You can blame the decline that Catholicism has experienced in the USA since Vatican II (1965) on secularism if you wish and certainly secularism, with Satan's temptations embedded within it, has had and still has its allurements to denigrate the value of being a member in good standing with the True Church that Jesus Christ founded. No doubt about that and it always has been and always will be.
But what has happened to the post Trent Church which Vatican II ushered in, not only with reiterating traditional teachings, but opening the Church up to the world, Protestantism, other religions and no religions? Has the Church given into a new kind of Universalism where all that is important are worldly things and creating love and peace, a la the 1960's version. Is it simply let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya and not worry about eternal truths, dogmas or orthodoxy.
My contention is that Vatican II's intuition about" un-circling the wagons" which protected the Church in a wonderful way from the "world, the flesh and the devil" has led to an open Church vulnerable to the "world, the flesh and the devil" in a way not seen since the Council of Trent until Vatican II.
The bishops of Vatican II, so-called Fathers, were wrong, dead wrong, on their non-dogmatic, but rather pastoral intuitions about how the Church needed to function in the world. Their modest proposals morphed quite quickly into surrender to the world, the flesh and the devil, just one or two years after Vatican II. What Pope Francis has brought about in terms of worldliness is now on steroids today.
These are Vatican II and post-Vatican II pastoral mistakes that can be revised, reformed and refuted. One is free to disregard pastoral inclinations of the Magisterium when there is proof that the pastoral intuitions and proposals have damaged the Catholicism of Catholics. However, no Catholic can disregard the entirety of Vatican II. Like Pope Benedict, though, we can criticize, call out and demand an end to it. There is no doubt that the discontinuity post Vatican II theology has not blessed the Church but rather cursed it and Catholics who have left the Church thinking there is no need to be an institutional Catholic. Being nothing is just as good or anything else for that matter!
The Discontinuity, spirit of Vatican II ideology that has absorbed popes and bishops has created a toothless Catholicism incapable of leading rank and file Catholics away from secularism and universalism.
Here is a great commentary, even if one disagrees with some assertions by Charles Collins of Crux:
Decline in U.S. Catholic Church doesn’t have a political solution
The Pew Research Center released a new survey on religion in America last week, the first such major study since 2014.
The news wasn’t good for the Catholic Church.
According to the Pew report, only 19 percent of Americans self-identify as Catholic. That’s down from 24 percent in 2007. That 19 percent includes anyone one who listed “Catholic” as their religion in the survey, meaning it counts not only people who go to Mass at least semi-regularly but also those who haven’t darkened the door of a church in years or even decades.
It has taken roughly three generations to reach this point – a good while in secular terms, but a rapid decline for an institution that thinks in centuries – but it is fair and even necessary to acknowledge how the Catholic Church has seen a massive decline in the United States since the Vatican Council II ended in 1965.
In 1965, there were an estimated 60,000 Catholic priests serving a Catholic population of 45.6 million Catholics. By 2022, the number of priests had dropped to around 35,000 serving a Catholic population of roughly 72 million.
The 1960s were an interesting time for the Catholic Church in the United States. Traditional anti-Catholicism was fading, vocations to the priesthood in the previous 25 years had been unusually high by comparison with previous decades, and there were several prominent high-profile converts in the English-speaking world.
Using 1965 as the baseline was always going to court disappointment. Society was changing. The Cold War was at its height and people feared nuclear war. The sexual revolution took place, affecting the Catholic Church and the rest of the world. Even so, there’s no really winning way to spin the numbers from the latest Pew report.
How to improve the situation for the Church is a question that has always divided the progressive and conservative wings of the U.S. Church, but it isn’t really a problem with a political solution.
The liberal National Catholic Reporter opens its article on the Pew document by noting “majorities of U.S. Catholics support progressive policies on ‘culture war’ issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, according to a new survey of the country’s religious landscape.”
“For example,” writes Heidi Schlumpf, “nearly three quarters of Catholics believe homosexuality should be supported by society, 70 percent support same-sex marriage and 59 percent want abortion legal in all or most cases.” Schlumpf also notes how nearly “four in 10 Catholics said greater acceptance of people who are transgender is a change for the better.”
“Acceptance of progressive policies has increased among Catholics, for the issues tracked over time,” Schlumpf says.
Writing in the conservative Crisis Magazine, Eric Sammons names several causes of the numbers fleeing the Church, including religious indifference, poor catechesis, the number of scandals, and “irreverent” Masses. Sammons also makes suggestions common among conservatives – including conservative Catholics – such as homeschooling curtailing interreligious activities, bringing back Friday abstinence from meat all year round (actually still observed in England), and increasing the availability of Latin Mass.
One ought not be surprised at either that rehearsal of sociological data or those retail cultural proposals, and there is something to be said both for acknowledging social realities and for supporting successful efforts that are necessarily small-scale and local, but I can’t shake the sense that the problem is upstream of all that.
I admit I haven’t lived in the United States in decades, but the first thought that pops into my head is: “Has anyone thought of asking why these people aren’t going to Mass, or even considering themselves Catholic anymore?”
Church leaders know people often don’t have any clear idea why they stop attending Mass. They also know the reasons people give are not always the ones that really drove them away from the practice of the faith, but there is nevertheless something to be said for asking the question in earnest and for listening – really listening – to the answers people give.
The survey noted only 44 percent of self-identified Catholics feel religion is “very” important to them, compared to 55 percent of Christians overall, and less than 30 percent attend Mass every week.
This means a lot of parishes – especially ones in larger cities – don’t have a good idea of who their members are.
When I was in Texas, I knew one woman who was a very active participant in her parish. She sang in the choir and taught in the confirmation classes. However, her work forced her to miss Mass for several weeks in a row, and when no one ever called her to find out why she wasn’t there, she thought they didn’t care, and didn’t go back when her work schedule returned to normal.
Another parish I attended had a large number of immigrants from Latin America within territorial confines, but since the “Hispanic parish” was two miles away, the immigrants weren’t really their concern. The nearby Evangelical church, however, was willing to take care of them.
The last time I visited Texas – in 2017 – I walked to the nearest parish, since it was only a 30-minute stroll. I was shocked when I got there, because it was literally impossible to get to the entrance on foot without going up a steep car-only lane. If I was elderly or – heaven forbid, in a wheelchair – I wouldn’t have been able to get to the church itself. On my walk to the church, I passed several Hispanic-filled apartment blocks not ten minutes away on foot.
When I inquired whether anyone ever knocked on the doors in the territory of their parish to ask, “Are there any Catholics living here?” I heard such a thing would be “too invasive.”
It’s just a thought.
Another notion with which I’ve been toying is the idea of recalibrating our frame of reference. I mean, if the majority of Catholics in the country don’t find religion to be “very” important, they probably don’t care very much if the local parish is “liberal” or “conservative” but probably would be glad to know the local Church notices them and wants to be attentive to their needs.
Although some would see the outcome of the latest Pew survey and conclude that most Church members are just “nominal Catholics,” in other words, it could be more helpful to think of them as Catholics “hanging on by a thread.”
Before considering how to pull them all the way back into Peter’s barque, it’s probably best not to sever the last fraying cords keeping them tethered to her.
Follow Charles Collins on X: @CharlesinRome
59 comments:
The Church was powerful and a force for good prior to Vatican Disaster II because She was counter cultural. Once the Church adopted to popular culture (guitars, vernacular, etc.) She began to decline. I believe that is why so many young Catholics are drawn to the TLM because that Mass is definitely counter cultural and the Novus Bogus is just a bore.
TJM, I do believe that those in the Vatican with an animus towards “rad trads” comes from those, like you, who make general or unuanced statements that alarm them, like Vatican Disaster II and Novus Bogus. It shows a certain schismatic tendency, found in Protestants of the Reformation Period as well. I think that is why those in the Vatican and elsewhere see this kind of rhetoric as Protestant or at least neo-Protestant and with good cause. You recall pre-Vatican II times. What bishop, priest, nun or staunch lay Catholic would not wince at the words you use today. It really is the spirit of Vatican II that has cooked you in this crockpot of bad-speak!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald asks; "Has the Church given into a new kind of Universalism where all that is important are worldly things and creating love and peace, a la the 1960's version."
The answer is a resounding, "No."
The Fathers of Vatican Two, in their wisdom and with the authority granted to them as successors to the Apostles, recognized that the attitude adopted by the Church after the Protestant Reformation, had deleterious effects.
They recognized that the world had changed dramatically. "2. Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church, now addresses itself without hesitation, not only to the sons of the Church and to all who invoke the name of Christ, but to the whole of humanity. For the council yearns to explain to everyone how it conceives of the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today." - Gaudium et Spes.
The post-Reformation circled wagons were not healthy and impeded the work of evangelization. An ethos of maintenance was replaced with rediscovered understanding of Mission. And it was Mission that was the heart and soul, the raison d'être, of the Church from the beginning.
When that mission became cloaked in damask and pageantry, when it was hidden beneath earthly titles such as "monsignor" and "prince of the Church" and "protonotary apostolic," it was going nowhere.
Hence, the Holy Spirit directed Saint Pope John XXIII to summon the Fathers of the Council to recognize the reality.
There is no "turning back the clock." Th
Father McDonald,
Think what you like about me but I do attend the Novus Bogus and I gave over 40 years of my life to music ministry as a gifted amateur. But I am a realist who cannot be gaslighted by the Vatican and the liturgical establishment. I had a ring side seat as a cantor starting in 1966 to the decline in attendance at Mass. Given the priest in his bathing suit saying "Mass" in Italy on a raft and a myriad of other abuses I really can't take the Vatican seriously anymore when it makes some liturgical pronouncement and neither should you. I know plenty of priests and staunch Catholics who would agree with me.
The post-Reformation circled wagons were not healthy and impeded the work of evangelization.
LOL - I guess you are writing off the growth of the Church in the Americas, Asia and Africa. The period following Trent was a period of considerable growth.
In contrast, Vatican II has resulted in a retrenchment in all of those places, and we are continuing to lose ground (you must be missing all of those stories on parish closures and consolidations in the US). But I understand your lack of grasp on realty as you are a Democrat, so you come by it naturally. Do you think, at all?
Father McDonald,
Will all due respect, isn't "Novus Bogus" shorthand for what Pope Benedict had to say about the Novus Ordo:
Ratzinger on the Liturgical Reformers Creating a ‘Fabrication, Banal Product’
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
I believe that is why he issued Summorum Pontificum. He was taking the long view, that younger generations would rediscover what was lost.
TJM - Yes, I think. That's one of the many differences 'tween me and thee.
One of my classmates was sent to his hometown, Berlin, New Hampshire, as pastor to consolidate four parishes into one. "Oh!" you cry. "Vatican Two has destroyed the Church. Look at all those consolidations!"
Because I think, I looked into the population data for Berlin. Here 'tis:
1960: 17,821 people
1970: 15,256 people
1980: 13,084 people
1990: 11,889 people
2000: 10,343 people
2010: 10,027 people
2020: 9,726 people
For people, like me, who think, it is easy to see why you are wrong.
FRMJK, You unwittingly confirmed TJM’s premise. Catholics seduced by the world, the flesh and the devil and with the complicity of a toothless Catholicism and those in the Church who enable sexual immorality, Catholics don’t think they have to follow Humanae Vitae and contracept right and left as any non religious, non believing person would do, thanks to the Church’s openness to the world. Thanks for the chart and brining this to our attention.
The collapse has only one root cause. That one root cause is shown by the waffling or blank stare reply when any aspiring priest asks a bishop, or parishoner asks a priest, or pagan asks an evangelizer, "How can I experience this God so that I know without a shadow of doubt that this God is real?" The answers are contained within the Church, and yet even those who are pastors neither know nor practice them. And so, members and prospective members see that it is largely a sham, has no answer to those deepest yearnings, and either leave or never join. The institution focuses entirely on externals to the utter neglect of the interior, and largely now duplicates the failures which the Christ so strenuously opposed.
K,
LOL - that is all you have? Why not take a gander at the parish closings/consolidations in Chicago since Vatican Disaster II and it's not because there are not enough people there who were born and raised Catholic. Here is an example, that even a Democrat like you should be able to understand:
In the Pilsen neighborhood, there is a magnificent church, St. Adalbert's, designed by Henry Schlak. It closed because there were not enough parishioners to support it any longer. St. Adalbert's is located in the heart of a vibrant Hispanic community in Chicago and hence, has not closed because people of fled this neighborhood. They simply no longer care to go to the "new and improved, Springtime" Mass. That parish even pandered to them by having a "Mariachi" Mass for a while. You remind me of AOC, always wrong but never in doubt.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - TJM's premise was smashed. Berlin lost population because it's primary employers, the lumber and paper industries, shut down. The churches weren't consolidated because Vatican Two did "bad" things.
TJM - As for "They simply no longer care to go to the "new and improved, Springtime" Mass," that's not what the people who left the church say.
If you want to try thinking, here's the data: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3/
K, you really need to up your game. That study was prepared by leftwing Pew Research in 2009, revised in 2011, some 40 some years after the first damage was done. So it has little probative really and is really quite meaningless just like your Party's wailing and gnashing teeth at the State of the Union speech.
You still have not responded to how the Church did a magnificent job of Evangelization follow Trent and has done a lousy job since Vatican II which undercuts your silly talking point. You also gloss over the St. Adalbert example.
TJM - In the past you have recommended PEW research as reliable.
January 7, 2022. "TJM said...Father McDonald, This is from Pew Research from around 2019 and I doubt things have gotten any better:
"Indeed, about half (52%) of all U.S. adults who were raised Catholic have left the church at some point in their lives. A significant minority of them returned, but most (four-in-ten of all those raised Catholic) have not. Roughly two-thirds of those who have not returned (28% of all those raised Catholic) are now ex-Catholics."
Byz has also cited their data: December 6, 2017
How now is it that PEW has become this ogre of a "leftwing" organization, hmmm...?
While the following may not be statistically significant, I think it's worth consideration.
Two of my aunts, both faithful Catholics, married protestants in the later 1930s with the necessary diocesan approvals. Both husbands converted to Catholicism in the 1950s, when the Latin Mass was all that was available (and when fasting prior to receiving the Eucharist started at midnight).
Both of them were named "Bill", so who knows how that figures in, but one of them had his first communion the same day I did in 1955. We have pictures of the two of us in our white suits.
I'm on my way to Presanctified Liturgy shortly - our tradition during the Great Fast.
The Church has become cultural, not countercultural. The NO hasn't helped. Reform gave those the excuse they were looking for that relevance went out the open window intended to let in fresh air.
It puzzles me yet at the same time it's so clear why many abandoned their faith. They embraced culture and eschewed an institution that while perfect in one way, seemed completely incapable of policing itself regarding the scandals that many cannot get past. More than 50% of burials I would say, while occurring in a Catholic cemetery bypass mass. 3/4 of couples cohabitate prior to marriage. How do you compete with cultural change and legislative change that many Catholics themselves embraced if not voted for? It's an impossible situation that no amount of talking, talking and talking some more (with some listening) will have a fighting chance of fixing.
Will it affect my remaining years? Probably not as much as it will affect those 50 years from now being a number at a regional mass center with fleeting formation and an overly and unfairly stressed priest. Not a good situation.
Had VII not have occurred when it did, perhaps things would be different. The scandals, however, had too much of a runway going back to what many view as the golden era to not have exploded the way they did.
Pew is leftwing, but since you are a leftwinger I assume you would love that reference. You still have not:
1) Addressed the point that the Pew Study was measuring change over 40 years after the fallout began is pretty much worthless. If they had done that in 1970 it might be more probative
2) You still can't challenge my point that Trent was more successful than V II when it comes to evangelization,
3) Because you refuse to see what DOGE has uncovered you would NEVER know anything of the evil that it did, giving money to folks with links to terrorism, but since vote for abortion as healthcare, I am not surprised.
ByzRus, you noted what I always felt. Vatican II happened at the worst possible time in history! If it occurred in the 1950s or 1980s it might have turned out quite differently.
K, before you shoot off your mouth about “helping your neighbor” (of course YOU are free to send your $ overseas) through USAID you may want to consider this:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2025/03/07/usaid-criminal-referrals-n2653400
Remind us how much money from the Clinton Crime Foundation made its way to the Haitians!
K, I know you are incapable of learning, but the other readers here need to know what you are defending by Big Mama Government (actually the Dems):
12 billion dollars was allocated to the Navy for submarines and not one submarine was built.
42.5 billion dollars was allocated to hook people up to high-speed Internet, and not one single person was hooked up to high-speed Internet.
7.5 billion dollars was allocated to build EV charging stations. Only 37 stations were built. Thats 200 million per charging station.
Have you no decency, have you no shame?
K, this will give you the sadz, a real journalist reporting on the Biden Crime Family and suggesting there never was any "there, there" other than selling access. No hotels, no resorts, no employing thousands!!!
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/07/if-the-biden-family-business-was-built-on-anything-but-access-it-would-be-thriving/
TJM - I got it. When YOU cite PEW research, as I pointed out above you did, it is reliable and fair.
BUT when I cite PEW research it is leftwing and non-probative. Next you'll be telling us it is owned by China.
Gotcha.
As for DOGE, their many, many errors and outright lies have been reported. Of course, that means nothing to you since your only source of what is true is YOU.
Totally. It's easy to cite population shift/plant closures as the reason for Catholic. But, that's only part of the big-picture problem particularly in a pluralistic society such as ours. Yes, without question, cultural norms shifted and many Catholics went along with that shift embracing it while shunning their faith. VII taught people change was good and should be embraced. The Church created its own problem. So what's left? Well, some felt that renovation to St. Raphael was appropriate relative to the current Catholic style, culture and norms. Such a stark, asymmetrical, iconoclastic space teaches and perhaps not in a Catholic and productive way. There are those who say "we're not going back". No s___ Sherlock. We're 50+ years on. No one is going back to anything from that era. Can we recapture, reenchant, absolutely. What the late Pope Benedict XVI modeled was emblematic of this. Yes he modeled ermine and red shoes - I don't care how he choose to dress. What I did care about was what he modeled regarding divine worship. That period was a blip of enthusiasm for the Church, the gospel and the arts that was just wonderful after so many years of burlap and low altar tables. Now that mentality is back and its depressing somehow. It's just endless criticism - not so much joy, hope and beauty - a foretaste of the eternity we should be working to attain.
The differences between then and now, before and after are are so completely obvious; yet our clergy, both high and low, offer paltry excuses. Eyes that refuse to see, ears that refuse to hear!
K,
LOL. You still have not addressed the following:
1) What is the probative value of Pew's "research" nearly 45 years after the fall-out began?
2) Why was Trent successful at evangelization (with that nasty, old Latin Mass) when V II has been a flop (with the "new and improved" vernacular Mass and cannot successfully evangelize let alone keep the current membership).
3) There are numerous sources on DOGE full of lots of bad information for you and the Party of Intrinsic Evil. Even top Dems say the Party is in free fall, but just like the Japanese soldiers coming out of the forests 30 years after WW II you remain a true believer, but in what? Killing the unborn? Mutilating children? Supporting Boys in Girl's bathrooms and competing with them in sports? Allowing hordes of illegal aliens into the US placing financial burdens on local communities and injecting crime?
You are truly the Mark Thomas of the clergy
There are folks who have denounced Vatican II, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. Among said folks are those who have attempted to justify their anti-Catholic stance in question via the following:
Said folks have pretended that Pope Benedict XVI had pronounced against the Council, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
The reality is that Joseph Ratzinger, prior to, during, and following his reign as Pope, had not wavered in regard to his powerful support of the Council, as well as Mass.
Here are a few examples of that:
-- Sacramentum Caritatis, February 22, 2007 A.D:
"From the varied forms of the early centuries...to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church's history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety."
=======
"...the Synod Fathers (2005 A.D.) acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church's life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council."
"The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored."
=======
-- Pope Benedict XVI, 2005 A.D. Christmas address to the Roman Curia:
"Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968."
"Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing."
=======
-- Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the World on Summorum Pontificum, 2007 A.D:
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books."
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
=======
-- 2022 A.D:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Second Vatican Council was "not only meaningful, but necessary," retired Pope Benedict XVI said in a letter to a conference about his theological work at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
— Pope Saint John Paul II: "The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council has been a gift of the Spirit to his Church."
Mark Thomas,
LOL. You celebrate failure. Attendance at Mass has collapsed since the "reforms." Did you know that in "Catholic" Belgium only 1% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass?
Here is what Pope Benedict had to say about the Novus Ordo:
Ratzinger on the Liturgical Reformers Creating a ‘Fabrication, Banal Product
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
Refute that. No cut and paste, please!
Hey Mark Thomas,
In the US things are getting worse. I will call it the "Francis Effect."
Perhaps the most stunning finding in the survey is that for every 100 people who join the Catholic Church, 840 leave. So when you rejoice seeing folks become Catholic at Easter (which you should), remember that more than 8 people have left by the back door for each one who’s come in the front.
No other religion has nearly as bad of a join/leave ratio. For every 100 people that become Protestant, 180 leave. That’s bad, but it’s not Catholic bad. Conversely, for every 100 people who leave the religious “nones” (i.e., they join a religion), a full 590 become part of that irreligious cohort.
Hey, K. SuperTrump does it again. Columbia University caved!!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/us/columbia-ready-work-trump-bolster-disciplinary-process-only-paper
TYJM - Whatever your source for that Catholic joining/leaving data is corrupt, leftwing, unreliable, and owned by the Chinese. (Georga Soros paid me to say that.) PEW.....PEW, PEW, PEW.....PEW...PEW.
K, LOL. You are a sad little man. Much like intellectual heavyweight, Mark Thomas, you avoid answering serious questions through puerile, dilatory tactics which fool no one other than you. Please answer the following:
1) What is the probative value of Pew's "research" nearly 45 years after the fall-out began?
2) Why was Trent successful at evangelization (with that nasty, old Latin Mass) when V II has been a flop (with the "new and improved" vernacular Mass and cannot successfully evangelize let alone keep the current membership).
FYI, you will be having a miserable 4 years, while SuperTrump slays your evil Party and its auxiliary, the MSM!!!
It is undeniable that as Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger's official teachings promoted the "value and holiness" of the Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
In regard to said Mass: Joseph Ratzinger's official teachings as the Vicar of Christ trumped, for example, opinions that he had offered supposedly prior to his Pontificate. A Cardinal's opinion offered, for example, via his preface to a book, does not trump a Pope's official teaching.
As I had noted earlier in this thread, Pope Benedict XVI had declared the following:
-- "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
-- "Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books."
-- "The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
=======
The sooner that "rad trads" accept the above, the sooner that their Satanic liturgical warmongering will end. As Pope Benedict XVI made clear, the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is the Latin Church's primary Mass.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Tjm, you can't claim in one post on this blog that Pew research is worthless and left wing, and then turn around and cite it as a reliable resource. You are such a sad little man, a terrible intellectual lightweight. Don't make me call you pureile.
Joseph Ratzinger, prior to, during, as well as following his reign as Pope Benedict XVI, had offered the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI repeatedly.
However, "rad trads" wish us to believe the following: Pope Benedict XVI had viewed the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as church-emptying spiritual poison.
In regard to the above: If "rad trads" are correct, then Father Joseph Ratzinger was an appalling priest. He had, for decades, fed spiritual poison supposedly to his spiritual children.
In addition, "rad trads" have insisted that Vatican II is spiritual poison. However, Joseph Ratzinger from 1962 A.D., to his having fallen asleep in the Lord, had, to the hilt, praised and promoted Vatican II.
If "rad trads" are correct in regard to their assessments in question of the Council, as well as reformed Mass...
...then we need not wonder as to why more than a few folks from the TLM Movement have long insisted that Joseph Ratzinger served as a destructive force to the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre, for example, had labeled Joseph Ratzinger, as well as Churchmen who promoted the Council/reformed Mass, "apostates."
What else is there to conclude about Churchmen who, as "rad trads" have long insisted, had/have fed spiritual poison to the laity?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Lol - you still have not refuted Pope Benedict’s statement revealing his true opinion of the Novus Ordo. Instead you just cut and paste some blather which is not indicative of his opinion. Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum if he thought the Novus Ordo was doing the job, which it isn’t. Do you think, at all?
K, looks like you flunked Latin. It is puerile, puer, for boy! I know you cannot find any evidence to support your ludicrous assertions so dilatory tactics is all you have! SuperTrump is still President and abortion is not healthcare. Have a nice day!
K, this sounds like something you would do, chase a 3 year old boy to "protest!"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jd-vance-confronted-pro-ukrainian-protesters-walking-toddler-daughter
I never heard of this person before. To me, this is on point. From Facebook, not sure if an account is needed to view.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15ABgqctVx/
Tjm, you can't claim in one post on this blog that Pew research is worthless and left wing, and then turn around and cite it as a reliable resource. You are such a sad little man, a terrible intellectual lightweight.
Byz - Regarding the priest "taking his personality out of the question," this is nonsensical. Did Jesus? How could He since He is "truly God and truly man?" Humans have personalities. Did any of the Apostles? From what we read of them, no.
As for being an entertainer, this, too, is nonsense. If a priest think he is an entertainer that means he has been poorly formed, not that the liturgy is wanting. I've never thought of myself as an entertainer, nor have any of the priests I know.
Father “Mark Thomas” you have run out of intellectual ammo. SuperTrump has broken you!
Forgive me, I can't read all that back and forth above so I apologize if this is already mentioned. I think a problem is our complete lack of evangelization. There is zero effort from any church I know of in this regard. We had those beautiful Catholics Come Home ads a few years ago but nothing in so long. Bishop Barron is trying to start something now but so much more can be done. Teach us, train us, show us how. The Protestants have their canned opening questions in evangelizing. What is ours? I don't know where to begin when talking to those with no church knowledge, Atheists, the various Protestants, Muslims. What do we say, what do we not say. I read somewhere don't take them to Mass because they can't receive communion and feel alienated, instead bring them to a group meeting at the church of some sort, makes sense.
Personally, I believe the best evangelization does begin with prayer and worship. If someone is interested in the Catholic Faith, invite them to Mass but explain that receiving Holy Communion means they believe what Catholics believe about Christ, the Holy Eucharist and well as being in full-communion with the pope, bishops and all Catholics. That’s why they can’t receive. Then try to explain once they have experienced Mass. Bring them to rosaries, benedictions and pray with them in a devotional way. When they are ready invite them to attend the RCIA. Our Catholic school system, especially in the south where many non-Catholics attend as well, are a good evangelization tool. They need to get to know Catholics who are inspired and on fire for their faith as well.
Agree with Fr. AJM.
The individual should speak with a priest if they are considering embarking on discernment. All that Father said would, of course, follow.
But, what gets such individuals there - those who truly are window shopping for lack of formation of any sort? I say window shopping for those where we couldn't expect more? I would posit that, principally, it should be the love of Christ, the Eucharist , his Church and living the gospels, among other things. However, what came to mind reading qwikness' thoughts are the many FB pages devoted to the Beauty of Catholicism, Bad Liturgies, Bad Vestments and the like. The externals do play a part I would think both to attract, teach, uplift and enhance the discernment process. Then, such pages often provide images of older churches with their soaring high altars that would reasonably cause the average visitor to look up in wonder and awe leaving inspired, refreshed, excited even after a brief encounter with the divine.
Occasionally, we Easterners do get a nod....I'm ok with occasionally - it's better than nothing. One page regularly features the Slavic Orthodox church buildings wondering how they so often get it so right.
What inspires you???
These?https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipPj0nxxYK67RmmNSOLLmI67SSkemUBEJNpG9rR3=s680-w680-h510
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1319628567.8506/flat,750x1000,075,t.u2.jpg
I know 2 of the 3 in this photo.
https://www.holysaviour.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/LatinMass500.jpg
How about this? Stunning in its simplicity: https://sdcason.com/content/images/size/w1200/2021/10/42103705204_b3c4c59609_o.jpeg
OR
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEierjKCcT8Plv8qWUjs1kuGIVjA6V0yJV1VXZ5jaRim1y-tIIZx959a5bKmIZTM_EUBW9xkRyVh7g20Vva7cr7vMxwhM3OY1HreEz0YLhocPvoKxev4mN-wC1jvHorZNQeTrEFwTA/s1600/03+-+Altar+Iglesia+de+Iesu.jpg
https://wp-media.beliefnet.com/sites/199/import/uglyfrenchchurch.jpg
https://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/holyfamily.jpg
So many great comments here. I was at my Novus Ordo parish on Sunday and the 35-year-old pastor has done the following to a formerly very drab and uninspiring Novus Ordo Mass:
1) Antependium disguising a very ugly altar. 6 tall, elegant candlesticks so one knows immediately that you are in a Catholic Church.
2) Propers chanted in Latin
3) Kyrie in Greek, Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin using the Tonus Simplex (Congregation sang this very well)
4) Roman Canon (bells utilized) and proper rubrics by the celebrant.
5) No Offertory Procession nor "Eucharistic Ministers."
6). Celebrant wore beautiful vestments including the maniple.
Although not the TLM, it was dignified and prayerful. It would be a fairly easy to segue to the TLM in the future (pastor can celebrate it).
This is the future, not "Father Sloppy" who makes it up as he goes along, employing uninspiring, banal, 60s and 70s "music ."
Deo Gratias
But opening dialog with someone must start at some point before bringing them to Mass. Approaching people. Asking the question that starts the dialog. What would a Catholic question be that starts the conversation? The protestants say, "If you died right now can you be assured of your salvation?" or "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" We got nothing. We can't just say, "Have you seen how pretty our churches are?" Or "Do you want to see the Priest turn bread into Jesus." There's got to be an opening.
When we get rid of simpleton spirit of Vatican II clergy, the Church will recover
quikness,
I will discuss the Byzantine Catholic Church, Ruthenian, with anyone who will listen. I'm not awkward about it, many ask me questions given my involvement as a cantor (and other roles I've occupied). I suppose I'm an anomaly compared to the mainstream - I'm okay with that. What mostly hasn't resulted is desire. I'm simply addressing curiosity. Desire has to come from within and in all likelihood, it will not originate from simple suggestion. But, you never know; so, onward and upward.
The challenge for Catholics and Orthodox (though they've enjoyed remarkable success here in the U.S.) is the work that's involved. Protestant evangelization is easier - say come, sometimes they do and all that is required is their presence, belief and their financial support. With us, there's work: discernment, RCIA, classwork, study leading towards initiation itself. Then, the work continues with participation - sacramental/physical, prayer, adherence to precepts, completion of obligations etc. I've seen several come to my Church all excited, buy their Byzantine starter kit - crosses, jewelry, books and icons only to burn out when the reality of the expectations for the Great Fast (Lent), abstinence on most Friday's of the year, rule of prayer sets in. This will be lengthy for me, so I'll wrap this up with the following:
The following is from AI.
Catholic evangelization, as part of the "New Evangelization," involves Catholics sharing their faith and inviting others to grow closer to Christ, including attending Mass, through personal witness and outreach, rather than proselytizing.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The "New Evangelization":
This term refers to a renewed focus on sharing the Gospel message and inviting people to encounter Christ, emphasizing personal witness and attraction rather than coercion.
Attending Mass:
Sunday Mass is a core practice in Catholicism, and Catholics are encouraged to attend to worship God and receive the Eucharist, which is seen as a central act of faith.
Evangelization as a Way of Life:
Evangelization is not just about attending Mass; it's about living out one's faith in daily life, sharing one's story, and extending invitations to others to experience the joy of the Gospel.
Methods of Evangelization:
*Personal Witness: Sharing one's faith journey and how it has transformed their life.
*Hospitality and Welcoming: Creating a welcoming environment for others, both in the parish and in everyday life.
*Prayer: Praying for people, especially those who haven't heard the Gospel message.
*Extending Invitations: Inviting friends, family, and acquaintances to Mass and other church activities.
*Bearing Witness: Living a life that reflects the love and teachings of Christ.
The Church's Role:
The Church, in union with the bishops, is called to evangelize and bring others to Christ.
Focus on Attraction:
Pope Francis has emphasized that the Church grows not through proselytizing, but through the "attraction" of God's love.
qwik - For the first time in quite a while, last week I was asked by a man next to me in line at the grocery store, "How do I get to heaven?" I said, "In the words of the prophet Micah, you must 'act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.'" He seemed a little surprised. He asked, "What about accepting the Lord Jesus as your savior?" I said, "If you do what Micah says, you are showing that your have accepted Jesus. That's what it means to believe in Him." "I see," was his response...
We don't want to proselytize but evangelize. Someone should become a Catholic because they, by their own freewill, have determined or felt that God is calling them to be a Catholic. No one should ever feel pressure to become Catholic or forced by well meaning evangelizers. We invited but don't impose.
The notion that "the priest's personality must disappear" is ultimately anti-incarnational. Jesus became FULLY human while also being FULLY God. To be fully human is to have a personality. Priests are called to be the "alter Christus," the true icon of Christ. Our personalities come with us to the altar for ordination in the same way our hair color, skeletal structure, pre-existing illnesses (if any) come with us.
No priest can be an alter-Christus without a personality.
In your case, you should definitely hide your personality!
"No priest can be an alter-Christus without a personality."
Of course.
If referencing the video provided earlier in this thread, I don't believe that to be the suggestion there either.
Byz - In the video your posted earlier, the speaker says, "To take his personality out of the equation."
I think one could reasonably conclude that to take that comment literally would result in an automaton.
As well, I think a reasonable person would conclude that the suggestion that is being made is when facing an audience, there is the temptation to engage with that audience despite the audience's needs not being the principal focus at that moment.
Fr. you're a smart guy - I think you get this.
ByzRus,
He’s an ideologue, impervious to reasoning
Byz - I do not have an "audience" when I celebrate mass. I stand in front of a congregation, and I DO most certainly engage with them through fulfilling my role in the as the priest-celebrant of the liturgy. That's what a priest is supposed to do.
I do not engage with them as a stand-up comic or a dramatic actor reciting a soliloquy or a teacher in a lecture hall. Through words and actions, the congregation and I engage with each other in offering the sacrifice of the mass. That's what is supposed to be happening.
The liturgy is not something the priest does "up there" at the altar, behind an altar rail or an iconostasis with a gathering of onlookers who may or may not be engaged with him.
“The liturgy is not something the priest does "up there" at the altar, behind an altar rail or an iconostasis with a gathering of onlookers who may or may not be engaged with him.”
Wrong! It is that but also the other things you include. Not either/or but both and which is the case in most of Catholicism.
Fr. MJK,
I'll defer to Fr. AJM's response in lieu of rambling on and not as well.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - Thank you for agreeing with me.
K, Father McDonald didn't, but a person who votes for abortion as healthcare lacks basic reasoning skills
Post a Comment