practice in AmChurch. Please don't respond to any more of my posts, I plan to ignore any more ad hominem assaults such as your prior effort. The substantive CONTENT of my arguments can be found in all of the better Catholic publications which have covered the postconciliar destruction of our church over the last 30 years. If you are a literate adult, maybe you've read some.
"Music ministries" and "Liturgy Committees" have no canonical authority. That they destroy the solmenity and dignity of the Mass in many instances is clear from the overwhelming testimony of Catholics throughout the country who repeatedly complain about this. From the iconoclasm we have seen under Weakland and in numerous other places, it's clear that many bishops and priests lack common sense when it comes to church design and sacred art.
Why is it considered schismatic if a group wants to stay true to your ancient traditions?
Is sacrilege considered a part of faith or morals?
It's not. Or...it shouldn't be.(I'm sure some crank will want to announce I am going to Hell, etc.). It only became an issue of schism in the relevant disputation to the extent that the groups following Archbishop LeFevre apparently defied papal authority, etc. Vatican II, as a council, did not authorize the complete elimination either of Latin or the traditional Mass. The problems have been associated with liturgical attitudes and how extreme the disagreements between the two sides have gone. For instance, rejecting the entire council, sedevacantism, theological questions about the nature of the new vs. the old Mass. At ant rate, traditionalists can observe the "indult" Latin Masses within the existing structure of ecclesial authority (i.e., JP II, etc.). The continuing arguments tend to get bogged down on who bit whom first, etc. We await a new Thomas Aquinas who will be able to set this all in writing with the relevant theology, canon law, conciliar documents, liturgical histories, and disciplines explained with clarity. Anyone who reads through the text of the old Mass really ought to be able to see that there is nothing wrong with it and that it expresses Catholic worship in prayerful and dignified solemnity.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/303900.htm
http://lphrc.org/rmk/trid.html
Apparently, some people have the exaggerated understanding of the pope's or bishops' authority that if they told people to go jump in a lake, they would be bound by faith to be obedient to such an absurd demand. This is not actually the case. They are limited by the articles of faith, the revealed doctrines of the Church, and by tradition, in terms of what they can reasonably request of the Catholic faithful. They couldn't command everyone to accept Krishna, Buddha, or Mohammed all of the sudden as the equals of Christ. Likewise, they can't force people on faith to accept Rock music or abstract modern art or open homosexualism.
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.