not to put too fine a point on it
say I'm the only bee in your bonnet
This is a comment I made several years ago on the "old" Catholic Convert" message board, before reaching its current look.
My grandfather, who died about 10 years ago at the age of 90, prayed for many years that the Mass could be said in the vernacular. He was in my view a pious man, devoted to the Faith, and I think he was happy with the Novus Ordo.
Why did he want this? Because the people attending Mass would not pay attention, it was not relevant, etc. I think a lot of the "Tridentine-onlyists" should consider that point, that what they love is not necessarily everyone else's opinion too.
I have endured Masses for which I have not cared for the music, preaching, or what have you, for the Eucharist. We need to focus on the esssentials and hesitate to get our dander up over things like Novus Ordo vs. Tridentine Rite - EwTN has lovely Novus Ordo masses, it can be done. Let's work on that together, increasing understanding of and love for a a liturgy done with piety and beauty.
Charismania is nothing. Tridentinism is nothing. The Person of Yeshua the Messiah and orthodox Catholic teaching transmited to the masses are the simple secret to reviving the Church.
The 4 media slide shows give a remarkable sense of the diversity that now marks Brazil's religious life.
Brazil is one of the top 5 centers of "independent/apostolic" Christianity in the world (along with China, Nigeria, India and the US). Independent Christianity understands itself to be "post-Protestant" and is almost 100% Pentecostal in spirituality, worship, and praise.
I was doing some more calculations the other day and came to startling realization. Right now, in 2006, 48% of Christians who trace their roots back to the Reformation (I call them "Reformation heritage Christians" and it does include Anglicanism)are post-denominational "independent/apostolics. Classic denominational Protestantism is on the verge of becoming a minority within its own tradition.
60% of Reformation heritage Christians in 2006 are Pentacostalized in their spirituality, prayer, and worship.
If you think of contemporary Christendom as generally divided between Catholic/Orthodox Christianity and "Reformation heritage" Christianity, other startling trends become visible.
In 1900, Catholicism/Orthodoxy made up 68.5% of all Christians in the world. In 2006, RC/O only comprise 62.6% and by 2025, David Barrett estimates that will have dropped to 59% of all Christians. The most significant factor here is the relative collapse of Orthodox numbers due to decades of persecution in eastern Europe. In 1900, Orthodox made up 30% of RC/O Christians. In 2006, they only make up 16.3%.
Meanwhile, Reformation Heritage Christians' "market share" (to use a very crass term) has risen from 25% of all Christians in 1900 to 34% of all Christians in 2006. It is growing so fast that Barrett projects they will make up 45% of all Christians by 2025.
Why don't the numbers (45% and 59%) add up to 100%? Because of the fascinating phenomena of "double-affiliation" - all the millions who move readily between the two groups.
What strikes me as significant about the article is that it recognizes, however reluctantly, that the slide began when the Brazilian Church was most infected with liberation theology (and all of the horizontal, this-world goofballery that goes with it) and the reaction of the faithful was to vote with their feet. So I don't think this is a case of "take your castor oil and like it" traditionalism driving people off.
Whatever else I might think of Fr. Rossi's theatrics, his preaching appears to be pretty solidly orthodox, and light-years from the Brazilian equivalent of AmChurch [BraChurch, maybe? 
] That's the great gift of the charismatic movement (when in full harmony with the Church)--a Christ-centered and Spirit-led preaching of the Gospel that does change lives. Michigan is blessed with solid charismatics, and I can testify to their wholly Catholic message.
Oh, and because the article missed it entirely: it's also important to note that Brazil is home to a thriving (and as of 2002 fully-reconciled) traditionalist community headquartered in Campos. Brazilians are a pretty diverse lot, indeed.
Of course, Mark, you do realize that the hordes leaving the Chuch in Latin America didn't leave a church that celebrated the Traditional Mass. They left a church that celebrates the Novus Ordo.
I don't see how you can read an article that says "In the last quarter of the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church hemorrhaged Brazilian members by the millions" and somehow twist it into an argument against traditionalists.
Though I don't agree entirely with your conclusion, I do think it raises a vital issue that Catholics, including "Traditionalists", need to address.
However, I think you would find some folks who think the lack of Palestrina masses has something to do with the problem might have a slightly different approach than simply an adaptation of these practices to the Catholic liturgy.
Cardinal Ratzinger points out in A New Song for the Lord that many very good devotional practices do not belong in the liturgy per se. The liturgy per se is necessarily marked by the Apollonian element of what he calls "rational worship." All the aposotlic modes of worship, from Ethiopia to Armenia to Greece to Rome are formed by its sobriety. Dionysiac practices involving wild emotions are simply foreign to the nature of liturgy, he says. But there would be nothing wrong with having extra-liturgical prayer services, which might be marked by a different, perhaps wilder, spirit. The best elements of those could, after purification over long years, find their way into the essentially conservative liturgy itself. An hour a week of something more sober might, in a context where the heart has been awakened by something more emotional, not be too much to expect.
One of Ratzinger's repeated theses is that in the Catholic Church of today, we have, not here or there, but for the most part, lost our sense of what liturgy is. That's a pretty radical seeming statement for some. But it highlights another response that might fairly be made by those who advocate a return to traditional liturgical styles: That these people in Latin America weren't leaving a traditional Church with High Palestrina Masses for charismatic practices. They were leaving a Church in which that traditional style of worship had been lost and replaced by something considerably drier and more lifeless, or as Ratzinger puts it "fabricated liturgy, a banal on-the-spot product."
It may be of course that the same people would STILL have abandoned the Catholic Church in droves if we were having Latin Masses as we did in the days of Pius XII. That might be true.
However, the Anglo-Catholics attracted droves of working class people back to the churches in London slums in the nineteenth century by introducing Gregorian chant, incense, beautiful vestments, images of the saints, etc.
And Islam attracts masses of people with a very austere manner of worship indeed.
And if Ratzinger is right and there is a deep connection between what we might feel is only the "style" of liturgical worship and doctrine itself--less like the clothing on a person than his flesh--then we have to be very careful in these areas.
All in all a very thoughtful post that presents real food for thought. I think that though some of the "Trads" might not be entirely right in their attitudes, they and those who sympathize with them in part may have more to contribute to the conversation than you might expect.
Yes, even John Paul the Great had his blind spots. To reduce the Pentecostal challenge to "ravaging wolves" (even Homer nods!) is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II. Ecumenism is not an option, but a mandate. Many fat cat South American prelates in the past worried about the "sects" (another abandonement of the challenge of engagement with separated brothers and sisters in Christ) between lunches with wealthy industrialists. I have great confidence that Benedict XVI will be able to begin the process of engaging European intellectuals about relativism and the historic roots of European culture in Christianity. He also has done important work in moving away from an over facile understanding of Islam as just another non-Christian religion. But I have little hope that he'll be able to understand the appeal of Pentecostalism to lower and middle class Latin Americans, or understand how the Catholic Charismatic Renewal with effective episcopal and presbyteral leadership could renew Latin American Catholicism. The reform of the reform, IMHO, is a superficial response to a real problem. The solution is not to glom on to the poor scholarship of one or two German "liturgists" who were out of the mainstream. The great thinkers in the liturgical renewal (like Dom Odo Casel and many others) are every bit as relevant today and they received critical support from popes before Vatican II. The adherents of the "reform of the reform" do not understand organic development. If the exsultet could incorporate the pagan poet Vergil's praise of the bee, then on what possible grounds could one resist the incorporation of beautiful Protestant hymnody into Catholic liturgy? Especially, if the texts are biblical and don't incorporate ambiguous formulas that could compromise the integrity of faith. The advocates of the reform of the reform will win a few battles (and they're not wrong about everything) and lose the war because the Church is Catholic, not Roman. [Of course, by "Roman" here I'm not talking about the location of the primatial see, but about the tendency to demote the value of local cultural adaptations - a mandate of Vatican II neglected by the Fessio spin on liturgy - and to exaggerate the value of secondary features of the Roman Rite]. The last time this over-enthusiasm for things Roman got the upper hand in Rome, the result was the loss of China to the Church.
Dale (or anyone)
Are there any reliable figures on the size of the traditionalist movement in Brazil?
For what it's worth, I see Daniel Mitsui, the Traditionalist, has anticipated me in part!
Funny, I'm usually hotly debating him on this very topic. I think he would regard me as far closer to Shea on liturgical questions, a "Neo-Catholic" as he has put it. Here, I find myself making some of his points. A funny world!
What I wish is that there could be a way for the relaxed, "our present liturgy is fine" folks and those more like Daniel to approach each other seriously and without rancour or derision. This is what the Church desperately needs, I think. This project will, I believe, become more and more clear over the months if Joseph Ratzinger lives. And if Mark's post indicates nothing else it is that Catholics should agree that the question of how we worship and pray together is a vital one for all of us, from laymen to Cardinals.
Daniel:
I'm only arguing with Traditionalists whose approach is, "Screw 'em. Who needs 'em?" That attitude is remarkably common among Trads.
Hello, Dale Price,
The slide toward "the sects" (to use the theologically awkward phrase of worried Latin American prelates) began BEFORE Vatican II. Check out COMMONWEAL and WANDERER articles in the forties and fifties for debates on whether Spain and Columbia and other Latin American countries were justified in responding to Catholic bishops request to use state power to repress the rising Protestant "sects." This is not a new problem. But now the Holy Spirit has corrected us and we understand that these are our brothers and sisters in Christ (because of the validity of their Baptism and faith in the Lordship of Jesus) and NOT "material heretics"! Latin American bishops need to learn from the American bishops about ecumenism because so far they're not doing much of anything at all. What really needs to happen is for Fr. Richard Neuhaus to give a seminar for Latin American bishops on the recent developments in Catholic-evangelical cooperation and dialogue. Just as Latin American pro-life groups learn from their American counterparts, the same thing should happen in the area of ecumenism.
The appeal of evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity is not based on the alleged Appolonian characteristics of Catholic liturgy or the enthusiasm of Pentecostal praise. It's related to addressing the issue of INITIAL conversion to Christ as the Lord of one's life. Eucharist is an assembly of BELIEVERS. So it works beautifully when the assembly is largely those who've been evangelized successfully and not so well when the congregation is loaded with nominal Catholics who know about truths to be believed, commandments to be obeyed, and sacraments to be received, but who don't know the Lord Jesus as a Person. Kerygma (initial presentation of the Person of the Lord Jesus and an invitation to submit to Him by life in His Body) precedes didache (ongoing catechesis which should never end).
Mark:
You have an article that says that a Latin America once (in the years of the Traditional Mass) was homogenously Catholic.
It says that later (in the years of the Novus Ordo) it began hemorraghing members.
You read this article, and your conclusion is that it makes "dust and nonsense" of the arguments for a return to the traditional Mass.
???
I don't see how I can reach any conclusion other than that Mark Shea is so bent on opposing traditionalists that he'll see evidence against their liturgical convictions even where none exists.
But of course, he can't be bothered to actually learn about the reasoning behind their liturgical convictions, because he doesn't care, see.
---
In other words, I wish you'd show some evidence of approaching traditionalism fairly and with an open mind.
---
And your accusation that the attitude "Screw 'em. Who needs 'em?" is common among trads is simple calumny.
More accurately, the attitude is that charismaticism is an artificial spirituality that cannot be the basis of a renewed Church, because it is divorced from the inherited tradition of Catholicism. Despite whatever enthusiasm it can generate immediately, it will fail.
To someone who believes this, showingthe greatest concern for the souls involved means condemning the movement outright.
Daniel
Are you contending that the millions who have left the Church for Pentecostalism and the 75 million Catholics who are involved in the charismatic renewal are *really* thereby expressing their longing for the high silence and formality of the Tridentine Mass? They don't want healing and expressive worship and they really want Latin?
Talk about an argument from silence. (They haven't experienced the Traditional Mass, ergo they are really longing for it, they just don't know it.)
What if they really want what they appear, by their choices, to be seeking?
If, as Dale Price says, there is a vibrant traditionalist movement in Brazil (but of what size?) how come the millions aren't going in that direction?
Im always amazed when people comment on the Church in Brazil when they no nothing about it. Brazilians want to believe in something and may be the most religious people in the world, but we constantly battle the constant sensuality that currently dominates Brazilian culture....dont believe me? We are known for two things soccer and our women. The Church is still the institution in Brazil that feeds the most people, but provides no cathechesis, a huge number of priests unfaithful to their vows and willing to accomodate almost anything once again watch Carnival next year. We need to feed people spiritually and physically reevangelize the culture and support Fr. Rossi, JPII did. Exactly like we need here in the US, you want the Latin Mass, go for it, you want something more Charismatic you got it, meanwhile lets keep people Catholic and evangelize them and the ones who left, and quit arguing about Liturgy it solves nothing.
Viva El Papa!!!
No Sherry. I'm saying that Mark Shea's conclusion that these statistics are somehow an argument against the Tradiitonal Mass is at best hasty and ill-thought, and at worst proof of a deliberately bias.
I didn't say they were an argument against the Tridentine (I refuse to use the word "traditional" because it implies the Paul VI Mass is outside the Tradition) Mass.
I said they were people we could either face and minister to or hide in a Congregationalist model and avoid.
If you don't think Trads can take a "Screw 'em" approach, just read the posts of Eric G on Latin American Pentecostals. And he's not alone. There are lots of people who want to turn the Church into a liturgical club.
Sherry:
Re: Campos' numbers. I've heard conflicting figures, but it is undisputed that the prelature is growing.
Admittedly, however, the numbers are not large (800K is the largest number I have ever read, and that is dubious). Certainly nothing like 75m, and I'd agree that Brazilians aren't flooding in. Where Campos is disproportionately strong is in vocations and schools.
Tom:
Great comment.
This quote from Catechesis in Our Time really got my attention when I came across it a year ago:
Many Catholics are “ still without any explicit personal attachment to Jesus Christ; they only have the capacity to believe placed within them by Baptism and the presence of the Holy Spirit.” (19)
As you point out, the Church teaches that catechesis is intended to foster the spiritual maturing of intentional disciples,(who naturally hunger to learn more about their faith) not to be a sort of one size-fits-all-hoop through-which-bored-children-must-pass replacement for basic evangelism.
Fr. Cantalamessa puts it in pretty stark terms: ". . .our spiritual environment is even worse than the one at the time of the Middle Ages. Not that there is no normal Christian life, but this is now the exception rather than the rule. In this situation, rarely, or never, does the baptized person ever reach the stage of proclaiming in the Holy Spirit, "Jesus is Lord."
The power of the charismatic renewal has always been its attention to this most fundamental issue.
Dale:
Even at the 800k (apparently inflated) figure, that's would mean that the Traditionalist movement only makes up 1/2 of 1% of the total Catholic population whereas 75 million charismatics is 48% of the Catholic population in Brazil. So for every single Catholic that has moved into Traditionalism, 100 have gone in the charismatic direction?
Both are legitimate, of course, as long as they stay in communion with the Church and teach and think with her. But I'm not surprised to see that Traditionalism is more of a "niche" spirituality and that the charismatic movement appeals to the masses.
Tom:
Wellll, I don't have read access to archives of Commonweal and the Wanderer, so I'll have to defer on that point. However, I have heard of the "appealing to Caesar" strategy in the context of Latin America.
But.
I suppose stats can lie, but the article shows a the momentum away from the Church starting in the 70s, long after the old "Caesarian" strategy had been abandoned. It's also significant that they went toward the transformational Gospel preached by the evangelicals at the same time.
While I'm willing to concede that its a complex blend of factors, I don't think it can be denied that liberationism was a decisive factor.
If Stringhili's indifferentism (as can be seen in the Sao Paulo cathedral confab--yikes!) is emblematic of Brazilian liberal Catholics, then small wonder.
Sherry:
No argument. Pentecostalism is definitely where the action is. I've read as low as 30K for Campos, too, but that may be dubious (too low), also. Still, it will be interesting to see the status of the traditionalists in a couple of generations--Campos' bishop is reporting an upsurge in interest from across Brazil.
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum.../mershon/
060620
As I said, I don't have any particular beef with Catholic charismatics--and I'll take the preaching and scripture emphasis any day. The rest of it isn't my cup of tea, admittedly.
Dale
20 years ago, as young evangelical, I studied with some of the foremost leaders of Latin American Protestant missions who were, even then, exalting in the dramatic breakthroughs in LA.
They would have agreed that liberation theology contributed but more fundamental, in their eyes, was signs and wonders, i.e., the charismatic, healing, etc.
Serious Protestant mission in LA dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. But it really took off with the explosion of charismatic spirituality in the Protestant world.
I would contend that Palestrina and Charismaticism don't conflict.
Liberation theologians (as Cardinal Ratzinger point out) were not wrong about everything. There's certainly considerable merit in the idea of social scientists examining the CLASS aspects of traditionalist versus Pentecostal appeal.
In response to the comment made about working class Anglicans being attracted to Anglo-Catholic parishes in London, I'd like to remind people that these Anglo-Catholics were leaders in stressing social justice and strong proponents of the views on this of Maurice. The industrialists of that time were radically different than many today and the working class Anglo-Catholics knew perfectly well that the Church (Anglo-Catholic branch of Anglicanism) was on the side of the workers. During this same period Methodism had great success in attracting the working class with its strong emphasis on justice for the working man. And working class Catholics couldn't care less about Cardinal Newman, but loved Cardinal Manning. Both Cardinals were from the upper class. But Manning was very interested in the ideas that were circulating that ended up receiving papal endorsement in RERUM NOVARUM.
As for the view that liturgy is Apollonian and popular piety is Dionysiac, what if those longer neums in Gregorian Chant were efforts to capture the melodies of the glossolalia of an early period? And in the Abbysinian Rite, the liturgy of the hours is accompanied by drums. Decorum and the degree of emotional exhuberance is connected with culture.
Joe Marier,
Three cheers!!! This is a both-and thing, not an either-or thing. Very Catholic.
I like high liturgy-- latin, chant, incense. But I recognize that it doesn't work for everybody. If you like clapping and guitar masses, go for it. If you like drums, go for it. The problem is that the clergy have largely abrogated any responsibility to teach doctrine (full good homilies, anyone?) which leaves the door open to pentacostalists in Latin America, and fundies in the United States. On this point, I think the Latin American problem would have been less serious today had the Jesuits not been expelled...
I've seen a lot more "Screw 'em. Who needs 'em?" directed at the traditionalists than by the traditionalists. Why are some people so anxious to write other people out of the Catholic Church? I don't understand the whole "liturgy is irrelevant" philosophy.
"That said, I also recognize that if the Church is to respond adequately to the people she serves, we have to know what people are seeking and why."
C'mon, Mark!
We young people are seeking sex. Maybe the Church would attract more members if we brought ritualized sex to the liturgy, like the temple prostitutes of old!
(Sarcasm. Alert.)
In reality, we're having these problems precisely because of our loss of a rigorous orhodoxy and a beautiful, solemn, and reverent liturgy. Do I have stats to back this up?Of course not. But as a young person, I can tell you what inspires devotion and seriousness and what does not.
As well, is anyone familiar with Brazil's Campos administration? My understanding is that Catholic Christianity is vibrant in those areas under the direct and/or influence of the traditionalist Apostolic Administration of John Vianney.
Is the Tridentine Mass a magical wand to solve all our problems? Of course not; but it's a necessary piece to the puzzle. The modern liturgy, as celebrated in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999% of parishes, is just tacky. Devout Catholics like ourselves will bear it if we have to, but serious men who are otherwise weaker in the faith just cannot be expected to sit through such a travesty.
Sherry:
I am far from contending that you don't make a case worth pondering, but you seem to make it with an air of certainty, as if there is nothing to be said against it.
People who "don't get it" as far as Church teaching on the liturgy is concerned, as you have admitted about yourself, may be perfectly good Catholics, but they may be hamstrung in a discussion that involves the liturgy.
What I would urge is this: What if, what if the forms of the liturgy are less about "style" and more deeply connected with substance than many of us think? What if there a certain kinds of worship--or at least liturgical worship--which the Church cannot stretch to embrace without deforming her mission?
I can easily see how this might strike one as exaggerated or precious or artsy or something. But this is precisely what Joseph Ratzinger, who aside from being Pope, is also one of the holiest and most brilliant Catholics alive (AND a friend to the Charismatic Renewal) thinks and writes. And he is far from the only one.
This contention--if true--could not be directly affected by statistics, could it? I mean, if, as Ratzinger maintains, the traditional rites of the Church (and NOT the Novus Ordo) are inspired by the Holy Spirit (that's what he says!) and inseparable from the doctrine and life of the Church, then it's about far more than just style and loveliness. It's part of the very warp and woof of the Faith.
You don't have to agree with Ratzinger's contention. But I think you have to give it a respectable hearing, at least, and not just dismiss it out of hand with statistics or the idea that if we all believe in Catholic doctrine we can propose pretty much whatever style of worship we want.
Now this is to say that practicalities only have a limited amount of relevance to the issues. Sure, we might lose lots of people if we teach them that contraception is evil. But that's what we are in business to do. It's not only God's will, it's part of who we are.
Surely it's ridiculous to suggest that the specific form and ethos of liturgy is like the issue of contraception, isn't it? That's doctrine, this is just style and manner.
But it's precisely Ratzinger's contention that it ISN'T just style and manner. It's substance. It's an incarnation of Tradition capital 'T' and not small 't' customs. And that view has to be taken seriously and not just dismissed as aestheticism. It's the Pope's view, for heaven's sake! Not infallible, perhaps. Not binding. But something that has to be taken seriously.
Perhaps some fools among Trads say, "Who cares about them?" I've heard such talk. But every movement has its fringe nuts and its people who fly off the handle and say goofy, angry things.
I don't dismiss the question of large-scale defection. And I don't dismiss the possibility that Ratzinger and others are wrong. Or even that charismatic styles can somehow become part of our tradition. Perhaps extra-liturgical worship is one area to investigate. But we can't just act as though it's a fact that if people leave we must accomodate ourselves to them.
It's worth noting, in this connection, that there is a movement among charismatics to rediscover and renew appreciation for traditional liturgical worship, BTW.
Anyway, ALL I'm saying is: if you CARE about issues like whether or not we should adopt charismatic-styles of worship in the Mass more generally, then you have to get to know and understand more about the liturgy. And you have to understand what the Pope and those who are close to him in spirit think about it. You have to understand it, unless you just want to sit out the debate. You have to understand it, even if ultimately you find that you disagree with it. You have to understand a bit about what might be called "Liturgical Theology."
Look: think of the Orthodox. Everybody says they are our closest cousins right? But their theology of the Liturgy is far closer to Ratzinger's than to that of many modern Catholics, like perhaps this no doubt decent Brazilian priest.
I don't want to shut down the discussion, not by any means. But I want to make it more serious and less uncomprehending. I certainly want Trads and their cousins to listen to you. But I want you to listen to them, too.
Eric:
Thanks for showing up to prove my point! Yes. Young people are sinful! Screw 'em! If they won't be like Eric then why the hell should the Church evangelize them or demonstrate the slight curiosity about them and their needs, fears, or loves. There's a diagram to conform to and we damn well better get on with the business of conforming to it. If flesh and blood people get in the way, then to hell with them. They're sinners, so no big loss.
Devout Catholics like ourselves"...
The President of the Congregation address the members of the Club. Outsiders are *not* welcome.
Eric G:
You can certainly tell us that a "beautiful, solemn, and reverent liturgy" inspires you to devotion and seriousness and other young adults you know. I'm personally delighted.
But I've know many, many Catholics of all ages who found beauty, solemnity and reverence in worship that is a thousand miles away from Traditionalist liturgy in style. And the worshipers were indeed inspired to amazing levels of devotion, serious discipleship, and apostolic fruitfulness.
It's just not either-or. There isn't only one style of worship that is legitimate and inspires serious Catholics.
Mark:
What are you talking about?
When have I ever said "Screw'em" regarding Latin American Pentecostals?
I'm simply saying the solution is not to capitulate to heresy and irreverent, boisterous, and atraditional worship; which has been the Church-at-large's strategy, at that of mainstream Protestants, for the past 40 or so years.
Contrast the Diocesan Brazilian Church with the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Vianney to see where the solution really lies.
Regarding my "Devout Catholics . . ." comment:
I was simply making the point that practicing, obedient Catholics will sit through a Novus Ordo if they have to; but most unbelievers, or other Catholics simply less developed in the faith, are practically unable to take seriously a rite whose solemnity is akin to a Cub-Scout jamboree. I'm not a paricularly "butch" man, but I sure can't take it seriously. It's a living joke. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christians know this too; as do many High-Church Protestants.
Tom:
"As for the view that liturgy is Apollonian and popular piety is Dionysiac, what if those longer neums in Gregorian Chant were efforts to capture the melodies of the glossolalia of an early period? And in the Abbysinian Rite, the liturgy of the hours is accompanied by drums. Decorum and the degree of emotional exhuberance is connected with culture."
Thanks for the very thoughtful response. One reason why I urge people to read Ratzinger is that he talks about precisely these issues. He's a surprisingly EASY read, too. I don't know why more intelligent Catholics don't try.
In a nutshell: Ratzinger points out that Ethiopian dance and drumming and also playing the sistrum is very staid and Apollonian, more like sylized walking than like Gospel dancing. Having witnessed it myself, I concur. It's not a rhythmic dance fest. You don't want to get up and shake your hands around. And believe me, the Ethiopians DON'T get up and shake their hands around. They don't even get to SEE most of it. The sanctuary is completely walled off and the door is shut and sealed. The people hear and see little.
He also points out that it's at LEAST as important for the Church, which has its OWN culture, to inculturate societies as the other way around. There is a similarity of worship between the Apostolic Churches that is striking.
Our style of worship, our prayers, our music, our vestments, etc., etc. are an extension of Jewish worship. They take little from surrounding societies.
I don't know about the glossolalia, but I'd point this out. ALL of the ancient traditions of liturgy as they have come down to us ARE'NT like that. That means, first, that it's unlikely that ALL of them would have diverged so utterly from the sources. And second, if Ratzinger is right and these things are guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, He wouldn't have let us get so far afield.
"Reasonable worship" is how Ratzinger characterizes liturgy in its very nature. It awakes the mind and channels and sublimates the emotions. It doesn't unleash them. Culture and differing mentalities can affect the liturgy only very slowly and at the margins. But they can't get to the core of its manner.
Sherry:
"There isn't only one style of worship that is legitimate and inspires serious Catholics."
But you also can't dismiss Ratzinger's contention that taste has only limited relevance here. There may be infinite numbers of styles of worship that inspire legitimate Catholics. But there are only a limited number that are proper to them.
Sherry:
As Jeff notes, there's more that goes into a good liturgy than "what makes me feel good."
There simply is something objectively more solemn in a Tridentine Mass, or a Latin traditional Novus Ordo, and your average parish Novus Ordo. The very orientation of the ceremony is different. It's non-secular, and sobe definition more sacred, i.e. set-apart from the ordinary.
Look at every other liturgy of the Church: the modern Nervous Ordo, versues the Tridentine and Eastern Rites. There's something in the Novus rite that simply sets it apart from all the others, not only in accidentals but in the very substance.
I propose that the reason you don't see this is because you can't: you simply do not have adequate liturgical formation, either through study or, more importantly, through experience.
What's wrong with my idea about the Chuch inculturating ritual sex into the Eucharistic sacrifice?
Sex is what's relevant to most people today. And besides, the Church's doctrine is always developing. You see, the Scriptures don't really condemn fornication, sodomy, and adultery; the Jews and early Christians just THOUGHT that God was condemning such things, and that's all the Scriptures are saying.
Got it?
When have I ever said "Screw'em" regarding Latin American Pentecostals?
When you liken them to fornicators and suggest that the only thing that motivates them is sin.
"what if the forms of the liturgy are less about "style" and more deeply connected with substance than many of us think? What if there a certain kinds of worship--or at least liturgical worship--which the Church cannot stretch to embrace without deforming her mission?"
Very important. "Aesthetic" is not synonymous with "superficial."
I'll remind you all that orthodoxy doesn't mean just "correct belief", but also "correct glory."
What's wrong with my idea about the Chuch inculturating ritual sex into the Eucharistic sacrifice?
As I say, Daniel, this sort of complete contempt for people who don't belong to the Liturgical Club is not hard to find among Trads.
Meanwhile, the Church hemhorrages while Eric is safe in his little Fortress, comparing charismatic Catholics to Baal worshippers. And the Trad subculture of Liturgy Police are *baffled* at why they have such a strong image as bitter, cramped people.
Hello, Jeff,
Please let me explain a difficulty that I have with your support of the reform of the reform. As I understand it, the claim is made that the Novus Ordo embodies certain illegitimate (not just unwise or perfectable) applications of Vatican II's call for a revision of the rites. Now you're claiming that Benedict XVI's private theological opinions (not yet incarnated in any documents) are binding. Why? Because he's the pope? Well, Paul VI had authority to revise the liturgy beyond the explicit norms of Vatican II. The claim that some of the elements of the Novus Ordo need to be improved, noone denies. But that they were illegitimate is an attack on the authority of Paul VI. Personal opinions of the compatibility of a given reform with "Tradition" do not trump a fully authorized reform measure of the pope. All these things can be changed, and arguing for a change is always in order. But the very fact that liturgy has been constantly changing since the days of the Apostles (not the form of the sacraments, of course) is a good argument for not arguing against everything new. Pius XII went against over a millenium of liturgical practice to restore more ancient Holy Week rites. His model was based on the widespread critique of the existing rites by most liturgiologists. All of us, apparently, agree that some change is regressive. Traditionalists want a restored Tridentine Rite. I would argue that replacing the Novus Ordo lectionary with the Tridentine preicopes in the MISSALE ROMANUM gressive. The Novus Ordo lectionary is far superior, both in the intelligence of selection and the breadth of selection of biblical texts. Do we really want to go back to a lectionary that has relatively few Old Testament readings (compared to the Novus Ordo) when the Church is making every effort to improve its relationship with the Jewish people?
Joseph Ratzinger was, and is, a world class theologian respected by all. His field was systematic theology, not liturgiology. His views are taken with seriousness by those who've spent their lives in the academic study of liturgy who have an interest in pastoral aspects as well, but a common complaint is that he's attached himself too closely to a few, not very highly respected, German scholars. And Benedict XVI, with characteristic humility, has not imposed his views in this area. The bishops at the Synod on the Eucharist were, for the most part, quite unsympathetic to the "reform of the reform" agenda.
I pressed the wrong key. I meant to say that replacing the Novus Ordo lectionary with the pericopes from the Tridentine MISSALE ROMANUM would be regressive.
Jeff:
Sigh. I'm not advocating for any particular style of liturgy at all.
I have no particular preferences myself and am personally not that fond of charismatic worship (I find all the standing up and waving of arms distracting - I'm not from a Pentecostal background myself and as a Quaker was used to the charisms emerging out of silence)
1) I'm simply contemplating what the Church needs to learn from the enormous apparent attraction of the charismatic/Pentecostal movement to Latin American Catholics. Because I do have a special, unusual, and extensive background in the 20th century history of evangelical missions in Catholic areas and evangelization is part of my job.
2) It's not either-or. There are a variety of legitimate styles of Mass and worship and both charismatic and Traditionalism are only two among others.
3) All the evidence is that traditionalism is not irresistably attractive to the masses and therefore not the irresistable wave of the liturgical future as traditionalist bloggers often imply or openly assert. Even with complete freedom to offer the Latin Mass anywhere, anytime (which I would be happy to see), the vast majority of Catholics all over the world will continue to worship in the venacular. Especially in Latin America and Africa where exuberance and expressive is a traditional, hard-wired part of worship in the culture.
4) Tom Haessler is right. I have great admiration for the Pope as a shining example of European intellectual Catholicism at its most brilliant and gracious. He's wonderful and since the charismatic renewal is a perfectly legitimate movement within the larger Church, naturally, he will give it his formal blessings.
But I agree, nothing in his temperament, natural tastes, intellectual and cultural formation and many years in Rome has prepared him to really grasp from the inside why charismatic worship is so attractive to the poor of Latin America. That's not a complaint, just a recognition that he's a real human being like the rest of us.
5) What is it about "Liturgy is not my job" that you don't understand? Neither is moral theology, spiritual theology, ecumenism, bio-ethics, canon law, etc. Docility to Church teaching does not require that I acquire a expertise in all these areas to be faithful or serious and it certainly doesn't require me to fret over the implementation of the liturgy.
The fact that I recognize it and am willing to let those specially called and trained to do so handle these critical areas of the Church's life does not mean that I don't consider them important or that I hold them in distain.
It just means "*this* is my job" and *this"* is not."
Mark:
I concede that I'm a bitter person; though you wouldn't know it if you saw or interactied with me in public. I further concede that I wish I wasn't this way. But this is where the Church has brought me; returning to the Church in high school, I've been spiritually abused and sodomized by her pastors, and have a lotta resentment. Oh well.
Tom:
The reason so many of us are proponents of Ratzinger's thoughts is that Ratzinger as a theologian was not just speaking for himself. As can be seen byanyone who reads his work, particularly those on the liturgy, he draws on principles that are objectively true and are rooted in the Tradition of the Church.
The same cannot be said of others.
Also note, that I don't think Jeff is advocating a full-scale return to the '62 Missal. In some respects, the new Lectionary, for instance, is vastly superior to the old. (On the other hand, every other Rite of the Church does just fine with only two readings at their liturgy, both from the New Testament. Old Testament readings are read at the Office hours.)But the Novus Ordo as a whole is just a disaster, and only someone unacquainted with Catholic litugical principles (Vatican II included) could claim otherwise.
Mark:
I'm in no fortress. I'm doing my best to evangelize the culture and to educate fellow Catholics in authentic doctrine and liturgy. I wish most of our pastors could say the same.
Comparing heterodox worship to fornication is not a void comparison either. Our liturgy, and our very Catholicism, has been raped and mutilated by our pastors beyond recognition. The Tridentine Mass did not cause this problem, but the dramatic suppression of it contributed to these.
And by the way, what's wrong with the Church being a fortress? Obviously, we're not JUST a fortress, but we are one nevertheless. I'm sure there's precedent for this analogy in the Church's authentic tradition.
Sherry:
It appears to be impossible for some people to hear "I don't care about X" without taking it to mean "Who cares about X?"
It appears to be impossible for some people to hear "We should try to understand what motivates people to leave the Church for Pentacostalism" without taking it to mean "We must all become Pentacostal".
It appears to be impossible for some people to hear "Different people have different forms of spirituality" without taking it to mean "Up with Clown Masses! Death to the Tridentine Rite!"
It appears to be impossible for some people to hear "The Church has a responsibility to preach the gospel in a way it can be understood and received" without taking it to mean "Let us worship Baal and practice ritual sex in the Liturgy".
Unbelievable.
Eric:
It's Hell that Jesus depicts as a Fortress, as in "the gates of Hell."
And, once again, you are thinking in diagrams. I'm not talking about heterodox worship. I'm talking about human beings. You compare them to fornicators and then ask when you said, "Screw 'em." News flash: a Charismatic Catholic is not a fornicator. He is a Catholic and indeed a Catholic in good standing with Holy Mother Church. You have no interest in *persons*, Eric. Just diagrams. Just clubs. Just a Fortress you can hide in and a private papal throne from which you can anathematize those who don't share your tastes in piety.
Eric:
You wrote:
"I was simply making the point that practicing, obedient Catholics will sit through a Novus Ordo if they have to; but most unbelievers, or other Catholics simply less developed in the faith, are practically unable to take seriously a rite whose solemnity is akin to a Cub-Scout jamboree."
Ah, Eric. The above *just isn't true*. You just don't get around the Catholic world much - but I do. Latin Masses in Seattle, Arabic ones in Jerusalem, high Latin Masses at the Brompton Oratory, at the Jesu, St. Peter's etc. Byzantine Masses, Spanish Masses for slaughter house workers in Kansas, charismatic Masses, informal English Masses in suburbia, Mass in Indonesian in a sanctuary where bats routinely flew out of the organ in front. Thousands of Masses in hundreds of different places in 70 difference dioceses on 4 continents. It's just not true for the majority of Catholics in the majority of places. They are asking very different questions.
I have experienced the traditional Mass in Latin in Traditionalist congregations done with beautiful music. It's not for lack of experience. It was mildly interesting, no more. And that's ok.
PS I loved classical music since I was 16 and first discovered it: Gregorian chant, polyphony, Palestrina, Mozart, etc. I was a huge fan of our women's Schola at Blessed Sacrament who specialized in this.
It's not about taste. It's about the legitimate freedom that the Church offers her members. I often found the NO Masses at Blessed Sacrament very moving, inspiring, and reverent.
And now, entertaining as this is, I must return to my real work . . .
Now Mark, did you REALLY think I was proposing that you thought we should have Baal worship?
I mean, you slam me for distorting what you say, but is that what I said?
I wasn't attacking anyone. I admitted that anyone along the spectrum could be right. I was just proposing that maybe people who thought that Palestrina masses (and I'm guessing that's your shortform for more traditional kinds of Catholic worship) were a big part of fixing things weren't entirely off the deep end.
And I addressed specific things that WERE said by several posters.
I didn't see anyone, even the strident Eric G, claim you were proposing Baal worship or anything like it.
Surely there's a reasonable and fruitful discussion to be had here, isn't there?
Jeff:
Read Eric's latest crazy rants.
Hi, Mark. I'm a veteran of the Catholic charismatic renewal, and I still have a very soft spot in my heart for it. I have fond associations with fold-up metal chairs--LOL!
I've seen terrible abuses in the renewak, esp. in connection with the "covenant communities," but I still think it was a net Good Thing for the Church. It needs to be disciplined; it needs to be under the local bishop and the Magisterium; but it should not be suppressed, IMHO.
If it can help stem the tide of Catholics decamping for evangelicalism, then more power to it.
Diane "Happy Clappy" Kamer
You mean you're not a Baal worshipping fornicator in single-minded pursuit of sex rites in the liturgy, Diane?
You must be one of the lucky survivors.
One more note:
A couple days ago, it was announced by the AP that the Pope had called for an end of guitar music during Mass. What he actually said is quite different:
"An authentic updating of sacred music cannot take place except in the wake of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.
The entire church should be able to hear that type of music, he said, because it is part of the church's "invaluable spiritual, artistic and cultural patrimony."
Pope Benedict said, "An authentic updating of sacred music cannot take place except in the wake of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony."
The pope said that in music, as in art and architecture, the church promotes and supports "new expressive means without denying the past -- the history of the human spirit -- which is also the story of its dialogue with God."
Gregorian chant and polyphony should be available to the whole Church but the Church supports "new expressive means." We are not limited to chant and polyphony, we are just not to supress or forget it.
As Tom would say: Can we say "both-and"?
Although I love the Tridentine Mass and hope and pray that Benedict XVI will grant a universal indult, I do agree with Mark that viewing a return to the old rite as a panacea is simplistic at best. Certainly, those attracted to the pentecostal style of worship would find it alien.
But the primary problem in Latin America is not liturgical abuses. The primary problem in Latin America is a shortage of priests, a condition that has existed there since the continent was evangelized by the Spanish and Portuguese. In the U. S., the ratio of Catholics per priest is on the order of 1300 Catholics per priests. In many Latin American dioceses, the ratio is well over 5,000, with diocesan ratios of 10,000 or even 20,000 Catholics per priest not uncommon.
We must pray for the Latin American bishops as they confront the challenge of pentecostal evangelizing, and pray for more priestly vocations there.
Thanks for the cite of B16's very sensible words, Sherry.
Mark, you're an idiot.
Either that, or you're deliberately mosconstruing what I wrote, and what comparison I was making, and what I was not claiming.
Obviously, I was showing the absurdity of the proposition, which you seem to espouse, "We need to see what attracts people to other churches and adopt it ourselves."
I know what attracts people: Sex. Why not bring sex into our churches?
In other words: What is attracting people to charismatic worship is something antithetical to Catholicism.
At least antithetical to the Catholicism espoused by nearly every Catholic before 1969.
Oh, and further, I also spoofed the rediculous notion, also endorsed and espoused on this blog, that Scriptue is flat-out lying when it says "God declared such-and-such" where such-and-such is something politically incorrect.
Delberately misconstruing the intent of my remarks would be uncahirtable and sinful. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you're stupid and don't know better.
Tom:
"Certainly, those attracted to the pentecostal style of worship would find it alien."
Hedonists, and most men, find the Church's teachings against masturbation alien. Why don't we conform to the times and say it's OK?
I'm Catholicism's Ann Coulter and proud of it!
Goodbye, Eric.
Actually, chant is a lot more like Jewish prayer cantillation and songs than anything else. Though both often contain a great deal of emotion and melisma and such, the prime ingredient of this kind of singing is control and knowing where you're going.
You try to practice and internalize all that to the point where the control of technique no longer has to be conscious, but I assure you, it's not at all like glossolalia. You are striving for comprehensibility and thus you work for the best enunciation, both of the music and the words. For a singer, anyway, the ecstasy of song is more Apollonian than Dionysian.
Hello, Maureen,
Byzantine chant is far more emotional than Gregorian chant as travelors to Greece and Russia assure us.
If it's true that all the Eastern Rites have very few Old Testament texts in the Liturgy of the Word, then the revision of their rites in the light of the patristic evidence is long overdue. In the early patristic period, the practice of lectio continua prevailed. Very extensive passages from the Old Testament were read and the bishop would decide when the lector should cease. I notice that those, like Eric, who are convinced that the Novus Ordo is evil, also are wedded to the exegesis of yesteryear that has long been superceded in accordance with papal and conciliar directives.
Mr. Haessler,
a slight tangent but what books would you recommend on liturgy? I always find your posts very interesting.
+J.M.J+
>>>All the evidence is that traditionalism is not irresistably attractive to the masses and therefore not the irresistable wave of the liturgical future as traditionalist bloggers often imply or openly assert. Even with complete freedom to offer the Latin Mass anywhere, anytime (which I would be happy to see), the vast majority of Catholics all over the world will continue to worship in the venacular.
Regretfully, I have to agree with that assessment. As much as I love the Tridentine Mass, I can't help but notice that it does not seem to have tremendous appeal among average Catholics. In my experience, the vast majority of Catholics I've talked to prefer the current vernacular Mass - warts and all.
I remember especially my maternal Grandma (God rest her soul), a devout cradle Catholic who said 15 decades of the Rosary every night - and who taught me how to pray it during the Mary-forgetting 1970's. Yet even she preferred the current Mass to the one she knew for most of her life. No modernist Protestant wannabe was she, who lived by the dictum, "I was born a Catholic and will die a Catholic!" - and she did!
She's not alone, or even in the minority. Granted, I don't have the breadth of Sherry's experience, but I could point to my own diocese as an example. There are 1.8 million Catholics here in the Diocese of Brooklyn, spread out among 216 parishes. For over a decade, this diocese had only one Indult Mass in Brooklyn, which drew approximately 75 worshippers each Sunday. Bishop DiMarzio graciously added a second Indult Mass in Queens recently, which attracts maybe 40 or so worshippers. Some of those probably attended the Mass in Brooklyn in the past, but even if those 40 worshippers are all completely new to the Tridentine Mass (I'm being as generous as possible here), that leaves less than 120 traditionalists in this diocese. Out of 1.8 million Catholics here, only about 120 prefer the Latin Tridentine Mass. Hardly sounds like a massive popular groundswell!
As for liturgical abuse, there's plently of huffing and puffing in the St. Blog's comboxes over priests changing the words of the Mass, ignoring the rubrics, the sappy music, "liturgical dance," etc. I have even joined in bashing such practices myself, since I dislike them intensely. There is obviously a subset of Catholics who don't like that stuff, and I am definitely a part of it. Yet I must admit, I rarely hear such complaints from the Average Joe (or Jo) Catholic in the pews. They just take it all in stride, many of them no doubt unaware that any "abuse" is occurring. They probably just assume it's all allowed nowadays.
In fact, many of them actually seem to like some of the abuses. I'll never forget the Mass my husband and I attended twelve years ago, where a priest who was new to the parish used a stage floodlight, a boombox and an industrial-sized vacuum cleaner as "props" during his first homily. He also joshed with the usher who brought out the vacuum cleaner and the altar boy who owned the boombox. It was quite a display, but y'know what? THE CONGREGATION LOVED IT! They laughed and applauded, and everyone greeted and effusively praised him on the way out after Mass. Jim and I both thought it was rather off, yet his opening performance was definitely a big hit with most of the crowd!
Then there was another priest at a parish in this area who changed the words of the Mass freely, studiously avoided calling God "Father" and paced up and down the aisle during his homilies, speaking in a loud voice and basically doing his level best imitation of a Baptist preacher. His homilies always got ovations afterward, and when he celebrated his last Mass before being transferred to another church, the teenagers of the parish all crowded around him after that Mass, asking him to autograph their parish bulletins! A local mini-celebrity, all because he entertained the flock.
So forgive me if I am a little more pessimistic about the alleged broad appeal that Latin Tridentine Masses, or even beautiful, reverent Pauline Masses, will supposedly have among the laity. Too many of them have been poorly catechetized and formed more by our culture's thirst for entertainment than by silence, reverence and beauty. Too many have been told again and again that what came before was "bad" and the changes were all "good", and have internalized that lie. Also, too many of them really like being able to actually understand what the priest is saying, and feeling "included" in the liturgy, rather than watching from the pews while the priest and altar boys talk to each other in a foreign tongue.
Mind you, I wish that weren't so. I wish more people could appreciate the beauty of our Catholic heritage. Yet I have to call 'em as I see 'em, and this is what I see - with much dismay.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Oh, another angle I forgot to mention: when some priests try to get the flock to follow the rubrics, they don't always meet with success. One pastor in my area tried for a long time to get the people to bow at the appropriate point during the Creed, but it never caught on. He tried reminding them right before its recitation, he tried reminding them during the Creed right before the point where they should bow - to no avail. The folks in the pews just wouldn't take direction in this area, for one reason or another. This in a parish where the priests really strive to follow the rubrics, and were very meticulous about applying Liturgicam Authenticam (sp.
Now, on a more personal note, I've stated before in these comboxes that I joined the Catholic Charismatic movement when I returned to the Church after five years in Evangelicalism. At that point, I had no real interest in Latin or traditionalism or any of that stuff. I actually attended my first Tridentine Mass around that same time - out of pure curiosity, not because I wanted to go regularly. I remember that it did not at all appeal to me back then the way it does now. I still had a prejudice against the old ways instilled in me during my youth in the 1970's, and it took a long while and a lot of education to overcome that nonsense.
Yes, I have changed a lot since then, and I'm sure the Holy Ghost moved me toward tradition. Yet He began with me where I was at the time. He was not absent from me when I attended Charismatic Masses and prayer meetings; He was there, ever patient with my weaknesses, as He gently led me over time from there to where I am now.
Perhaps it's wrong to presume on His actions, but maybe, just maybe, that's what He's doing among all the Charismatics in Brazil and elsewhere. He may be using the Charismatic Renewal down there for the time being, as a tool to keep Catholics in the Church amid the wide appeal of Evangelicalism. Yet I'm sure He intends to eventually lead those same Charismatics to an appreciation of more traditional forms of liturgy - each at their own pace. After all, that's more or less what happened in the US, the cradle of the Charismatic Renewal. The moveme;nt was big for a time, but as Sherry said in a previous combox, it is now "a shadow of its former self" in North America. Yet so many orthodox Catholics today are its "alumni", and many, like myself, have come to love more traditional liturgy and devotions. Whose to say the same thing won't happen in Latin America in, say, a decade or two?
In Jesu et Maria,
One clarification: when I wrote above,
"Too many have been told again and again that what came before was "bad" and the changes were all "good", and have internalized that lie."
I was not saying that all the changes after the Council were bad; I don't believe that at all. In fact I agree with Tom above that the current lectionary is better because it contains more Scripture, particularly from the Old Testament.
What I'm saying is that the modernist notion that everything "preconciliar" was bad while everything "postconciliar" is good is a lie. There was much good before the Second Vatican Council, a lot of which, regretfully, got thrown out too hastily and should be brought back. Yet there is also much good now, even amid the bad stuff like liturgical abuse. I hope more modern Catholics will come to appreciate what was good in the past.
In Jesu et Maria,
Mark,
Now, I'm more of a Latin Novus Ordo kind of person. Cardinal Artinze's my man. I like the Tridentine Mass, and I'm willing to accept a *little* of the modern innovations (I happen to like "On Eagle's Wings," for example), and don't see anything wrong with a modern hymn that's actually from the bible and not out of context.
Anyway, I can't stand Charismatic Spirituailty. It goes against everything you find in the writings of the Church's greatest saints and mystics. Where most Cathoilc spirituality is about self-denial and growth, Charismatic "spirituality" is about feeling good and avoiding introspection.
I wouldn't say "Let 'em leave," but I'm not about to be pleased that that the pews are filled with people coming to Mass for the wrong reasons and practicing a bad, possibly even Satanic spirituality.
Cardinal Arinze says anytime you have clapping at Mass, there's something terribly wrong.
And lastly, Charismatics tend to be some of the most Pharisaic Catholics, at least here in the US. Their feelgood, "I'm OK/You're OK" Catholicism keeps them from confronting the harsh realities of the world. They don't like being around sick people. If you're disabled, or have a genetic disorder, they tell you, "Obviously you don't have enough faith, or Jesus would have cured you."
Charismatic "spirituality" is Satanic to the core.
"Charismatic "spirituality" is Satanic to the core."
Please. I know any number of kind, good, prayerful, charismatic Catholics--not least of which is my wife. Charismatics have their defects, like everybody. But "satanic to the core" is a comment that reveals more about you than about them.
Fransciscan University: Satanic to the Core! Peter Kreeft: Satanic to the Core!
Give thou me a break.
I saw an item in yesterday paper about a gay-friendly Pentecostal church forming here, part of a national alliance of such churches. Now do you suppose that the "Spirit" will pour out charismatic gifts on sexually active homosexuals who think their practices morally fine? If so, might not one question what sort of "Spirit" we're dealing with?
Sandra:
Of course. But does it really follow from this that charismatics are all "satanic to the core"? Since so many Trads are bitter and angry, does it really follow that "Tridentine spirituality is, to its very core, consumed by the deadly sin of anger"?
This sort of simple-minded labeling is silly.
No Need to Fear Charismatic Renewal
by Fr. Rainero Cantalamess, OFMCap,
Preacher to Papal Household. (You saw him preaching at St. Peters in front of Pope Benedict during this past Holy Week on EWTN)
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, SEPT. 26, 2003
Baptism in the Spirit makes the Catholic Charismatic Renewal a formidable means willed by God to revitalize Christian life, says the preacher of the Papal Household.
Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa made that point Thursday as a gathering of more than 1,000 delegates of Catholic Charismatic Renewal from 73 countries drew to a close.
The delegates had gathered for a spiritual retreat and to reflect on holiness in light of John Paul II's apostolic letter "Novo Millennio Ineunte." Father Cantalamessa was the retreat master.
Taking into account Protestant, evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, and some members of the Orthodox Church, it is estimated that 600 million Christians have had the charismatic experience.
Given his knowledge of the "charismatic" experience, ZENIT interviewed Father Cantalamessa just before the conclusion of the meeting.
Q: There are those in the Church who think that "baptism in the Spirit" is an invention of the charismatics, and that a name has been given to an experience that is not "catalogued" in the Church. Could you explain, from your own experience, what baptism in the Spirit is?
Father Cantalamessa: Baptism in the Spirit is not a human invention; it is a divine invention. It is a renewal of baptism and of the whole of Christian life, of all the sacraments.
For me, it was also a renewal of my religious profession, of my confirmation, and of my priestly ordination. The whole spiritual organism is revived as when wind blows on a flame. Why has the Lord decided to act at this time in such a strong way? We don't know. It is the grace of a new Pentecost.
It is not about Charismatic Renewal inventing baptism in the Spirit. In fact, many have received baptism in the Spirit without knowing anything about Charismatic Renewal. It is a grace; it depends on the Holy Spirit. It is a coming of the Holy Spirit which is manifested in repentance of sins, in seeing life in a new way, which reveals Jesus as the living Lord -- not as a personage of the past -- and the Bible becomes a living word. The fact is, this cannot be explained.
There is a revelation with baptism, because the Lord says that whoever believes will be baptized and saved. We received baptism as children and the Church pronounced our act of faith, but the time comes when we must ratify what happened at baptism. This is an occasion to do so, not as a personal effort, but under the action of the Holy Spirit.
One cannot say that hundreds of millions of people are in error. In his book on the Holy Spirit, Yves Congar, that great theologian who did not belong to Charismatic Renewal, said that, in fact, this experience has changed profoundly the lives of many Christians. And it is a fact. It has changed them and initiated paths of holiness.
Q: How do you carry out your ministry as Papal Household preacher given your experience in Charismatic Renewal?
Father Cantalamessa: For me, everything that has happened since 1977 is the fruit of my baptism in the Spirit. I was a university professor. I was dedicated to scientific research in the history of Christian origins. And when I accepted this experience, not without resistance, I then had the call to leave it all and be available for preaching.
My appointment as Papal Household preacher also came after I experienced this "resurrection." I see it as a great grace. After my religious vocation, Charismatic Renewal has been the most marked grace in my life.
Q: From your point of view, do the members of Charismatic Renewal have a specific vocation in the Church?
Father Cantalamessa: Yes and no. Charismatic Renewal, it must be said and repeated, is not an ecclesial movement. It is a current of grace that is meant to transform the Church -- preaching, the liturgy, personal prayer, Christian life.
So it is not a spirituality as such. The movements have a spirituality and emphasize a particular aspect, for example, charity. First of all, Charismatic Renewal does not have a founder. No one thinks of attributing a founder to Charismatic Renewal because it is something that started in many places in different ways. And it does not have a spirituality; it is Christian life lived in the Spirit.
However, it can be said that as the people who have lived this experience are, socially, a reality -- they are people who do certain gestures, pray in a certain way -- then a social reality can be identified whose role is simply to be available so that others can have the same experience, and then disappear.
Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens, who was the great protector and supporter of Charismatic Renewal in its beginnings, said that the final destiny of Charismatic Renewal might be to disappear when this current of grace has spread throughout the Church.
Q: As you are about to finish preaching a retreat attended by 1,000 Charismatic delegates from all over the world, what message would you like to give believers who do not know the Renewal?
Father Cantalamessa: I want to say to the faithful, to bishops, to priests, not to be afraid. I don't know why there is fear. Perhaps, in some measure, because this experience began in other Christian confessions, such as Pentecostals and Protestants.
However, the Pope is not afraid. He has spoken of the ecclesial movements, and also of Charismatic Renewal, as signs of a new springtime of the Church, and he often stresses the importance of this. And Paul VI said it was an opportunity for the Church.
There is no need for fear. There are episcopal conferences, for example in Latin America -- this is true of Brazil -- where the hierarchy has discovered that Charismatic Renewal is not a problem. It is part of the solution to the problem of Catholics who have left the Church because they don't find in it a living word, a lived Bible, the possibility of expressing the faith in a joyful manner, in a free way, and Charismatic Renewal is a formidable means that the Lord has given the Church so that one can live an experience of the Spirit, Pentecostal, in the Catholic Church, without the need to leave the Church.
Nor should Charismatic Renewal be regarded as an "island" where some emotional people get together. It is not an island. It is a grace meant for all the baptized. The external signs can be different, but in its essence, it is an experience meant for all the baptized.
So the Papal Preacher is "satanic to the core"! No doubt his plans for sex rites during the Eucharistic liturgy are already being implemented by Benedict.
Sometimes I think my comboxes are islands of lunacy and extremism in an ocean of ordinary common sense.
To Serry, Mark, etc.............
For the last 40 years various experiments have been tried with the liturgy to "bring it down to the people" The Charismatic movment today is little more than an updated version of the folk masses that started in the mid 60s. Time and time again, various clergy and liturgists have tried to re invent the wheel, taking the mass and in many ways, the intituional church further and fruther away from her roots, and the net result is the losses get worse and worse.
What can be said about Pentacostals? In my observations, they gain many members because simpily put, its easy. Little to no mention of sin, many are from the "Once saved allways saved" school, yes they are friendly and welcome people, but it lacks substance, and any attempt for the Catholic church to out Charismatyic these groups will fail and fail horribly, since so many ex Catholics are attrackted to the easy to swallow "theology" of these sects.
John B:
The charismatic renewal did not start as a liturgical movement at all and certainly wasn't spawned by folk Masses. It started as a spontaneous experience at a student retreat in Pittsburgh in 1967 and spread like wildfire. Trying to find a way to integrate this spiritual experience into the liturgy came later.
I was raised in a strictly "once saved, always saved" fundamentalist that *simultaneously* believed very firmly that both the Catholic church and all charismatic phenomena was demonically-inspired. This was a very common belief among evangelicals until the charismatic movement became widespread in non-Pentecostal groups in the 1980's.
Its nice to realize that the tendency to equate "I don't agree with them" to "they are demonically inspired" is an equal opportunity act of thoughtlessness not limited to fundies.
I know from experience that most "once saved, always saved" folks are vastly more aware and concerned about issues of sin than the vast majority of the tens of thousands of Catholics around the world that I have worked with personally. It isn't even close.
In fact, our view of the Catholics was what you describe is your view of Pentecostals: people who just didn't take sin seriously at all. Catholics were "religious" pagans who drank, smoked, gambled, swore, danced, and generally sinned right, left, and center thinking they could just go to confession on Saturday night and it would be ok.
It may be hard to understand but there are other motivations to wrestle with sin than worrying about whether one will be saved or not.
Because almost all "once saved, always saved" Protestants are intentional disciples, they are usually motived by other issues like a desire to love and serve Christ. And for most, there is a lot of substance.
I'm sorry, but in terms of serious discipleship: a 100 Pentecostals picked at random would simply *swamp* 1000 Catholics picked at random any day. No comparison at all.
Whatever you think of their style of worship, theirs is a culture of discipleship and general Catholic culture, outside a few hotbeds, is not.
Mark, I didn't say that all charismatic phenomena were of satanic orgin. You haven't answered my question. Would the real Holy Spirit pour out charismatic graces on practicing homosexuals who deny what they do is sinful? If He wouldn't, then at least some charismatic phenomena have some other (even natural) origin. Were the Camisards, French Prophets, and Irvingites being favored by God?
I've expressed my personal distaste for the charismatic style. I really do not understand why "slaying in the spirit," hysterical babbling, laughing, gyrating, or making animal sounds are supposed to be profoundly spiritual and sources of Church renewal.
Do those charismatic communities (Catholic or not) in Brazil do anything about Afro-syncretism? Do they lead people away from the worship of false gods, something endemic among Afro and Indo populations in Latin America. Don't assume that all Latin Americans were actually Christian, even 500 years after the fact.
Mark,
I think, trying to be tactful but honest, that your bitterness towards the Traditionalist crowd stems from a fact you recently posted: your wife is a charismatic Christian.
It is impossible for me to think of my wife as anything other than a devout Christian, so I can understand why you would equate concerns about the charismatic movement with folks saying "Shea's wife is a heretic".
That said, I've noticed that the mood on your blog has gotten consistently more chilly for those of us who believe in Traditionalist worship (not just Tridentine, but the Eastern Rites as well) and who see much error in the modern American Catholic Church.
Bluntly, would you prefer that folks like me just shut the hell up and move to another blog?
I really want to know. It is, after all, your blog, and if you would prefer that, then I think it's the proper thing to accommodate it.
That said, I learn a lot by thinking through the opposing positions on this blog.
It just seems that, in the past couple months, that contrary opinions to yours (with respect to Traditional Catholicism) anger you, as opposed to being met with more nuanced counterargument.
Am I misinterpreting your responses to Gene and others, or do you agree?
Respectfully,
Sandra:
I'm probably in a better position to speak to your questions than Mark.
If you are asking if charisms can manifest in someone in a state of mortal sin, the answer is yes. Charisms do not confer sanctifying grace nor are they a guarantee or indication of sanctity.
They are gratuitious graces that are not for us and are not necessary for our own personal salvation but enable us to be instruments of God's provision, mercy, wisdom, or truth for others.
Every parish I've ever been is filled with people in various states of struggle with sin - including the sexual - and the charisms manifest there. Sometimes it just because God want *this* person to receive *this* grace and you were there and available. In a very real sense, its not about you at all.
There are a number of factors related to when and how charisms manifest that I don't have time to elaborate on here. The main point: the presence of mortal sin in a community doesn't render it a "charism-free" zone. And the corollary is also true: the presence of a charism is not proof of a person's state of grace or interior life. That must be judged on a very different basis. Therefore, miracles worked while in this life do not factor into someone's canonization.
But the issue is always discernment. As you know, there have been tons of phony, hysterical, even criminal and demonic "manifestations" through Church history - but the Church has always acknowledged that there has been a ton of authentic charisms manifested as well. It's never been all or nothing. It's always about discernment.
That's why discernment of charisms is one of the important task of the hierarchy's role of governance. To be exact, the Church teaches that priests are to:
*Recognize
*Uncover with faith
*Acknowledge with joy
*Foster with diligence
*Appreciate
*Judge and discern
*Coordinate and put to good use
*Have “heartfelt esteem” for
the charisms of all the baptized.
Sources:
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 30; Decree on Ministry and Life of Priests, 9; I Will Give You Shepherds, 40, 74; Lay Members of Christ’s Faithful People, 32
The funny thing is that I've sat down with some of the most theologically conservative people (including priests) in the most conservative dioceses in the world, people who would develop hives at the very thought of darkening the door of a prayer meeting and who have no contact at all with the charismatic renewal - and they tell me stories of experiencing gifts of healing, intercessory prayer, prophecy, etc.
It doesn't require any particular kind of spiritual experience or emotion or a particular kind of prayer or worship or speaking in tongues or any of that.
It is completely independent of any involvement with the "renewal". It's the fruit of the Holy Spirit that we all received in baptism and confirmation.
In that sense we are all (even Traditionalists) charismatic.
Sandra:
PS - charismatics are, in my experience, much more aware and scandalized by the Christo-paganism of much of popular Latin American Catholicism than are many non-charismatics.
A good deal of this is because they really believe in the demonic and its power and are not taking an Enlightenment "that's all primitive supersition" stance. Since a number are involved in healing ministry, they often acquire some experience in deliverance ministry as well. I've honestly never come across a charismatic who would minimize the seriousness and reality of the demonic.
Believe it or not, there are some very, very sophisticated charismatics - spiritually, psychologically, theologically, intellectually. I've met them, talked to them, read their scholarly work.
As Fr. Cantalamessa is proof, the whole spectrum of the Church is to be found in charismatic circles.
I guess I should point out at this point that I'm not really a charismatic (in the part of the renewal sense) myself. But my travels and the nature of my work has given the chance to get to know and work with lots of charismatics.
Sandra,
"Would the real Holy Spirit pour out charismatic graces on practicing homosexuals who deny what they do is sinful?"
One might also ask whether the Holy Spirit is working in the Traditionalist movement, in which (at least) tens of thousands are in schism. I personally have no doubt that the Spirit can and does move amongst Traditionalists, but wheat and tares are spread throughout the entirety of the Church. Pointing to a few bad fruits doesn't invalidate an entire worldwide movement.
BTW, I'm not a part of the Charismatic Renewal.
+J.M.J+
Orthos, as a long time reader of this blog I must comment that Mark does not dislike traditionalism. One of his sons attends the Tridentine Mass, and he's okay with traditionalists as long as they remain faithful to the pope and don't become extremists (a.k.a. "radtrads" - radical traditionalists) who hate V2, hate the Pauline Mass, attend schismatic Masses and dislike the recent popes (or even consider them illegitimate).
Mark is critical of radical trads, but his criticisms of them are not meant to apply to faithful trads who attend Indult Masses and remain loyal to the pope.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
One more thing: Though I don't consider myself a traditionalist, I love the Tridentine Mass, Latin, Gregorian Chant, traditional devotions, etc., and attend such when I can. I also love the Eastern Rite Divine Liturgies I have attended, and, like you, see much error in the modern American Catholic Church. Indeed, I have often criticized Amchurch on this blog.
Yet Mark never attacked me for that and I never felt like Mark was hostile toward me or my beliefs at all. I always understood that his criticisms were of extremist trads, not of the Tridentine Mass and traditions of the Church.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemary is right.
I've know the Sheas very well for almost 20 years. One of the older boys has a traditionalist bent and I've never heard anything but enthusiastic acceptance from both Mark and Jan.
Mark loves the Byzantine rite. There is absolutely no charismatic/traditionalist conflict going on in that family at any level because none exists in the mind of the Church and they know that.
What's driving Mark mad on his blog are "rad trads" who impune the validity of the Paul VI Mass, the faith, intelligence, and seriousness of non-traditionalist Catholics, and start throwing around accusations of the "demonic" nature of valid ecclesial movements.
I'm glad the Latin charismatics are opposed to the paganism and syncretisms present in their region. Maybe they can counteract the hold these errors have.
But, Sherry, you're using "charism" in a very broad sense whereas I was talking about the showy, bizarre manifestations of Charismaticism. I would rather talk about "graces" than "charisms" in your sense. Why is a new word needed for what used to be called Actual Grace (which can indeed be received by a person in sin). I just fail to see how rolling on the floor and oinking like a pig--an alleged effect of the so-called Toronto Blessing has anything to do with God or salvation or Church renewal.
Sandra:
I'm actually using the word "charism" in the very precise theological way that the Church does. Charisms are vehicles of a particular kind of grace which is quite clearly distinquished from other kinds of grace. The word began to be used in this particular way in the mid/late 4th century and is so used by St. Thomas and in the documents of V2 and since.
"Charism" is not a new idea at all, it was written about extensively by the Church fathers and is a much older concept than "actual grace"
The fact that popular use has blurred the word "charism" with a certain image of frenzied worship and for that matter, blurred the actual charismatic renewal with every and any unusual manifestation in history is seriously misleading. I've been to Baptist Bible studies that are more emotional than most charismatic Masses I've seen.
Sandra, you are a scholar. It's time to do some distinquishing!
The national leadership of the charismatic renewal,is, in my experience, is well balanced, rational, orthodox, docile to Church teaching and authority, and sometimes very sophisticated. They are paragons of thoughtfulness compared to most of the rants that fill St. Blog's on a daily basis.
Which is why I personally think that most of charismatic/anti-charismatic debate is, in fact, emotionally driven nonsense. Charismatics did and said some things in the early days (so I hear) that 35 and 40 years later have hardened into urban legends. But the reality of the renewal today is very, very different in most places.
You don't have to like their style of worship but its only fair to note that most of the leadership is impressive and very respectful of other kinds of liturgies. I have never once heard a charismatic speak of non-charismatics of any kind in the way that traditionalists routinely speak of them.
Don't merge the Toronto blessing phenomena and the Catholic charismatic renewal in your mind. They are totally separate.
The Toronto blessing was a Strictly "Reformation heritage" post-Protestant "independent/apostolic" phenomena that goes way beyond anything being taught or practiced in the renewal. And the stuff that was reported (like roaring) had nothing to do with charisms. John Wimber himself was very cautious about it and felt that the laughing phenomena was false.
I heard of one or two Catholic leaders in the east coast who got into it but that was all. In the west, where I was - nothing at all. I wouldn't have even known about it all except through the internet.
Rosemarie and Sherry,
Thank you for clarifying. I hadn't realized that one of Mark's sons was a Traditionalist; that actually makes me feel better, so that I don't have to feel like Traditionalist = evil when I'm visiting the site.
I'm hoping that Mark lives where the Novus Ordo is done reverently and beautifully, as in some of monasteries I've visited throughout the country.
Ah, so now that the Catholic Charismatic movement is in decline in the US it's quieted down? And the problems and scandals in those "covenant communities" all forgotten? And the famous "Rome Prophecies" announced by leaders in the '70s: "Buildings now standing will fall." This is a statement so generic as to mean anything. Why were we supposed to be impressed?
Outside the Church, surely you're not claiming that the Camisards, French Prophets, and Irvingites with their prophecies, ecstacies, and speaking in tongues weren't charismatic? Scott Hahn conveniently ignored them in his claim that speaking in tongues had not happened between Antiquity and 1900. (And then there was St. Luis Bertrand's miraculous ability to cross language barriers.)
Ecstatic babbling is a gift I neither desire nor admire nor understand why anyone is supposed to admire. I have experienced graces and have talents given by God. I wouldn't know a charism if it bit me on the hind hoof.
Sandra:
I wouldn't know a charism if it bit me on the hind hoof.
But I'm morally certain you've been exercising them all the same. There is a charism of writing, for instance . . . Someday we should talk.
There were always two strands in the renewal in the US - the covenant communities (with which I've had no contact) and the diocesan-based renewal centers and parish prayer groups (where all my exposure has been). I've been told there has been, historically, tension between the two groups. And I've heard/read about the shepherding problems in the 70's.
All I'm saying is that the renewal that I've know since the late 80's (I was teaching about the development of the canon of Scripture for them within two months of entering the Church) is a very different kettle of fish from what you are talking about, with very solid leadership.
It's just possible, that being remarkably like human beings, charismatics changed over the past 30 years!
I can't speak to the 16th and 17th century estatic movements and their similarities or differences from the late 20th century renewal. Don't know anything about them (well, except for the 17th century English Protestant ones that were contemporaries of the early Quakers. I know something about them because I've read Quaker history fairly extensively)
As a historian, you know that real knowledge of the specific case is critical to any serious understanding of a specific movement or time in history. It would be a serious methodological error to simply assume that the French prophets were the same phenomena as the early Quakers, for instance or 1970's American charismatics without critically looking at the specifics.
St. Louis Betrand is a very interesting example of a very rare gift - apparently true miraculous tongues that enabled him to be a startlingly effective missionary. That is very different from the "private prayer language" that many charismatics use in prayer.
Where did Scott Hahn make his statement about the history of tonques? I'm not familiar with it.
Eric G.
Ding!!
Thank you for playing, but your percentage (99.999....%) implies that there are more parishes than there are protons in the universe.
Which is unlikely.
Drat. He won't get to see my plodding, literal, materialist rejoinder now that he's banned.
Back when Scott Hahn was in the grip of his millennialist enthusiasm, he wrote an article for his department "Scripture Matters" in ENVOY. In it he argued that a garbled passage in Isaiah was actually about speaking in tongues and was a sign of impending doom. After declaring that there had been no glossalia from Antiquity to the 20th C, he then attributed the Protestant Pentecostal revival that started in 1900 to the prayers of St. Helen Guerra and claimed that it foretold impending doom for us. If he'd bothered to consult a basic reference such as the OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, he'd have discovered his error.
No, Quakers weren't Ranters. George Fox reproved one of the latter personally.
Some academic I studies I have are: FITS, TRANCES, AND VISIONS by Ann Taves; RADICAL RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE by Michael Mullett; SPIRIT POSSESSION AND POPULAR RELIGION by Clarke Garrett, ECSTATIC RELIGION by IM Lewis; and THE SECOND COMING by JFC Harrison.
Three are several different balls in the air in our discussion. Because American Catholic Charismatics are decorous, they're OK. (all right, although not to my taste) But Latin American Pentecostal sects and African "spirit churches" are anything but decorous yet we should see them as the future of Christianity. And if the real Holy Spirit pours out gifts on heretics and sinners, why wasn't he doing that for charismatic sects in the past? Or what was wrong with the Montantists and their prophesying?
Finally, I don't feel anything different in writing for the Catholic press versus my years in science fiction. How does a talent different from a charism?
Sandra:
I'm trying to finish a major presentation that I have due, so I'll have to be brief but
How does a talent differ from a charism?
You've just asked the most important and practical discernment question. There are three basic differences:
1) We don't inherit a charism from our parents (not genetically linked)although a talent can be. Charisms are sovereignly given by Holy Spirit for the sake of our mission.
2) We can't comfortably keep a charism to ourselves (although we can use a talent just for ourselves as a way to relax, a hobby, etc.) We will be restless until we can give a charism away. They are not for us - they are God's provision for others.
3) We can't use a charism deliberately for evil. So can't use a charism of administration to run a drug-smuggling operation or a charism of writing to write hate literature. (obviously, we can use talents for evil. To be successfully evil, you have to have real talent) Charism will wither away and disappear if we try to use them intentionally for evil.
There are 3 fundamental sign of a charism to be looked for over a period of months or years (not hours or days)
1) Your experience: Charisms tend to energize, are joyful/satisfying; you feel like you are "in your place" or where you belong; and are somehow connected to one's relationship with God. People use different language: Its like prayer or contemplation or "I have such a sense of the presence of God when I do this" etc.
2)Your effectiveness: Charisms do what they are supposed to do. If you think you have a charism of healing yet people are sicker when you are done, its a clue! There is a pattern of exceptional effectiveness and fruitfulness in the manifestation of a charism.
3)Feed-back from others. Indirect feed-back is when people ask you for your gifts. Somehow, people "sense" your charisms and will ask you for them even if you aren't aware of their existance. Direct feedback is when people say to you " that was so wonderful. I wonder if you have a gift in that area?")
The three signs need to occur regularly over time. This means that real discernment takes time - I usually suggest a minimum of 6 months for those with little experience in a particular area.
This is incredibly cursory overview of a more complicated topic. The best thing would be to attend one of our live C & G or buy one of our CD's/audio tapes to learn more in depth. http://siena.org/cgi-bin/merchant2
/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=SCC&
Category_Code=A
Has anyone noticed the phenomenon I have in a number of people? Many who experienced charismatic renewal in younger years finding themselves drawn to traditional worship in either Tridentine or Eastern rites. I've met a number of Catholics who gradually move from one side to the other.
I'm pretty sure I'll be ridiculed for saying this, but I've often thought the charismatic movement with its emphasis on mysterious tongues and its repetitions in worship simply mimics in a way what happens in more traditional forms of worship. It is, as it were, the mystery of worship for the more spiritually immature. Or to put it rather more crassly, charismatic worship is liturgical kindergarten. Not bad, but leading to something that is slightly different.
Sherry says:
"Gregorian chant and polyphony should be available to the whole Church but the Church supports "new expressive means." We are not limited to chant and polyphony, we are just not to supress or forget it."
I don't think this is enough to present an accurate picture of what the present Pope is saying.
This is what he said the other day:
“An authentic updating of sacred music cannot occur except in line with the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian Chant, and of sacred polyphony."
Now that doesn't mean that all we can have are chant and polyphony. But it DOES mean that 1. An updating of sacred music is needed, impliedly because it hasn't occurred; 2. Some updatings that occurred are not "authentic"; 3. Updatings must be "in line with" chant and polyphony, i.e., must grow out of them and be consistent with and a part of the great tradition which the exemplify; 4. Some kinds of music--including kinds of music used today in the Church--are not consistent with that tradition.
Again, if you haven't read the Pope's books on liturgy, you may not get the message from its abbreviated form. But no one who has read The Spirit of the Liturgy or A New Song for the Lord will be in any doubt that there are many types of music common in the Church today which Benedict considers alient to its nature.
It's more than just not suppressing or forgetting chant et al. It's about making sure that they are always the touchstone and that all musical developments are in harmony with them.
"What's driving Mark mad on his blog are "rad trads" who impune the validity of the Paul VI Mass"
I think it's worth remembering that while Msgr. Klaus Gamber never contested the VALIDITY of the Missal of Paul VI (nor do the vast majority of Lefebvrists and other radtrads), he DID strenuously claim that it was defective and out of synch with Tradition (capital 'T.') He also wrote that it was very doubtful that Pope Paul had the authority to make the kind of extensive changes in the liturgy that he did make. There's a shocker for you! The Pope's authority to change the liturgy is not absolute!
And Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a preface to the very book in which Gamber made these statements. Not a word of criticism in it, nothing but praise of Gamber!
When Ratzinger writes in God and the World that nothing like the revision of the liturgy under Paul and the suppression of the old rite had ever occurred in the history of the Church before, that it made it difficult to accept anything the Church says, it's hard not to think of him as having something more in common with the "ranters" on this thread than many of us might be comfortable with.
Well then, Sherry, I most certainly have only a talent for writing etc. and NOT a charism of any sort. None of your standards for discernment match my experiences.
Sandra:
Possibly - the best way to know is for me to hear stories.
But I'm positive you have a charism. It comes with baptism and manifests after the point in life when your faith becomes personal.
Someday we should talk.
John XXIII was asked about making a change to the Roman Canon. His reply was, "How can I change the Canon? I'm only the Pope!"
"Fransciscan University: Satanic to the Core! Peter Kreeft: Satanic to the Core!"
I said the spirituality is. There are plenty of good people who practice it.
But its origin is a) an assumption that there's something wrong with the Church; b) an attempt to integrate Pentecostal elements into the Church.
But it always goes back to "Two thousand years of Catholic spirituality are wrong."
"St. Theresa of Avila is wrong."
"St. John of the Cross is wrong."
Charismatic Spirituality is not the Spirituality of the Desert.
And the best Catholics I know who are into it are very open about its faults.
Any spirituality that rejects the Cross is seriously defective.
And--while there are exceptions--I have always found Charismatics to be some of the most judgemental, self-righteous and elitist Catholics out there, aside from RadTrads.
David Deavel,
Just saw your post in the mass of commentary on this thread. I agree completely with what you've said.
My wife observed that our area's token charismatic priest, when he speaks in tongues at mass, sounds like he's just speaking drunk Latin or something.
My problem with the Movement is based upon how Cathoilc spirituality experts say you should find one thing that best fits you and stick to it. So, for example, I have sampled a great many spiritualities and have found that Ignatian spirituality best suits me.
SOmetimes, growth, however, requires moving from format to format till we find what suits us best. St. Teresa started as an what we now call old observance Carmelite, but sampled Franciscan and Ignatian spirituality while she was working towards what became the Discalced spirituality.
Bl. Teresa of Calcutta started off as a cloistered nun.
The thing that I find diabolical about the Charismatic Movement--as a movement, as a form of spirituality, regardless of its adherents--is that it encourages people to stay at the level of spiritual infancy.
"Salt of the earth" is good, but we all have a responsibility to grow in our relationships with God. Charismatic spirituality intentionally tells people to stifle that growth in favor of good feelings.
Radical Traditionalism, by the way, does the same thing.
Obsession with Marian apparitions, especially dubious cases like Medjugorje, does the same thing.
All of these things are very effective in helping a spiritually immature person find a foothold in the Church. They are also effective means of corraling some sheep who would otherwise stray completely.
But they are all things that should be grown out of, away from. They all have serious flaws in their thinking that need to be overcome in the quest for spiritual perfection.
To that end, I find something equally admirable in RadTrads, Charismatics and Apparitionists (who tend to relate to both groups). They all at least value the spiritual, whereas liberals avoid the question of authentic spirituality altogether.
But the groups in question have the same common defect, and the hand of the Enemy is definitely at work in that defect, trying to impede people from having a more complete relationship with Christ.
Commenting by HaloScan
