www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall a prescription for renewal of the U.S. Catholic Church

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The following is a prescription for renewal of the U.S. Catholic Church. It's bitter medicine to be sure, but I am certain it will result in her long-term and sustaining renewal....

1. Formerly drop the Church's (501c3) tax-exemption status, or else allow the federal government to revoke it, then begin selling off hospitals, clinics and parish buildings that can no longer serve as Catholic institutions functionally. This will help shore up the loss of income resulting in decreased donations, and simultaneously reduce the financial overhead of various dioceses.

2. Immediately clean out all leadership in convents and monasteries that do not cling 100% to traditional Catholic teaching and practice. Then hand these monasteries and convents over to those religious orders that have been faithful to traditional Catholic teaching and practice, informing those nuns to make full use of this new space immediately, expanding their reach and growth as quickly as possible.

3. Order that all these convents put an emphasis on teaching sisters how to educate children, particularly in the elementary skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. In other words, prepare them to become school teachers.

4. Order that each parish with a school begin making preparation to receive into permanent residence religious sisters for future school teachers. This will allow the convents on monasteries to serve primarily as training centres for formation, while many (not necessarily all) religious brothers and sisters will eventually find themselves in permanent residence at a local parish and/or Catholic school.

5. Instruct all priests, young and old, that they are to catechise the faithful in their Sunday homilies, particularly focusing on the economy of salvation and the Church's responsibility to life, family and the poor.

6. In conference of the bishops, no longer constrained by the (501c3) tax-exemption status, a political outline should be drawn up each election year, stating the Church's positions on various issues and candidates. This political outline must be read from the pulpit of every Catholic parish on a given Sunday before an election, and a printed copy provided to each parishioner of voting age.

7. Last but not least, each bishop should take care to make sure that each and every parish is following the most strict liturgical standards for their celebration of mass and other liturgies. In addition, the local bishop should make sure that the faithful in each region of his diocese has ample access to the Traditional Latin (Tridentine) mass. Furthermore, each bishop should do a bi-annual audit of the doctrinal teachings of each parish for the next ten years, followed by a five-year audit after that, so as to insure the faithful are receiving proper Catholic formation in each parish.

For the original article click on the following link:
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/

I probably should not comment being Orthodox and this prescription is intended apparently for the Latin Church as after briefly perusing the link, I suspect that the Eastern Churches are not on the blogger's radar. However, I can't help myself so here are a few thoughts:


Point 1.) There is nothing stopping the Church from selling off excess properties and using the proceeds for the essential religious purposes of the Church under current American law. Those would not be viewed as taxable transactions under the 'cy pres' doctrine of civil law. Without donations, would that really be a long term solution? I doubt it, it reminds me of the quick fix state budget tricks that NYS politicians use to borrow from Peter to rob Paul. Your big donors will give more to United Way, local museums etc....if they can not deduct donations to the Church. Sorry, but that is the real world out there.

Point 2.) Who defines '100%' traditional in terms of teaching? Rome? The USCCB? The traditionally independent of Diocesan authority orders? The laity? In know in Orthodoxy such a claim would start a brush fire from the fire fight which would ensue.

Point 3. The old canard about school teachers again? Kids at Catholic schools test better on the average than do their public school peers in similar neighborhoods and from similar demographics. It's the old 'all teachers are really bad, except my neighbor, my kid, my coach' etc. etc. etc...

Point 4. As to residences for religious - I thought, looking in from the outside - that these former fixtures of large Catholic parishes disappeared as the number of vocations decreased. I spent a career in public social services - a field which was predominately female and nominally Catholic in demographics -I often asked the social workers if in generations past whether they would have been part of an order in the traditional sense and often the answer was yes - but they wanted a family or other contacts with the secular world.

Five is a good point and one which in my Orthodox experience is what homiletics are all about. I think my EC brothers and sisters would agree with me on that. What do you hear in Roman pulpits these days?

Point 6. Be careful for what you wish - it may come true. Do you really, really want political agendas coming out of the Bishops? What if they disagree with Rome? Will getting more into politics really,really solve anything at all? The history of Christendom's mingling faith with political power is one of the more dismal chapters in our shared patrimony - whether we are western or eastern. Be careful what you wish for my friend.

Point Seven is the western church's problem. We of the east never got there, thanks be to God. (That goes for Orthodox and EC's)

There are similar postings from conservative Orthodox bloggers as well and I would share the same objections with them and their ideas of 'marching orders'.

The trouble with these "prescriptions" is that there aren't saints enough to staff the positions, and if there were, the rest wouldn't matter. The real prescription for renewal is to be as holy as you can.

This post is not meant for any of the "Eastern" churches. This is meant for the reform of the western church, the church in the United States to be exact. If you haven't been in the Roman church in the States you wouldn't understand. This prescription was not penned by myself but another. It is the best solution put forward by anyone in the layity in keeping with truth and tradition. Criticism should always be followed with helpful suggestions. Be a part of the solution.....not a part of the problem.

Surely you understand and appreciate that this forum is oriented toward Eastern Christianity.

Those of us who are Eastern Catholic might tell you that we are not accustomed to offering commentary on Latin Church policy of this type. The relationship between some Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church in the U.S. has had a rough history, and wounds are slowly beginning to heal after many years have passed and the Catholic Church has taken a more enlightened view of the Communion and the relationship with the Eastern Catholic Churches, in general.

That said, as my mother's side of the family with whom we are close is solidly Roman Catholic, my siblings and I were raised almost in a "bi-ritual" family environment, and I continue to remain tied to the parish communities of my uncle/Godfather and cousins. So, I'll take a crack at it, based on this witness and experience:

1. I think this would be a disaster on a number of levels. While I can appreciate the current rationale and genesis for the recommendation, the simple fact is that contribution levels from the laity will be adversely impacted, and there would be no easy way of bridging the gap. There are some Catholic churches and dioceses that do not have extensive property and institutional holdings, and any war chest from the sale of such would likely be short-lived. There are also less affluent dioceses that may not be able to take this approach with the same result as more major metropolitan archdioceses.

This is also a permanent exit strategy, and dismantles a system of institutions that have greatly contributed to the social welfare of many in this country, to the Church's credit. Doing this would have many repercussions, including putting us in the stone age as compared to other Christian groups with respect to the level of social commitment to and investment we have in the communities in which we live and have traditionally served.

2. How could this "purge" be accomplished? Who would make these decisions? What would be the benchmarks? What happens to the clergy and religious who are dismissed as a result of this process?

Does anyone believe that different orders taking over these facilities would be able to recruit in mass in order to "make full use of this new space immediately"? We already have a shortage of vocations, and this together with changing demographics has forced many dioceses to making tough decisions regarding resources and facilities.

3. & 4. Not all nuns can be good teachers or school administrators. Forcing them to have an occupation beyond or inconsistent with their vocation doesn't seem logical, speaking of the entire population of nuns. And what about the brothers? What of the core mission of each of the orders to which these religious belong? Does then the mission of all Catholic religious orders in the U.S. thus become education?

5. No argument. The need for adult catechesis is self-evident.

6. This is a big one - don't we know by now that Church and politics should never mix or be mixed? Look at the results throughout history. Except when religious freedom is in jeopardy (seemingly every day in the U.S. of late), the Church simply has no business being in politics and vice versa. Even in other political environments, it simply doesn't work (see the recent threads on affairs in Russia, for example, or better yet - let's get current on the state of well-being of Christians in the Middle East these days).

7. As our Orthodox brother DMD has stated, this simply is not an issue (at least not nearly to the same degree) in the Eastern Churches as it is in Roman Catholicism today. In fairness, some of us have had some internal issues regarding liturgical matters, but never to the degree of abuse seen and described in the Latin Church in the U.S. I think Rome should make sure that norms are adhered to by all bishops in all countries. In any organization, layers of flexibility tend to yield strange results some times. This is especially true in a large organization that is supposed to be inherently conservative, in a world that tends to erode conservative values and institutions over time.

I have monitored the recent move by some U.S. bishops to reset the order of the sacraments of initiation. The Pope enthusiastically embraced the move, and we Eastern Christians can look at this as a step toward harmonization of belief and practice. However, it is confusing to all to consider why this is being done in isolation, especially after such a glowing endorsement of His Holiness (see recommendation # 5 - this is a perfect adult catechesis subject).

In closing, I would just say that change always requires leadership. If change were to implemented, especially at a national level, it would have to be prompted by a strong leader or group of leaders. There is no such thing as Patriarch of the Latin Church in the U.S. Cardinal Dolan, as leader of the USCCB, is probably in the best position to promote universal change, but that would have to be through force of personality and conviction.

The irony, despite the occasional criticism of non-Catholics to the contrary, that's just not how things work in the Catholic Church. Each bishop, of equal dignity, can run their own show. Change at a national level would require an departure from the norm of governance. Not saying its impossible, but certainly presents a real challenge in considering the implementation of any single one of these recommendation.

While I offered some opinion, in fairness, commenting on this plan intelligently is challenging without any accompanying information about the author's hypothesis or premise behind each of these recommendations. Some background might help draw more meaningful suggestions. I did take a look at the blog, and assumed this was the product of a traditional (conservative) Catholic, assessing the state of the Church, in light of current political issues as well. But that's a guess, and rather general ...

The first part says that it is a prescription for renewal of the "US Catholic Church". This includes "Eastern" Churches.

If you meant to say that this is only a commentary about the Roman Catholic Church in the US, and that no Eastern (Byzantine or otherwise) perspective is sought, then there's really no place for this topic on the forum (which focuses on Eastern Christianity, hence the name).


This really isn't the right place to bring any perceived problems with the Western Church. There are other forums that specialize in that.

RC = "Really Catholic"
BC = "Barely Catholic"

I fully know this is a Byzantine forum, but it's also a Catholic forum. This was posted as something to read and ponder. Yes, it was written by a Traditional (Conservative) Catholic.....isn't there really only one kind. If you're liberal and not for tradition (Big T and small t) then you're on the wrong side and part of the problem. Never met a Byzantine that was on the Liberal side.

Stuartk......

RC = "Really Catholic"
BC = "Barely Catholic"

What does that mean......sounds negative to the Byzantines and I won't have my thread go that way.


Ugggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, this is not a Catholic forum, which has been pointed out by moderators numerous times.

I, for one, found the majority of the prescriptions ridiculous at worst, and extremely faulty at best.

The first problem is the author's attitude that everything in the Church can be changed by top down mandates, prescriptions, reforms, etc., etc., etc. The fact is that Rome has done pretty much everything it can and provided the faithful with all the resources necessary for authentic renewal. The only place I see Rome's response lacking is in its inability to excommunicate "theologians," clergy, and faithful who stubbornly persist in holding and proclaiming beliefs that are explicitly contrary to the Church's teaching.

As to the prescriptions themselves: the first is laughable. The Catholic Church is (rightfully) one of the most charitable institutions in the world. Her efforts in social justice, service to the sick and to the poor, etc. are not nice little additions to the Church's life, but the extension of her Sacramental existence. Those efforts themselves are Sacramentals (or "little sacraments" as some Easterners call them). As Sacramentals those efforts are another way in which the Church proclaims the Gospel.

The second through fourth prescriptions have multiple problems. The most glaring problem is their obvious attempt to "restore" the Church in the United States to look more like the 1940s and 1950s, or at least the romanticized version of the 40s and 50s that we see in such movies as "The Bells of St. Mary's." The author also clearly has a mistaken notion of the purpose of the monastic life. Monasteries and convents aren't meant to be training grounds for nuns and monks to become teachers. Monasteries are houses of prayer where the monk or the nun leaves behind the world in order to become an icon of the world to come. If you want teachers who are consecrated religious, look to the mendicant orders such as the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the Carmelites.

The fifth prescription is the only one that's worthwhile. But, in fact, it pretty much goes without saying.

Prescription six misses the point of the Church in general. It is not the Church's place to get involved in politics. It is the Church's duty to spread the Gospel. If people are really listening to the Gospel, then their choice in political leaders will be reflected in that. Besides, I do believe the USCCB has stated every election year which issues are the most important for the Church, and thus how one ought to vote. Ultimately, however, they cannot force anyone to vote a certain way.

I thought the seventh prescription started out well, but then spiraled down into silliness. Since it is the duty of the bishop to regulate the liturgical life of the Church in his diocese, I do believe that he ought to ensure that every parish follows that highest liturgical standards. But mandating that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass be celebrated in every region of his diocese is simply silly. The fact is that those who prefer the EF are a minority - a large minority, but a minority nonetheless. The majority of Roman Catholics are content with the current form of the Roman Mass, and I postulate that a good number of self-proclaimed "traditional" Catholics would also be content with it were it celebrated properly, sans the bulk of liturgical abuses.

Having the bishop come biannually and check up on the doctrinal soundness of each parish, while laudable, is impractical. Some dioceses in the U.S. are so big that the bishop is lucky to be able to visit each parish twice in his entire pontificate.

No, the only real prescription for renewal, in my opinion, is to "acquire the Holy Spirit" as St. Seraphim of Sarov said. Focusing on externals, such as how the Mass/Divine Liturgy/Qurbono is celebrated, how many times we fast and what we fast from, etc., etc., etc. will get us nowhere. These things are ultimately means to an end, not the end itself. This is why I have a great deal of respect for the Charismatic Renewal. Although it does need to put more emphasis on certain externals (i.e. abuses in the Mass), ultimately their hearts are in the right place because they are more concerned with acquiring the Holy Spirit and having a real relationship with God the Trinity than they are with what language the Mass is celebrated in, or how good the priest's homily was.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Oh, and I don't think you're going to find much sympathy for these prescriptions on this thread as they do predominantly apply to the situation of the Roman Church (particularly the Roman Church in the U.S.) and not the Catholic Church at large.

I disagree here. The liturgy is a mystical participation in the purpose of creation. Is a means, but it is also an end. Doing it as perfectly as we can is a fulfilment of our purpose.

I agree with JDC: if the bishop can do just one thing in his tenure, it ought to be ensuring that the liturgical life of his diocese is planted on a firm footing, with a full range of services offered, and each service celebrated fully and properly, in accordance with the liturgical books. The Church can survive just about anything, as long as its liturgy is sound, for the liturgy is the font and touchstone of theology, and the center of the spiritual life of the faithful. It is through the liturgy that the Church most fully manifests its true nature as the Kingdom of God made present in this world.

That said, the underlying prerequisite for a true liturgical renewal is reforming the liturgical consciousness of the people--and the clergy--so that they understand the central role of the liturgy, and don't view it as an obligation to be discharged and a chore to be performed respectively.

By the way, Latin dioceses may be numerically large, but, in comparison with ours, they are territorially compact. I don't see why the bishop should not be able to visit every parish in his diocese at least once a year. It's disgraceful that while all Roman Catholics know the Pope on sight, their diocesan bishop remains a stranger to them.

Just so my intentions are clear, I didn't say that the Liturgy is unnecessary, nor did I say that the manner in which it is celebrated is irrelevant. As both JDC and StuartK mentioned, it is central to our spiritual life. In my previous post I affirmed that the bishop ought to ensure that every Liturgy/Mass being celebrated in his diocese follows the highest liturgical standards.

I do think that I garbled up my own argument, however, in my later comments. I didn't mean that the manner in which the Liturgy/Mass/Qurbono is celebrated ought to be considered irrelevant. What I was trying to get at is those people who focus on the externals to such an extent that they miss the interior elements. For example, folks who go to Mass/Liturgy/Qurbono who are so caught up in what everyone else is doing wrong, or that father didn't do this part just right, or there wasn't enough Latin/Greek/Syriac/whatever, or so-and-so isn't dressed appropriately, etc., etc., etc. that they actually miss the Mass/Liturgy/Qurbono itself. My apologies for not making my argument clear enough.

I too agree with JDC on this point. In particular, since this thread addresses concerns about the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S., I would add by observation that many practicing Roman Catholics (of all levels and degrees, including my RC family members) seem to know the Church primarily through their experience and participation in the Mass in their own parish settings. What one sees, hears and feels during the Mass imprints on the mind, heart, and soul. If that experience is consistent from week to week and parish to parish, and with the guidelines set by Rome for proper adherence to the Latin Rite rubrics, people will come to know what is proper and what to both expect and respect.

We who have friends who have either visited our own churches or became members almost universally report the same witness and experience when first exposed - when attending the Divine Liturgy, they know its Sunday morning!

Quos vult perdere Deus primum dementat! (For all you who pine for the 'glory days' of the Missal of Pius V, the Latin of this tag line should not prove an obstacle to comprehension.

This (in English)does not follow. Some of the rc's I know who are most opposed to Latin, also favour the destruction of the icon screens, and on the same grounds: that the people should see, know, and understand. They seem to have no appreciation of veils of any sort. I assume they also like their chalices uncovered and their women immodest.

In fact, the postconciliar Latin Church has demonstrated what the American Ruthenians should take care to note: When you lay bare the liturgy by, for instance, speaking aloud the silent prayers and bringing down the level of language, the people's understanding is paradoxically destroyed.

Also, I am pretty pleased with myself to have made a reply with two colons.

I would disagree with this assessment. One of the papers in our deacon's class had to do with just this: the use of the vernacular language in the Liturgy. My argument was for it, and part of that argument comes from St. Paul, who wrote that if the people do not hear the Liturgy in an understandable language, they will not be edified. All the prayers are glorious and uplifting, and they lift the heart up to God.

I remember when I first began to serve the altar with +Fr. Mike, of happy memory, and was standing close enough to him to hear many of the prayers that the folks in the pew do not hear. I was stunned and overwhelmed by their beauty. They lifted my heart towards God.

I also agree that liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular, but with two caveats: the vernacular translation must be complete, accurate and as aesthetically pleasing as the original; and the original language should be retained, both as a mark of continuity with the Tradition, and to ensure that, lacking familiarity with the original language, the people will no longer be able to determine whether what they are reading and praying in the liturgy is an accurate rendering of the original text.

There's a reason the Slavonic was omitted from the Teal Terror, not to mention most of the missalettes used in Roman parishes.

This is a non-sequitur of monumental proportions. It also demonstrates one of the major flaws in contemporary Latin liturgical consciousness--relentless didacticism, combined with a contemptuous assessment of the ability of the laity to understand anything beyond the most basic concepts unless laid out on a silver platter.

If your argument is fully true, then none of the prayers should be said sotto voce.

I do not oppose vernacular liturgy, of itself, but it is a mistake to set aside the massive benefits to be had from a good and dead language, to say nothing of the deep pitfalls (filled with pointy sticks and venomous snakes) of translation.

Unity is one. My own dear Ukies have a half-and-half English/Ukrainian liturgy now and then, and the two congregations couldn't be more split as when they sing and fall silent alternately. Of one mind in confessing indeed. I would rather hear it all in Ukrainian, though I know nothing of the language beyond the liturgical responses.

Another is that a deeper understanding of words may frequently be had by knowing the word in the root language. For example in the Angelic Salutation, the Latin "plena" reveals much more about the situation of the Theotokos than does the English "full".

On the other hand, Not knowing the language allows you to leave aside words qua words. Not everything is revealed by intellectual knowledge, Q.E.D.

There is more.

I don't mean to belabour this point, and prefer not to, feeling myself a(n RC) guest here.

If anyone says that Latin liturgy is not intelligible, uplifting, glorious and beneficial, he's wrong.

Not true. There are three different types of prayers said by the celebrant at the altar: those in which he leads the people; those he says on behalf of the people; and those which he says on his own behalf. Only the first two were ever taken aloud. That it was the earliest Tradition to take the second aloud is shown by several novellae of Justinian the Great, which complain that the prayers of the anaphora are no longer being taken aloud, and that this should cease. The retention of the ekphonesis shows that the entire prayer was once taken aloud, since it is the cue for the laity to give their approbation through the Amen. Those prayers the priest says that lack either a doxology or an ekphonesis were never meant to be heard by the congregation, and were taken silently.

Why did the public prayers become private? I believe there are two reasons, one pragmatic, the other a mystical rationale for the pragmatic reason. The pragmatic reason is simple--it was both easier on the priest's voice, and let the liturgy move faster, if the priest took all those prayers "silently" (actually, "in a low voice")--as anyone who is familiar with the prayers realizes, the priest isn't taking them at all, but eliding by them, except for the ekphonesis. This cheats both God and the people, who deserve to know what they are approving through their Amen. The second reason justified the first: the prayers were "sacred", but the people were "profane"--a false assertion that denies the sanctity of the People of God and the universal priesthood of the baptized.

It was this reasoning that caused Schmemann to assert that the prayers of the Anaphora should be said audibly in their fullness, but not the private prayers of the priest. One must recognize that the practice of taking the anaphora prayers silently has been legitimized by custom, and therefore it's probably not a good idea to impose reading them aloud from the top down, in the absence of a long period of educational preparation, both for the laity and for the clergy.

Not really.

On the other hand, I remember a lot of my Italian aunties were scandalized when the Mass was translated into English. It seemed they didn't agree at all with a lot of it.

The canonical text in Greek has no adjective at all, only the perfect passive participle: kekharitomene. As for the Latin's 'plena' meaning more than the English 'full': apply liberally(!) the Biblical "Infinitus est autem numerus stultorum!"

Ouch - that is cold!

I wonder why I should take care choosing my words when so much of the population is intent on demonstrating the accuracy of the maxim Ot'ets Nastoiatel provides. But more abundant even than stupidity is the stubborn refusal to see what's plain.

Considering words derived from "plenus" like plenitude and plenty adds to the understanding of "full" in this case.

Different words with the same meaning still sometimes indicate different things. That's one reason we keep all those extra words around, and why we don't just say she's "stuffed" and leave it at that.

I can't believe I'm having to argue this.

A fact the ramifications of which you could never consider if you had no access to the second language.

On the other hand, the same root gives us "plenum" which can mean, perversely, either a space that is entirely full of matter, or a space which is entirely empty, in addition to meaning a meeting of an assembly in which all members are present.

But full will do in the context of the Magnificat.

Does anyone remember where this was said? I'd like to read the full statement.

If you would like to read the whole thing, then log out and take the first step to register.

Put it this way. Eastern Christians - both Catholic and Orthodox - are the hosts and the immediate family members of this community. Roman Catholics, Protestant and other Christians are our cherished brothers living next door. Non-Christians are our neighbors who live across the street. All are welcome.

Thanks, Administrator.

Oh, no...not this...not here! I recognize Invictus' original post--not something I expected to encounter at this forum, to be honest--as typical of the sort of reactionary "scorched earth" approach to "reforming the reforms" of Vatican II that one would expect to encounter at, for example, Father Z's WDTPRS blog or at the Catholic Answers Forum or at that Lefebvrist forum that I have seen and have been terrified by.

I puzzle as to why one would attempt to export this esoteric traditionalist Roman Catholic battle to the internet enclaves of Eastern Christianity, thereby utterly bewildering, surely, so many of the poor, unsuspecting Orthodox and Eastern Catholic members who people this forum, demanding of them a reaction to something that they, if they are fortunate, are entirely oblivious to.

*Sigh* The world is a funny little place.