 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 1st, 2007 09:57 pm |
|
I have seen the statistic several times in different books and materials I have been reading. If an internet search does not come up with anything. It can be found in The Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist by Fr. Robert DeGrandis, SSJ. It can be found in his introduction on p viii where he states "Seventy percent of Catholics said in a survey that they do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. "
I can't say that I would consider the book to be a good source document for anything other than his opinion and experiences but it was given to me at adoration and seemed appropriate for the occasion if nothing else. (This is the opinion of this memebr only --just in case there are any fans of this author lurking  )
The book was written in 1998 so the actual number may have changed--it would be interesting to see if the percentage has changed at all in the last 10 years!
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 1st, 2007 10:23 pm |
|
The oft-bandied figure of only 30 percent of all Catholics in the USA believing in the Real Presence is based on a small sample in a single diocese (under one thousand individuals in Buffalo, New York, as I recall) back in the mid-90s, with no distinction between practicing and non-practicing. I emphatically do not accept its extrapolation to the broad conclusion that so many have drawn.
Of active Catholics, I dare say that the accurate figure is close to 100 percent belief. Of lapsed Catholics, the 30 percent figure may be more or less indicative of the sad truth, for if they did believe, there would be a lot more of them practicing their faith.
David
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 2nd, 2007 09:25 am |
|
Thanks.
When I posted my concern about John's reference to the 30% figure I did not write that it was false. I was just shocked and it did not square with my limited experience.
It is basic scholarship to cite your reference when metioning statistics. That enables the reader to (possibly) make an evaluation of the validity of the study quoted. The quality of the study depends on many factors including population, size and geographics.
In this computer age all that is frequently overlooked and information is thrown about willy-nilly. I suppose it is the result of the anonymity of cyberspace. A little healthy skepticism is always in order.
On a lighte side I can relate one of my pre-vatican II 1950's Mass experiences: After a night of youthful debauchery, I went with my friend Sean to St. Patrick's Cathedral. We both had horrible hangovers. Sean went to sleep in the kneeling position with his chin resting on the back of the pew in front of him. The elderly lady in front, irratated by his snoring and bad breath turned around and gave him a hard slap. I was delighted and Sean just grinned. Fortunately, Sean did not go forward to receive. I say fortunately because, A.) I don't think his legs would have carried him all the way to the altar rail, and B.) He was not worthy- I could attest to that - I was an eyewitness to his behavior of a few hours previous. Frankly, not understanding the Latin was good for me. I didn't have to listen and could concentrate on my bodily discomfort. Once outside and revived by the cool air, it being NYC we were soon able to obtain a little hair of the dog.
Thankfully, God is merciful and I survived my youthful misbehaviors. I don't recommend it for others.
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 2nd, 2007 03:23 pm |
|
When I posted my concern about John's reference to the 30% figure I did not write that it was false. I was just shocked and it did not square with my limited experience.
Correct. It isn’t that the survey gave a false report. But it has been wrongly extrapolated and passed by word of mouth, so that now “everybody knows” that the very restricted results of that survey actually apply to all Catholics in the country. But they don’t even know what the source said or where to look to find it. All they know is what they heard.
Another survey that often gets the same treatment is the one that says that, according to a sample that again did not separate practicing from non-practicing Catholics and was limited to a couple of the more “liberal” areas of the country and had no later follow-up, about 80 percent of all Catholic couples use contraceptives. The reality is that among practicing Catholics nationwide, the figure is much, much lower. Again, the figures do not lie. But, as the saying goes, liars figure.
David
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 08:31 am |
|
Hello James,
Sorry to disappear like that - I am enjoying vacation days past the 4th.
JasPax wrote:
It is basic scholarship to cite your reference when metioning statistics. That enables the reader to (possibly) make an evaluation of the validity of the study quoted. The quality of the study depends on many factors including population, size and geographics.
In this computer age all that is frequently overlooked and information is thrown about willy-nilly. I suppose it is the result of the anonymity of cyberspace. A little healthy skepticism is always in order.
Yes, James, I should have cited my source. Meus malus. But it would appear your healthy skepticism disappears as soon as you hear something of which you approve. Or are his assertions acceptable to you because they were made in less than a hundred words?
"The oft-bandied figure of only 30 percent of all Catholics in the USA believing in the Real Presence is based on a small sample in a single diocese (under one thousand individuals in Buffalo, New York, as I recall) back in the mid-90s, with no distinction between practicing and non-practicing."
David Emory cited nothing: not the original study or that of any criticism of its methods. He only gave you his summary of it, as he recalls. And his "Of active Catholics, I dare say that the accurate figure is close to 100 percent belief" is mere opinion; but you like it, and readily accept it, don't you? I know many Novus Ordo Catholics who never go to confession, receive Communion every Sunday, and have told me all about what they do not believe in - including the Real Presence. Based on my observations, his "close to 100 percent" cannot be true.
If you're going to to claim that you have a healthy skepticsim, you'd better maintain it across the board. I, for instance, am extremely skeptical that this Buffalo study in the mid-90's has not been followed up and verified by other studies. Why? Because I had to come across the 30% figure in either a Zenit dispatch in the last few months, or on some other Catholic news website, also in the last few months, coinciding with a lot of material coming from the Holy Father on the Eucharist.
In any case, CajunRick insisted that modern Catholics, making no distinction between active and inactive, are better suited to judge the reverence by which Mass is celebrated, so the Buffalo study, to the extent that the results obtained from any sample can be applied to a population, continues to refute him.
Be here I go being wordy again. I'll find my source after the holidays, because you are right - I should have included in my original post. The question is, will it matter to you, since you have already heard what you wanted to hear from Emory?
Pax,
John
PS: I do not doubt Emory's statement about the source of the 30% figure: I simply question his casual dismissal of it, and the ephemeral nature of your skepticism. Hey! How's that for a succinct statement?
Last edited on Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 09:27 am by Ioannes silens
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 09:23 am |
|
mg57 wrote: Darlene, Annie -
Brief basic backround, - Vatican II contains:
4 Constitutions, 2 of which are Dogmatic Constitutions.
9 Decrees -
3 Declarations -
But where are the dogmatic dictates that CajunRick insists are there, to be followed to the letter? Yes, the Council taught no error, and yes the documents are binding, but where are these clear cut propositions that priests and bishops ignored, according to CajunRick, to cause all the chaos. And mind you, if they did they were and are guilty of incredulity, I believe.
That the dogmatic dictates are what they were before the Council:
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. (Pope John XXIII, opening speech for the Council of Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962)
"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility." (Pope Paul VI, 1/12/66 in his Weekly General Audience)
What was ignored after Vatican II, and because of the nature of its documents, were the dicates of tradition.
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 09:57 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: The oft-bandied figure of only 30 percent of all Catholics in the USA believing in the Real Presence is based on a small sample in a single diocese (under one thousand individuals in Buffalo, New York, as I recall) back in the mid-90s, with no distinction between practicing and non-practicing. I emphatically do not accept its extrapolation to the broad conclusion that so many have drawn.
If the study made no distinction between practicing and non-practicing Catholics, then you have no basis to do so and assume the relative proportion of each in the sample. That fact that you want there to be more non-practicing Catholics in the sample is irrelevant.
The study is a sample of Catholics in America; unless you can cite a paper that shows a bias in the sample, your emphatic rejection of the extrapolation such statistical studies are designed for is merely an example of your own bias. Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, after all.
Happy 4th to all. Say a prayer for our troops.
John K.
Last edited on Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 10:04 am by Ioannes silens
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 166 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 10:50 am |
|
Ioannes Silens -
"But where are the dogmatic dictates that CajunRick insists are there, to be followed to the letter?"
While I can't speak for Rick, and unless I've misunderstood you, one example that comes to mind is recalling what happened to many of the religious orders of nuns in the mid to late 1960's after going through the so-called non-directive approach / encounter groups, aka the Educational Innovation Project taught by Dr. William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. The result, one can see, is in direct opposition to the directives found in Lumen Gentium ch. 6.
Gotta go to work  .
God bless.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 03:04 pm |
|
Ioannes silens wrote: In any case, CajunRick insisted that modern Catholics, making no distinction between active and inactive, are better suited to judge the reverence by which Mass is celebrated, so the Buffalo study, to the extent that the results obtained from any sample can be applied to a population, continues to refute him.
Just as the U.S. Constitution does not cause or prevent illegal action, the language of the liturgy does not control reverence, and the writings of Vatican II did not cause the chaos of the decades that followed.
Throwing out Vatican II (and thereby rejecting the Magisterium of the Church) and the liturgy of Pope Paul VI (and thereby rejecting the Magisterium of the Church) are not the solutions, in my opinion. The solution is for the Magisterium to insist that the Documents of the Council Fathers be understood appropriately, and that the liturgy be celebrated in a manner worthy of our Savior. This is true, in my opinion, whether one is speaking of the Roman Missal of 1962, the Liturgy of Pope Paul VI, or the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Rites.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 4th, 2007 03:51 am |
|
Ioannes silens wrote: David W. Emery wrote: The oft-bandied figure of only 30 percent of all Catholics in the USA believing in the Real Presence is based on a small sample in a single diocese (under one thousand individuals in Buffalo, New York, as I recall) back in the mid-90s, with no distinction between practicing and non-practicing. I emphatically do not accept its extrapolation to the broad conclusion that so many have drawn.
If the study made no distinction between practicing and non-practicing Catholics, then you have no basis to do so and assume the relative proportion of each in the sample. That fact that you want there to be more non-practicing Catholics in the sample is irrelevant.
The study is a sample of Catholics in America; unless you can cite a paper that shows a bias in the sample, your emphatic rejection of the extrapolation such statistical studies are designed for is merely an example of your own bias. Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, after all.
Happy 4th to all. Say a prayer for our troops.
John K.
I hear this number thrown around on a Catholic radio show. I guess what I find interesting is that we love to consider all possible people Catholics when compiling numbers to show how big our church is with its 1.1 billion members and percentages of population in churches and in ways it makes us look good, but when the numer says only 30% believe in the real presence we want to distinguish between real practicing Catholics and those who are not. But if we do not want those people to effect the statistical numbers of how strongly the faith is being passed along why include them in the numbers of how big our church is? Can we have it both ways? Is any baptized Catholic good enough when we want to sound like a big church but when they do not believe in the real presence they are no longer real examples of what is happening in the church?
Granted, I think that it would make a difference to distinguish in such a survey because many people simply divorce themselves from Catholic teaching by choice or ignorance, but at least some of the problem possibly lies in poor catechesis and other sources. I too know that I see many nominal Catholics who do not believe in hardly any Catholic teaching, but those Catholics who as far as I can tell are somewhat getting along on their conversion seem to believe in the real presence almost unanimously. Perhaps this is what David meant. That those surveyed who do not believe is almost like asking someone who skips school what the lesson was on Thursday and if they agree with it. I think the truth is in the middle regarding those who attend mass regularly I would think the percentage would be between 50 to 80% but this is simply a guess based on, well, my own observances, nobody should take this guess seriously or ask me for clarification, but more clarification on the survey might be nice.
As far as citing numbers and such, I think that that is a good idea, though if someone is sharing their opinion they should not feel they have to prove what they say because it is their opninion. Granted some impressionable people may be lost, but ideally those listening know when to be healthily skeptical. Also, for better or worse, we sometimes base our acceptance of what people say on how reliable or intelligent they tend to be. Granted this is not ideal either, but David, for instance, is very discerning, accurate, and honest. I still would question what he or anyone says on occasion if I think there may be a different way of looking at it, but I may tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. And from getting to know you, I am starting to realize that your thoughts are also worthy of serious consideration. So go ahead and take advantage and make up some strange numbers and I will automatically believe them no matter what they are now that I trust you. 47% of all statistics are just made up anyway.
As far as the Byzantine thing, I am aware of the Ruthenian issue and attend a Ruthenian parish often. It bothers me that they changed the liturgy inclusive language wise. Not so much because it is wrong or I disagree with it. Just that I like a church that likes to keep things the same. One that maintains ancient traditions tediously. Plus I think the language is less poetic than what "seems" right to me.
But since it is only horizontally inclusive I see no reason to really complain much at all, and if one truly ever did believe in the idea of being under Rome and being Catholic it amazes me anybody would leave the church because of that. Makes me wonder if they really believed what it means to be Catholic. I think restrictions on the married priesthood and less observance of fasting regulations and other things would be better reasons to be concerned for one who wants the East to keep its traditions.
So in short, it bothers me a little, but that little amounts to almost nothing because the church is really strong that I attend and the liturgy is seemingly extremely reverent all the time. It bothers me more that people would complain as much as they do when the theology has not changed in any way, because words like 'for us men' always did mean men and women etc in the grek and we are singing a translation regardless so why can it not be re-translated so long as the meaning is not changing?
I find it ironic (is that the right word) that some want an appeal to Rome to fix things when part of being Eastern Catholic is that while they accept the pope they still prefer that he interfere as little as possible and leave the bishops as much freedom as necessary in matters of the faith. So to want more papal interference (not that I am against it) seems bizarre and possibly would look bad to the Orthodox who consider reunion because were that to ever happen I think a compromise on the authority issue would have to be reached. Though maybe it would be different if it was in a case that they actually were asking for the outside help. I do not know. I am fairly new at all this so please go easy on me.
By the way, I enjoy reading your posts and think you have some good things to say, but I can not tell if your comments are friendly or hostile when you seem a tad sarcastic. Are you attacking people, or is this simply your style of rhetoric and this is actually a fruitful and charitable conversation.
What I seem to be confused about is that most people have been saying that the positive effects of the council in question are on the way and that this is common for it to take this long. I tend to agree that this is possible. I hear you seeming to say that while the council taught no error it was not helpful to the church and we need to distance ourselves from it or manage to clarify important matters or reform it. Really, I do not know what you are saying about the council, and if it is true that good is just around the corner, or if it is that the council was a bad move that we need to recover from.
Being one who wants to give the church the benefit of the doubt, and I base this on no academic integrity, I think that the church being guided by the Holy Spirit did produce an important and significant council and that it will produce much more good than bad when all is said and done.
But my humble opinion, I do not take to mean much.
Brian
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 4th, 2007 03:59 am |
|
Ioannes silens wrote: David W. Emery wrote: The oft-bandied figure of only 30 percent of all Catholics in the USA believing in the Real Presence is based on a small sample in a single diocese (under one thousand individuals in Buffalo, New York, as I recall) back in the mid-90s, with no distinction between practicing and non-practicing. I emphatically do not accept its extrapolation to the broad conclusion that so many have drawn.
If the study made no distinction between practicing and non-practicing Catholics, then you have no basis to do so and assume the relative proportion of each in the sample. That fact that you want there to be more non-practicing Catholics in the sample is irrelevant.
The study is a sample of Catholics in America; unless you can cite a paper that shows a bias in the sample, your emphatic rejection of the extrapolation such statistical studies are designed for is merely an example of your own bias. Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, after all.
Happy 4th to all. Say a prayer for our troops.
John K.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-79305248.html
I found this link provided interesting analysis of the survey in question and presented some other possible statistics from other conducted surveys. Some of the advertisements on the page may be little bit racey (ads for vacation destinations, and there may be some pop ups, but nothing terrible)
I think based on this we can say that belief in the real presence may be in some decline but it is possible that a good majority of Catholics do believe in it and that the 30% number is not accurate. I for one am interseted in knowing if it is possible or not that the changes of people being able to receive from lay people or in their hand, not having to bow, have or have not effected the possibly declining belief or if the fact is that people who can not hear the churches clear teaching now that Jesus is truly present in the Eucarist would not believe regardless of how they liturgically practiced the faith. I think the truth may be a little of both.
Brian
Last edited on Wed Jul 4th, 2007 04:03 am by brian
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 4th, 2007 02:42 pm |
|
Brian:
Excellent link. Thank you for providing it for us. It is very helpful.
Back when I was contemplating converting to the Catholic Faith, I kept running across Episcopalians/Anglicans; online or in person, who insisted that the Catholic Church was in imminent danger of splitting apart over issues such as Vatican II, married clergy, female priesthood, desire for less Vatican authority in the U.S., etc., etc. The media seeks out those who hold such views.
Of course, none of that is true; disagreements rise and wane; a few may be lost along the way; but the Church will not split apart. It took me awhile to understand that, coming from a protestant mindset.
God's Blessings,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 11:55 am |
|
Dear Brian,
In a PM, David Emory has warned me off of continuing this debate on the open forum. I intended to comply, but some statements have been made over the holiday that simply must be rebutted; hopefully, I am not wasting my time writing this. It will be my last post in this thread, whatever response it gets.
Before I do, though, I will thank you for the link. It does indeed seem that I was wrong to use the 30% figure, and I am properly chastened. No, that is not sarcasm: I will not use that figure again. However, the data supports that there is continuing decline in belief in the Real Presence among post-Vatican II Catholics, so my original objection to CajunRick’s unsupported assertion still stands: a sizable and growing proportion of Catholics cannot approach the Mass with the reverence it deserves. And I would add that it is also unfair to compare post-Vatican II traditional Catholics, in full or irregular communion with the Holy See, with pre-Vatican II Catholics in general: the former are making a protest precisely against the trend in desacralization, know that they are in an often reviled minority, and catechesis is high among them. And I still believe I am thinking about even more recent surveys that demonstrate the decline in belief and the growth of dissent amongst younger Catholics which were referenced in the March 9th National Catholic Reporter. But I can no longer access that information, and there is actually no need to because your link says it all. The decline exists and continues, and blaming it all on media hype is to be an ostrich. Fortunately, the Holy Father seems to be taking it seriously, and is determined to reverse the trend. And for those who might be distressed by this entire debate, it is simply a fact that the gates of Hell cannot prevail.
You addressed my use of sarcasm: yes, I use it as a rhetorical device, but perhaps I shouldn’t use it here; especially, since there is also an element of frustration in my use of it. You wrote "if someone is sharing their opinion they should not feel they have to prove what they say because it is their opinion." That is true in a casual conversation: It is not true in a debate. In a debate, if one party in it obstinately refuses to defend their propositions with logical arguments, and cannot even be bothered to cite supporting evidence from higher authority (and this is especially true in the Catholic environment where ultimate authority exists), repeated use of "in my opinion" is an expression of contempt. It says, "I do not have to engage your arguments, I do not have to recognize the effort you put into them, I need only repeat my own pronouncements to win over whomever I can."
So let’s take one final look at some of the latest pronouncements.
"Just as the U.S. Constitution does not cause or prevent illegal action, the language of the liturgy does not control reverence, and the writings of Vatican II did not cause the chaos of the decades that followed."
A rebuttal of the introductory clause shouldn’t be necessary; just in case, the IV Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure. A fortiori, it guards against illegal ones, and unless one wants to argue tendentiously that the existence of the IV Amendment does not physically prevent these actions, the error in this clause is evident.
"The language of the liturgy does not control reverence": Inay hetay amenay Artherfay, anday ofay hetay Onsay, anday ofay hetay Olyhay Iritspay. Amenay. I suspect even a modernist would complain to the bishop if a priest began celebrating the Mass this way. Absurd rebuttal out of the way, I have already demonstrated what Pope John XXIII had to say about the venerable nature of Latin and Greek: notice that no rebuttal has been given, only a restatement of an indefensible "opinion." Further, I would add that Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.1 forcefully states "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." If the Council did not feel, in agreement with Pope John XXIII, that the use of Latin was important, why command it? Moreover, you hit on a very important point about Latin and Greek in your comments about the dissent in the Byzantine Church (which is another discussion, and a private one): the inclusive language problem disappears in the original Greek and Latin. If a child learns the Creed in Latin, and it is explained to him or her that "homo" means "human being" and not simply "man," they will carry that knowledge with them throughout their lives.
"… the writings of Vatican II did not cause the chaos of the decades that followed": Another magisterial pronouncement with which many lesser folk disagree. I will quote one:
"It seemed safe to suppose that a council that refrained from dogmatization and excluded no one would also offend no one and would be repugnant to no one but would rather meet with the approval of everyone. Actually, it met with the same fate as the councils that had preceded it; no one can seriously deny the critical manifestations to which it led." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology. Ignatius Press: 1987, p.368)
The Cardinal almost immediately adds "To explain what happened, I shall limit myself to just a few points. First, we must be aware that the postconciliar crisis in the Catholic Church coincided with a global spiritual crisis of humanity itself or, at least, of the Western world; not everything that distressed the Church in those years can be attributed to the Council."
He does not say that "the writings of Vatican II did not cause the chaos," he says "not everything" can be attributed to the Council. There is a huge difference. And note that he also says that "no one can seriously deny the critical manifestations to which" the Council "led." Well, obviously the Cardinal isn’t infallible here, someone is denying just this (and that is rhetorical sarcasm, though I fear it will not be instructive). And just to anticipate the obvious weak rebuttal that the Cardinal was somehow speaking about the "Council" apart from its "writings," see the quote below. The Council is its writings.
"Throwing out Vatican II (and thereby rejecting the Magisterium of the Church) and the liturgy of Pope Paul VI (and thereby rejecting the Magisterium of the Church) are not the solutions, in my opinion."
The first part is once again hyperbole, and it creates a straw man: no one on this forum has advocated "throwing out" Vatican II or "defying the Magisterium." The issue here has been whether or not it must be embraced. I will again allow Cardinal Ratzinger, from the same book, to address the matter:
" ...while the Council formulated its pronouncements with the fullness of power that resides in it, its historical significance will be determined by the process of clarification and elimination that takes place subsequently in the life of the Church. In this way, the whole Church participates in the Council; it does not come to an end in the assembly of bishops" (p. 376)
and
"Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been just a waste of time. Despite all the good to be found in the texts it produced, the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken. If, in the end, it will be numbered among the highlights of Church history depends on those who will transform its words into the life of the Church." (p. 378)
As for the part about defying the Magisterium by throwing out the Mass of Pope Paul the VI, this is yet more hyperbole. And I would ask, was Pope Paul the VI defying the Magisterium when he forbade the use of (i.e. "threw out") the 400 year-old Mass of Pius V.?
"The solution is for the Magisterium to insist that the Documents of the Council Fathers be understood appropriately, and that the liturgy be celebrated in a manner worthy of our Savior."
Finally, I statement I agree with. The documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of tradition, and the liturgy must be reformed. God Bless Benedict XVI and his reforms.
You asked me, Brian, how one can be faithful Catholic yet not embrace Vatican II. My survey error aside, I hope I have provided you with reasoned response.
Pax,
John
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 12:38 pm |
|
Ioannes silens wrote:
"The solution is for the Magisterium to insist that the Documents of the Council Fathers be understood appropriately, and that the liturgy be celebrated in a manner worthy of our Savior."
Finally, I statement I agree with. The documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of tradition, and the liturgy must be reformed. God Bless Benedict XVI and his reforms.
You asked me, Brian, how one can be faithful Catholic yet not embrace Vatican II. My survey error aside, I hope I have provided you with reasoned response.
Thank you for the reply. I hope the best for you. I will briefly ask this not sure you are still around to answer.
How can you both say that the Documents must be understood appropriately and also say you do not embrace it? To me it sounds like what everybody has been saying, you do embrace the council itself...if understood properly in light of tradtion. It seems it is some of the results or weaknesses of the council you do not embrace. To me there is a difference. I can read a bible verse and then be overzealous in my faith and proselytize somebody with a lack of charity. But both should agree the Bible itself is good. It is not in error. My weaknesses are, or perhaps weaknesses in my catechesis. So if you are sayng you simply want to see the ducuments interpreted correctly to me this means it is not so much the council that you are upset with.
I think maybe we mean different things by embrace. I think you are saying that you do not personally love or champion this council, and you are willing to see weaknesses and difficulties that it may partially have caused and hope and pray for more reform and clarification. And it was nice that you provided quotes from the holy father to evidence that this may also be consistent with his view. I think (and this is my fault) that what I meant by embrace was that you accept it for better or worse as a part of the church and do not wish to see it completely ignored or just done away with, or even if you do wish that, you accept its reality and simply want it to be dealt with properly. Embrace was the wrong word.
As far as languages go, I personally (opinion) do think it is good for people to have Mass or Divine Liturgy in their own language. Or at least half and half. Or some services all one and some the other. I would not mind learning it in a different language, but I think that a lot of people (visitors, those new to the mass) each week would miss a lot if they could not understand key phrases in the readings or prayers. I feel like it would make evangelizing the culture more difficult. I do hope for a return of more Latin to the mass (sometimes I see this on EWTN and I like it, and others here probably would like to this as well), but I do not necessarily want it to be all Latin all the time. And I am happy enough to sing the Divine Liturgy is English rather than russian or Greek, though we are in agreement about how the inclusive language problem disappears once one understands the original language.
Anyway, I do not mean to further engage you if you are set to close your participation in this discussion. Forgive me if I should not have written this and let you close the discussion. All the best to you.
Christ is risen,
Brian
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 263 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 02:12 pm |
|
Brian, Discussions like this are bound to confuse those not thoroughly familiar with the Faith, and probably why the CHN forum discourages this. The Forum is for clarifying Catholic teaching and practice. Trying to identify what exactly went wrong with Vatican II is another effort altogether.
Going back to Darlene's original question and my first responses to it, this conversation may in itself be a demonstration of how the Remnant-type groups have flourished. There's a lot of reason for anger, contempt, sarcasm, personal attacks as us long-time Catholics have suffered much from the irreverent works of men in the Church. There's no excuse for bad behavior on either side however.
In light of clarifying the use of Latin, you are likely familiar with the following:
The Latin rite language is Latin. Period.
Before Vatican II, a Mass could be said entirely in Latin, including the Epistle and Gospel. If the congregants didn't know Latin, then they followed along in the missal. Usually the Epistle and Gospel would be re-read in English before the homily. Those that did not care to participate fully and try to learn what was being said did lose out. This is one reason Vatican II placed emphasis on "participation" as an attack on this apathy. This "participation" rather than being understood as primarily internal participation was re-translated as frenetic activity having little to do with prayer and reflection. Pope Benedict and Cardinal Arinze calling for a "reform of the reform" will note this - sort of saying "...when We said "participation" what We meant was..."
Throughout the Church we have sacred languages used in Liturgies, such as Old Slavonic and Latin. These are used for many reasons. Dead languages do not change in meaning. Our English translations will change as our language changes. Think of some words freely used in the 1880s that today have a bad connotation - those words would not be used today at Mass. Translators refer to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to ascertain the original meaning and then use appropriate verbiage for the day.
Dead language is more precise. One example is the beautiful often-poetic language of the old King James Version of the Bible. At one point, Jesus is referred to as the "thorn of Jesse". This is a lovely passage but inaccurate. Jesus is the branch of Jesse. A "thorn" has a painful and bad connotation. So poetry only applies when it is an accurate translation of the original.
A single language unifies. Why should we have a parish with separate Masses in Tagalog, Spanish, Polish, etc when our language is Latin in the Latin Rite? Instead of being a unified community, the separate languages create sub-communities that rarely interact. When Mass is said in Latin, it can be heard anywhere, in any parish, anywhere in the world, and understood the same way.
Use of Latin foregoes bad translations. You may have heard of the ICEL whose bad, inaccurate translation of the Mass has held us captive for 40 years here in the States. If you compare the approved American translation of the Mass with the Latin, there are a lot of problems. For instance, if you take most any Communion verse in American and compare it word-for-word to its counterpart in the Latin, you will find it is not even a translation but a completely made-up verse, having absolutely nothing to do with the original Latin. Many appeals have gone to Rome over this for years. Pope Benedict made changes in the ICEL personnel but there are still terrible problems. We are not allowed to use our own [better] home-grown translations of the Propers or the Ordinary. We must use the US bishop-approved translations. This all becomes moot when Mass is in Latin.
These are reasons just off the top of my head. Can others add more supporting or clarifying statements?
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 04:01 pm |
|
Dear Tina,
What does ICEL stand for?
Regarding John K's sentiment regarding Vat.II, I think that what he is not embracing is the liberal, modernistic interpretation and application of Vatican II which is erroneous and not harmonious with Catholic doctrine, teaching and dogma from the last 2000 years. (at least in my opinion, since I cannot know the actual mind of John K.) I think what he takes issue with is the apathetic attitude, the departure of reverence for the sacred during the worship of the Mass, and the great falling away of many Catholics, all which has occurred after Vat.II and must be attributed, at least in part, to the carrying out and misguided practice of this council's declarations. And this is not to say that there no longer exists parishes which are orthodox and serious about practicing their Catholic faith. Obviously there are, because I have read that many Catholics have found parishes such as these.
What baffles me is this. When the kumbaya Masses, the groovy priests and nuns, the cries for female priests, the elimination of the altars, the abandonment of the sacred, and the falling away of thousands of Catholics (many converting to the Protestant faiths) occurred, WHERE WAS THE OUTCRY? Why didn't Rome swiftly send bishops/cardinals over here to say, HEY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? You are way out of line! You are misinterpreting Vatican II. Why let it go on all these years? Or was this same apathetic attitude occurring everywhere else besides the U.S.?
I think the sad testament to all of this is the obvious falling away of many Catholics. And I am not referring to those who became atheist or agnostic. I am referring to those who turned to the Protestant faiths. Didn't/doesn't Rome realize how many ex-Catholics comprise the membership in Protestant faiths? I can say from personal experiences that in most of the Evangelical churches I have attended over the years, a large percentage (30 - 50%) were fallen away Catholics. Wasn't this disturbing to the many priests, bishops, cardinals all the way up to the Vatican? Wasn't a connection made to the modern beliefs/practices which set in, due to the misunderstanding of this council?
For me personally, I am thankful for this discussion. I never intended, nor expected, in my original post, for it to lead in this direction. But the result of this discussion has led me to the conviction that I plan on looking for a very traditional parish with traditional, orthodox priests. I only hope and pray that I can find one. I have encountered quite a few of the liberal ones, and trust me, they do absolutely nothing to draw me toward the Catholic faith. So what does that say for Vatican II?
Darlene
BTW, I heard Father Groeschel say that Mother Theresa thought that taking Communion in the hand was one of the worst practices that resulted from Vatican II. And dear Mother Angelica said on one of her programs that the whole purpose of male altar boys was to encourage them to look into the priesthood. Could it be that the decline of male altar boys is one factor as to why there are less men going into the preisthood and why there is such a demand for priests in many parishes?
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 263 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 05:41 pm |
|
Dear Darlene,
And to think you started this. geeez!!!  I have a headache. Writing this is somewhat cathartic.
What does ICEL stand for?
ICEL stands for International Commission on English in the Liturgy
http://www.icelweb.org
WHERE WAS THE OUTCRY?
There WAS an outcry from everyone: laity, clergy, hierarchy. It was ignored. It was HUGE. But you won't find much reference to it today I don't think.
This is why I refer to the 'brutality' of the 70s - I think I may have said it in Chat or another posting.
Those of us with Traditionalist leanings can carry so much angst. Yes, we have lots of reasons - though some get lost in the indignation and lose their way. We went through a lot as we watched incomprehensible [to us] changes in Liturgy. Priests who cared for us in the 50s and early 60s suddenly became men of another color in the 70s. We watched beloved and beautiful chapels painted over, statues removed, and all kinds of heartbreak. In the church where I was baptized and confirmed, a jewel of a little chapel, a copy of a Norman French chapel was partly saved because of the fury of my own mother. Can you imagine how we felt when the red silk Belgian tapestry behind the altar was going to be removed? The threat of painting over the medieval-style painted woodwork? Due to my mother and some others in the parish, the tapestry was only cut in half... and put back up. small consolation. People like my mother got a reputation of being nasty and narrow-minded. Other parishes all over the country had worse experiences. Devotions and practices of piety suddenly were out of fashion. Catechism and teachings were watered down to Dick-and-Jane versions or worse. My mother took me out of catechism the day I brought home a pamphlet on Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Other kids with less-vigilant parents have not been so lucky and have grown up to be way under-catechised. I was taught at home and I read a ton on my own.
I've often thought about interviewing those that went through this and describing the heartbreak and isolation.
And the pressure that clergy, nuns and monks were under has yet to be fully understood. Not only were they pressured to change by their hierarchy but they felt the ire of the laity as well. To believe they said nothing would be absurd - the laity just didn't hear about it. There's a book that was written about the brainwashing that nuns underwent in constant conferences at that time. The author that wrote this was interviewed on EWTN years ago. Of course the title/author escapes me.
My own great-Aunt taught Gregorian Chant to children. Odette Hertz, a pupil of Justine Ward, taught the Ward method at the L'Institute Catholique in Paris. Almost overnight, she was out of a job. Why? When Latin was still the language of the Church, how could these things happen? {Odette just died this April at 92, RIP]
We were scattered, with few leaders. There was no Internet or EWTN to console and unite us.
Maybe this has been written about. But in today's perspective 40 years later it might be better understood in hindsight.
Dredging all this up may only re-open wounds only to heighten our angst and heartbreak. We certainly don't need more vitriol. Or it may enlighten those to really wonder what the "smoke of Satan" within the Church referred to by Pope Paul VI actually wrought.
In any event, the Church still stands and we are still struggling, faithful and obedient Catholics. And that's what matters.
I plan on looking for a very traditional parish with traditional, orthodox priests
You go girl. May we all find the complete practice of the Faith, in all Its beautiful fullness.
I heard Father Groeschel say that Mother Theresa thought that taking Communion in the hand was one of the worst practices that resulted from Vatican II.
The way I understand this is that Communion in the hand came about with the effort to revert back to the original practice of Christianity. Well, this did occur early on, except Communion-in-the-hand was ended back then because of the opportunity for abuse! The same abuse we see today. Yes, Communion in the hand is allowed. But I think its only supposed to be used for extreme circumstances. And certainly the abuses of receiving with unclean hands, Hosts found left in pews, or being carried off by occultists is not part of the intention. I try not to judge the internal dispositions of the hearts of those that receive this way. I don't know how catechised they are or if anyone ever taught them the more perfect way to receive and why. The way I see it, Jesus longs to be with us so much that He puts up with us and what we do just to be near us. There is a reason the Church allows this, and as a matter of discipline, this could be reversed.
the whole purpose of male altar boys was to encourage them to look into the priesthood. Could it be that the decline of male altar boys is one factor as to why there are less men going into the preisthood and why there is such a demand for priests in many parishes?
Well, its not the 'whole' purpose, but I know what you mean. I have been spoiled to be in a diocese which for years did not allow altar girls. This changed with our current bishop who now allows girls at the discretion of the pastor. But this same bishop also has two parishes that offer the old Mass now. Yes, there is supposed to be a correlation of altar boys and vocations. While this no-altar-girl rule was in place, this diocese produced large numbers of ordinations, around 30 in one year for instance. The idea is that when boys participate at the altar, they will logically think in terms of acting as a priest some day. For girls this logical thought process can result in frustration and confusion. I have a dear friend who's boys now refuse to serve on the altar because the altar-servers have become a girl-club and being young boys, don't want to have anything to do with THAT! LOL.
In the spirit of the intentions of this Forum, I hope I have not confused you or anyone. Our Holy Church still stands with all Its glorious teaching - may we be ever-vigilant and prayerful to discern the wolf and the "father Judas" from our very loving and real Mother Church.
love, tina
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 06:08 pm |
|
Thank you so much for your quick reply, Tina. At the risk of being redundant, I still have such wonderful memories of the first time I attended a Catholic Mass, before the chaos of the 70's. One thing I remember, is that the receiving of the Eucharist by the congregation, was so very reverent. Those going forward to receive Communion knelt at the altar and returned to their seats quietly with contemplation. Now what I observe is a rushed atmosphere. Almost like a concession line hurrying up to the front of the church. Before it has begun, it is over. And the whispering and cell phones on, etc. are just so disturbing to me. Then there are those, who after they have just received the Eucharist, are ready to peel out of the church. Why, I ask is this tolerated? Obviously the priests know it is going on. Why is this behavior not addressed?
This past Sunday, I took Communion in my non-denominational church. Even though I have much to say that frustrates me regarding Evangelicalism, the Communion service was done with the utmost of reverence. And no one talked, no cell phones were on, no one was looking to rush out of the church, and no caution had to be made to the congregation to stay in their seats till the service ended. With this said, I still long to be Catholic, but a real, devoted Catholic, not a nominal one.
Lord Jesus, help me on this Catholic journey and guide me to the parish where You would have me go.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 263 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 07:58 pm |
|
Dear Darlene, I am so glad you have a frame of reference for reverence. I hope you know that not all parishes suffer today from the irreverence that you observe. God Bless you in your dogged perseverance. There are too many reasons why this behavior is tolerated - it becomes a rhetorical question at some point. And no, it shouldn't be tolerated.
Congregations are not always a reflection of the priest's personal views. Unless you speak with the priest yourself and ask, you wouldn't know whether the priest suffers from simple personal weakness, exhaustion, bullying parishioners, insanity, or just plain apathy. Some priests are delighted to get encouragement for reverence from a concerned parishioner - you just never know. I'm not denying the existence of certain parishes that are better left avoided.... You deserve to be 'fed'.
I'm guessing you want to find a Mass that is more reverent? In the very parish in which I am registered, there is a world of difference between the 7:30 AM Mass, which is quiet and reverent, and the later Masses full of bored "i'm here because I hafta be" Catholics, bad music, and rambunctious kids so loud that the sermon and Mass can't, absolutely cannot, be heard. And yes, a cell phone is bound to go off, and yes, there's way too much yakking in the Church. So we go to the earliest Mass. I also attend other parishes which are more reverent and disciplined.
I'll be praying for you that you find a good place.
Have you ever considered that your prayerful and reverent presence might be a comfort to Jesus there?
love, Tina
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 09:46 pm |
|
Ioannes silens wrote: You asked me, Brian, how one can be faithful Catholic yet not embrace Vatican II. My survey error aside, I hope I have provided you with reasoned response.
The documents of Vatican II are the product of the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Officially promulgated by the legitimately elected Holy Father, they are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. To claim otherwise is to reject the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church, and that is not permitted on this forum.
This thread is locked. Any user who continues to question the legitimate authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is in violation of the forum guidelines. Please read them carefully before any further participation. Your continued participation indicates your complete acceptance of these guidelines
If you wish to discuss this matter any further, please do it privately. You were advised by a moderator that you were not to continue questioning the Magisterium and you chose to do it anyway. You also chose to publicly disclose that private counsel, and to disregard it anyway. That was your choice. It's one thing to ask questions or seek proof of the Church's authority; it's quite another to claim that you accept it, and then proceed to deny it.
The request to allow the liturgy in the vernacular was a decision of the Council Fathers of Vatican II, a legitimately called Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, approved by the successors of the apostles, and accepted and promulgated by the successor of Peter. It is Catholic dogma that their decisions cannot be wrong. To claim otherwise is heresy.
There are still issues valid for discussion in this thread, but it has degenerated into debate and so it will be locked. I look forward to new topics on the remaining questions, such as Darlene's asking what ICEL stands for, and the accuracy of the current English translation.
Last edited on Thu Jul 5th, 2007 10:58 pm by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 10:49 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
