www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall State of Catholic Church

I am really worried about the state of the Catholic Church. After reading articles like this: Drama At Fatima [cfnews.org] and with the new Politically correct inclusive language Liturgy I am finally beginning to think my home is not with the Catholic Church. Perhaps this is just one more push toward Orthodoxy.

Am I over reacting or are others concerned like me?

I'd say you're overreacting. Kinda late to be getting uppity about something that happened a year ago. Now if the Fatima authorities did allow the Hindu's to use their premises thats most unfortunate but to be honest its not completely unexpected. I have learnt to look at the Church as the vessel of orthodoxy if not orthopraxy.

I dont expect everyone in the Church to be a good Catholic because in spite of all I know about Catholicism I am a terrible Catholic. What happened was wrong, terribly wrong, but I'm not going to leave the Church over the sins of my brethren woe betide me if the scandal of my sins was revealed. God said the Kingdom of Heaven would be a field with darnel in it as well as good seed, so I'm just getting on with it.

Moreover, I dont know what generation you're part of but mine seems ok. I have far more optimism about the teenagers of today's Church than its adults. To me the teens are more open to the love of God because the world around them seems so empty of love. They seek love through adjulation, applause, accessories etc but they can see the transiency of this and so when confronted with Jesus' ever presence it prompts a quick change of heart. I find the unchurched youth's of my generation are far more open to Christ than the adults (even in the Church) of the generations that came before.

John Paul II spoke about the Church having a 'lost generation' and I agree. But like him I believe in the youth to make a better future cos I'm one of those youth's and I have every intention of shaping that future.

Today\'s homily from EWTN [play.rbn.com]

Thanks Myles I appreciate your post!

And you always have options for other Catholic Churches sui iuris should your discernment lead you to that point.

I think one's viewpoint could be a result of where one is located. Some bishops are not good shepherds, but some are. In some areas, liturgies are respectful, holy, and reverent. In some places they are anything but. I would also agree that the post-Vatican II Church does seem to have confused ecumenism with syncretism - and this seems to go all the way to the top of the Church, at times. In the long run, we know things always turn out according to God's holy plan, so there is no reason for despair. As Diak pointed out, there are other Churches besides the Latin Church. The Latin Church has gone through a period of behaving like Venerable Bede accused the English, of following everything novel and holding fast to nothing. But I maintain, and have said repeatedly, Pope Benedict is God's gift to the Church. I think he will put his stamp on the Church and it will cause improvement and authentic restoration.

Ray,

Are you going to Otpust? I am not able to go this year. Perhaps you can go and participate in the Liturgy. Then report back your response to it.

Dan L

No, I can't go this year. I am really broke right now and have less than 18 hours vacation left.

Perhaps next year, God willing!

Have you read this clarification, Ray?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/CLARFATM.HTM

Sometimes I think some traditionalist is just overreacting...
From the Bishop clarification, the Hindus never borrow the altar and conduct any religious ceremony there.
If that is the case, why they persist on saying things that never actualy held?

I think you are overreacting a bit, Ray.
I don't mean to make you more depressed, but I frankly don't think the state of the Church was in the end was really better at any other time in history:

Maybe it was better in the era of the Church Fathers? No. They fed Christians to the lions.

Maybe it was better in the time of St. John Chrysostom? No, just read his homilies on some of the outrages and disrespectful things that would happen in church.

Maybe it was better in the time of the 1st Nicean council? No, Arianism was rampant.

Maybe it was better in the time of King St. Louis IX? (I actually know people who believe this) No. In Languedoc, the local church was indifferent at best, complicit at worst, to an anti-Christian version of Manicheanism, and and preserving orthodoxy was an ENORMOUS effort. At the same time, Latin-Byzantine ethnonationalist/religious hatred was so intense that at one point almost every Latin in Constantinople was slaughtered, to be followed by the ransacking and rape of the city AND ITS HOLY SITES by ostensible Crusaders.

Maybe it was better in the Renaissance under Pope Alexander VI?

Maybe it was better under Pope Pius V and the Council of Trent? (I actually know people who believe this) No, northern Europe had fallen to Protestantism and once power politics, nationalism and raw pride enter in we had just entered a period of intense and bloody Catholic vs. Protestant confrontation. Not to mention the problems of Turkish occupation, or of Jansenism.

Maybe it was better under the 1st Vatican council? When Rome was captive to a masonic government, and all kinds of national considerations threatened the unity of the Roman-rite Church?

Maybe it was better in the 1950s (I actually know people who believe this)? At a time when there was a near universal consensus that something needed to change in the Church? When American Catholics lived in what some good Catholic scholars would call a Catholic Ghetto, where anything Catholic was considered unamerican, and where you had 15 minute low masses?


Of course, none of these phenomenon are universal, and there's plenty of good things in each of the historical eras I mentioned. But you've got to remember, there's no time in history when the Church has had it easy, and there never will be until Christ comes again. Whatever problems we face have been faced before. We need to be faithful, live our lives and fight the necessary fights that we can.

Alfonsus,

They have pictures of the going on's at Fatima. Have you seen the new Church they are building?

Marc,

Good point!

I saw the pictures, some girls brought something to the statue of Our Lady, and the Hindu priest using altar microphone. That is all I see.
Probably it will be better if they give him another microphone instad using that one which happened on the altar.

But saying that this is a Hindu ritual is a little too much isn't it?

I saw another picture of Hindus sitting in the pews, but for what purpose I don't know.

As for the new church, I only saw pictures of the plan though.

GOD IS IN CONTROL!

GOD IS ON HIS THRONE!

AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST HIS CHURCH!

Pani,

The question is, is this His church? Perhaps the reason why Inclusive Language and weird Hindu rituals have not creeped into the Orthodox Church is because it is "His Church."

Ray- You should be cautious abouy anything from Catholic Family News ; they are pretty whacked out and have printed sedevacantist, and anti-Semitic things in the past. Of course their interpretation of things is going to be critical of the Church.
And which is really more scandalous, allowing Hindus into the shrine for what by all accounts was nothing evil, or entering into schism, as the SSPX has done?
-Daniel

The Church Christ established was for all humanity and, therefore, she must be open to all regardless of race, creed, or orientation.

That Church should look outward and not inward: in the process she enculturates and acculturates all peoples and places wherever she reaches while guarding the deposit of faith Christ originally made in the Apostles, singling out their Chief, Peter.

When Christ commanded the first members of His Church to go to the far reaches of the world and to baptize all nations, they did just that and the current members are still at it, with more fervor than ever!

Guess who fits the bill?

Amado

"When American Catholics lived in what some good Catholic scholars would call a Catholic Ghetto, where anything Catholic was considered unamerican, and where you had 15 minute low masses?"

15 minute low masses? Where was that? We need to bring them back.

Well, Amado, you could find the same example in those holy Orthodox Enlighteners in Alaska who spread the Faith and to the Orthodox missionaries of Africa etc etc. Of course, Orthodoxy did have first the Turkish yoke and the Communist yoke to deal.
The above seems a bit too triumphalistic to be swallowed whole.

Allowing any non-Christian group to worship their god/gods within the Church/Cathedral etc at Fatima is a blasphemy period.

The SSPX/Vatican & Eastern Catholic/Orthodox/Vatican disagreements are in the respective leaders hands, pray that they make better sense & choices then some I've seen lately.

james

Jakub, are you disputing the Rector's account, linked above, or just making a true, but not germane, remark?

djs,

If my memory is still functioning, I believe the Rector at the Shrine during the time of the incident has been removed.

james

RayS's link suggests otherwise, as does the official website [santuario-fatima.pt] . You really should also read the link of Alfonsus.

Emotivism will get us nowhere. Come now adults dont be children of your age but be sober and methodical in your thinking. How do we know where the Church of God subsists? Its quite simple: logic. If the Church in Portugal is allowing its facilities to be used by non-Christians then, as I've stated, thats very unfortunate. Nonetheless it doesnt change what the Church teaches.

The cancers a body develops does not change its DNA and so it is with the mystical body. As Our Holy Father said to us youngsters in Marianfeld last Saturday night: Yes, there are numerous open sores currently afflicting the Catholic Church yet as she has constantly affirmed her integrity is not based on the purity of her members. The Church gains her integrity solely from her Husband and His teaching. When the Magisterium can be proved to have erred, when I pick up an Encyclical letter riddled with heresy that is not instantly penalised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. When the Church bows to the dictatorship of relativism I will begin to question her truth. Until then though I am satisfied with the logical coherence of Catholicism as a system and body of teachings.

Let Bishops in some places make their seminaries into breeding grounds for sexual licence, let them carry out all manner of madness in the name of ecumenism, discipline good priests who say the mass facing east, ignore every injunction emanating from Rome and so on and so forth. I, for my part, will (try at least) and build my house upon Rock so that not rain nor flood nor wind no matter how heard can blow over my house. On this Rock is the Church built and against shall none prevail.

Bishop this and Archbishop that come and go, even Pope this and Pope that come and go, but he to whom the keys to the Kingdom was given never goes. As the Fathers of Chalcedon remind us he spoke through Leo and so too did he speak through Gregory and through Urban and Pius and Innocent and in our own day through John Paul and Benedict and after they long dead he will continue speaking until the consumation of the world.

As long as his teaching is true and bound in heaven I shall make no effort to try and loose it.

Mike C. posts: "15 minute low masses? Where was that? We need to bring them back."

_______________________________________

Mike C.,

I can beat fifteen minutes but it's not very edifying. A former priest in my mother's parish had his daily Liturgy down to SIX MINUTES FLAT and that's the new Latin Liturgy. His reason was that he was ill--since died of kidney failure among other things--and his legs were bad. He had no assistant. He just cut the entire Liturgy of the Word out except for the Gospel reading, ran through the Liturgy of the Eucharist taking only as much as needed to consecrate the Host and Chalice, and communicate those present.

One day someone told me they arrived for the 8 a.m. Liturgy one minute late and found out that he had started five minutes early: he was coming out of church as they were arriving.

As for time spent in church, an Orthodox priest I know once made the remark that those who have a tough time in church on this earth will really hate eternity--where the Liturgy never ends!!!!!!

May the Good Lord grant this priest and all priests who suffer(ed) physically and/or spiritually for the love of Christ and His People, eternal rest.

BOB

Ray S.

I have to go with our brother, Myles, when he posts about history and the points about doctrine.

St. John Chrysostom is supposed to have remarked that thousands and thousands of people crowd the churches and of that number only a few hundred understand what it's all about, and of that number only a handful take that knowledge and use it for their salvation.

My spiritual father had me meditate for an entire Lent once on one question: "What if you get to Heaven and not one person that you ever knew on earth or ever met on earth was there--would you be happy?" It's a little tough and not meant to be judgmental.

Both points lead to the same place. I can only change me. I can only absorb the Lord's doctrine as the Church presents it and make it an integral part of my life and action. I can only be the kind of example that the Lord wants me to be. I can only reflect Him as He wants me to, with His Grace, His Help, and His Strength.

I cannot change anyone else. I cannot make another on fire with love for the Lord, His doctrine, His Church, or anything else related to Him. I cannot make another a better example--or any example at all. I cannot make another reflect the Lord in his actions or words.

I can pray for another, that he receive whatever the Lord wants him to have. I can ask for good things for another, but I better not be so rash and filled with presumption to think I know what is good for another. Objectively, I know that a relationship with Christ is what He wants, but I also know that He forces no one. He offers and takes both thanks for the offer and the rejection that often comes to His offer.

As the late Pope John Paul II often said, "Be not afraid."

Hope this helps you.

In Christ,

BOB

Where? I didn't live in the 1950s, and as a former Tridentinist who grew up under heavy "tradish" influence, have only heard of this second hand.

However, I can imagine it being done. It's mainly about the priest speaking the Latin as fast as he can and going through the rubrics as fast as he can. Introiboadaltaredei....


Should we bring it back or strive for such a thing? No, in my view - it's contrary to the purpose of Liturgy.

Liturgy is the public prayer of the Church, of an entire group of Christians gathering to pray and celebrate their God. Eucharistic liturgy (i.e. the Mass) is a special form of public prayer, where God - through the prayer of a man consecrated to his service - comes to Earth in the form of bread and wine for the physical and spiritual nourishment of His people. Liturgy is not just the prayers listed in the book, but also the architecture and decor of the area prayed in (i.e. the parish), the vestments, the singing (throughout Christian history prayer has been accompanied by singing. The plainchant and other traditions of a particular Rite are best), and finally the reverence with which all who participate pray.


The problem, in my view, with a 15 minute low Mass is threefold:

1. reverence. I personally doubt that a priest can pray all the prayers of the low Mass in anything but a rushed form.

2. impoverishment: The priest will probably have to forgo the optional homily and reading of the daily readings in the vernacular. Singing and personal participation is absent, and frequently people say the prayers of the server to fill in for this role, even though the priest whispers his part and clearly does not direct it to the people as a public prayer.

3. 15 minute Masses also go a long way to reducing Eucharistic Liturgy to a drive-through - get in, sit, kneel, wait for a little, go get your meal, you've fulfilled your obligation now go do something else.

I'm not against recited low Masses. They developed originally so those who work or who are in a mission setting could frequently receive the great gift of the Eucharist. They're a great option when your resources are tight. But I don't think they should be viewed as a standard, and I also think low Masses loose much of the beauty and spiritual nourishment inherent to the Roman Liturgy.


Moving away from a thread hijack, we will note that in many Roman Rite parishes (by all means not all, but many) the state of the liturgy isn't really better than it was - say - before the 1950s. The only thing is that the problems are of a different form.


Theophan-

Great post!

Like the majority, I'm with Myles.

Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven. And my for my part I declare that you are Rock and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (my translation).

This church is Catholic and Orthodox, founded on the apostles. Regardless of external differences, Christ has only one church. (Including the baptized Protestants, our separated bretheren).

St. Paul says that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

No heresy, no scandal, no sin, no schism, no bad priest or bishop or pope. The church is the body of Jesus Christ, who conquered sin and death.

Excuse my soapbox. I am passionate about the infinite graces poured out to us through the merits of Christ.

Paul

Brother Paul,

Please don't say you're up there in beautiful Alaska and using a dang PC !

Go fishing or something...and don't feed Yogi out of the pic'a'nic basket, say hello to Ranger Smith.

james

Marc:

I guess to continue I have to say that I cannot change the "state" of the whole Church. I can't change the "state" of my own parish. I CAN change the "state" of me.

If my parish seems to be dim, then I have to become what the light I can be with my own gifts, talents, and focus. I have to find a spiritual father in whom to put my trust and my pilgrimage. I have to get serious about my own prayer rule and discipline myself. I have to be the example for others in regard to reverence in the parish, especially at Liturgy.

If I want Liturgy to be improved, I've got to get involved. If it's singing, maybe I need to join the choir or become trained as a lector or cantor. If there are people who are called to help visit the sick and shut-ins, maybe I need to get involved.

Ultimately, what I do to build up the Kingdom in my own little corner is important. I am one brick in the edifice. I need to be all that I can be for the Glory of God and for the edification of my brethren. Then with the help of God, His Grace, His Strength, and His Inspiration things will improve for us all.

Finally, I want to be one recognized by the Lord at His Coming as one of His own flock. I want Him to say to me, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Everything else is just a test of how good a servant I am. If I despair in the face of what I feel is a bad "state" of the Church, I may become paralyzed and His gifts to me be buried in the ground (left inside me to rot). So in the face of what appears to be turmoil, I can't be afraid. I have to follow Christ Who said in the Garden, "Father, if this cup cannot pass me by, Thy Will be done."

In Christ,

BOB

why are there eastern "catholics" who r only want to be "Orthodox" "in union with rome" instead of being eastern Catholics united to Rome in doctrinal orthodoxy but yet keeping their eastern tradition.

basically seeing themselves as being "Orthodox" in union with Rome for the heck of it instead of the truth the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church teaches. and always looking for petty reasons to go enlist in a "Orthodox" church that they think is so immune to liturgical abuses and heresy within some of the members of the church..its baffles me.

the true church teaches the fullness of truth from God. it is the pillar of truth. however its members are not perfect, and sometimes scandalous, but God does not allow the church to err in truth. one shouldnt "go Orthodox" because of liturgical abuses. if one were to do that it should be for doctrinal reasons. and thats where the debate should be based on.