The Catholic state of play

  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Traditional Catholics are a "faction"?
It's at the heart of the debate.

But certainly many Catholics, who represent a-third of global Christians, are not part of the American Trumpo MAGA political faction, imo
 
It's at the heart of the debate.

But certainly many Catholics, who represent a-third of global Christians, are not part of the American Trumpo MAGA political faction, imo
Nothing political is mentioned in the link about the 1000+ year old tradition of the Holy Mass. Why you bring in politics is odd. but that is what you did. Wonder if you even read the contents of the link?
 
Nothing political is mentioned in the link about the 1000+ year old tradition of the Holy Mass. Why you bring in politics is odd. but that is what you did. Wonder if you even read the contents of the link?
Many Catholics still venerate the Latin Mass. But it is also used by the extreme conservative Catholic faction as a rallying point to oppose and obstruct any modernization of the Church and by Pope Francis to engage current 21st Century issues.

There is a thread about the Latin Mass here

However I was really referring to your earlier Complicit Clergy link that opens with a headline Take Action: Tell Bishops to Stop Enabling the Illegal Invasion of Our Nationand continues in a similar way, attempting to co-opt the Catholic Church in support a conservative Republican faction of American politics.

I just wanted to explain that there are many different political viewpoints amongst individual Catholics and clergy, and that Catholicism cannot really be employed to prop-up American conservative politics.

Having said my piece, I would rather not get enmeshed in American politics?
 
Last edited:
Traditional Catholics are a "faction"?
It depends on, which for the outsider can be tricky, on what is meant by 'traditional'.

I have no first-hand experience, but from searches on the web it would appear the outfits you listed punch far above their weight, and the theology espoused on their sites speaks more of US post-colonialism than the actual traditions of the Catholic Church –

In their view, the Church should advance with the threat of hell and eternal damnation front and centre, first and foremost, and anyone who does not fall into line with that is a sinner, a heretic and an outrage against God and His works – and that includes just about everything the Church has said and done since Vatican II and everyone in clerical orders – except those, of course, who march to the traditionalists' drum.

+++

I consider myself a Traditionalist – but here's the thing – my traditionalism is founded on a theological and ecumenical movement within the Church called Ressourcement Theologie. The word means 'A return to the sources' and it signalled a revitalisation of the studies of the Patristic Era – roughly from the founding of the Church until the turn of the First Millennium, but this is anathema to such 'traditionalists', who regard anything vaguely associated with Vatican II as a grave error and the cause of everything wrong and the source of every ill.

Such 'traditionalists' claim to adhere to tradition – but it's very much on their terms, which is to say, it is not adherence to tradition, properly conceived as such, at all. They are steeped in and shaped by post-colonial American Right Wing political values – nothing at all really to do with the ancient practice of the Church – these are just the window-dressing.

Attendance at a Latin Mass does not make one a traditionalist. I would have thought most who attend do so because they love the liturgy. They are, simply, Catholics in response to the symbolism and the beauty of certain liturgical forms. The relation of the Latin to the Novus Ordo (mass in the vernacular) I would say, simply, is something akin to the relationship between poetry and prose ...

I have nothing against the vernacular mass. I just wish they had engaged a poet or lyricist to polish the words which, to my sensibility, often fall short of their implication. (In defence, I know, sense and have seen how some phrases in the common tongue lack not one jot of the awe, wonder, beauty and majesty despite their simplicity – and perhaps because of it.)

Most notable is the common claim of Trad Cats to stand in defence of a Church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and then weigh in against the clergy, the magisterium, and almost anyone who doesn't share their outlook!

+++

Saul of Tarsus before his Damascus epiphany is an ideal poster-boy of the Trads, re-affirming the Old Ways with in effect a Jewish 'Office of the Inquisition' – but then something happened, and he got 'woke'!

In his letter to the Church in Rome:
"Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2).

That, the Christian is called to do every day.
 
According to a recent Pew survey, 50% of US Catholics believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, they believe in the Transubstantiation.

The other half — a staggering 50% — think the change is 'symbolic'.

Fr Dwight Longernecker — from whom I've filched this article — suggests a number of causes, the easiest to point a finger at being 50 years of 'raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens' catechesis, and most respondents here at IO seem to have an expeience of questions ignored or chopped off short.

Others (not here) blame Vatican II, and the liberalising of the Church, culminating in 'Father Fabulous' with his Day-Glo vestments, churches that look like a spaceships and music that seems to be a blend of Joan Baez, the Carpenters and campfire songs — in short, that religion should be hip, be cool ...

This particular debate goes way back. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the Council of Trent (1545-63). Trent was a response to the Protestant revolutionaries. Luther proposed “consubstantiation” and the Anglicans “receptionism”, while Calvin and Zwingli argued for a merely symbolic presence of Christ at the celebration of the Eucharist.

Modern Materialist Christian Man believes Christianity is a human endeavour, the product of a certain historical period and culture. As such, it not only may change, but it must change according to the time and culture in which it finds itself. In other words, Christianity is a relative religion. Not only is the Eucharist a symbol, it's all a symbol/metaphor/analogy/myth.

(A note: Had the Church adopted this change with the times attitude, it wouldn't be here today, any more than the structures of those times ... even idealistic 60/70s Christian movements are dying as the generation passes ...)

Modern Mysticist Christian Man (admittedly way, way less than 50%) believes that the dogmas of faith are not relative, but Revealed. The Incarnation, the Trinity, the Sacraments. The Words and the Deeds – the Eucharist and the entire Christian faith is not symbolic but supernatural. It is revealed by God, and as such transcends the vagaries of history and culture.

Longernecker makes a nice analogy:
In our downstairs bathroom we have a collection of family photographs. There I am as a child of two in my father’s arms. Next to it is a family photo when I am five, another when I am 12, then my high school portrait, my college years and then yesterday’s me … an old bald man. The physical form has changed, but in each photograph you can see it’s me. That invisible, unchanging person is my substance.

It is this "substance" of the bread and wine that changes, the 'me' of it. All that has happened is the ontological source has been affirmed and, if you like, actuated. If God cannot imbue the eucharistic species with his essence, than neither can man attain 'enlightenment' or 'salvations' or 'deliverance' or whatever you want to call it ... God is more unlike us than we are unlike bread and wine. In fact God is nothing like us ... so why we should think that we can achieve what cannot be achieved by any other collection of atoms in the cosmos, well ...

+++

Mystery religions are unfashionable, unless they wear their mystery on their sleeves. Same with spirituality, whatever ... 'no pain, no gain', the motto goes, but what if there is pain but no gain to the authentic spiritual life? Not so enticing now, it seems ...

... so we slide back into eros, into the ecstatic, the whoo-hoo of mysticism, that the mystic is imbued with some kind of 'I-know-something-you-don't know' Mona Lisa smile, and if you can pull that off, and write a book, you're made.

The religion of the age is scientism. It's the basis of faith, or rather the basis of a faith that says if it cannot be empirically determined, it cannot be.

Me? I long for an authentic Christian Mystagogia — a deeper seating of the faithful in the Mysteries of the Church, a chance to drink from deep wells ... but my God, would that put you at odds with the world!

Really, in trying to stay still, we've gone backwards. That diet is all too rich for us now. I read the lessons of St Augustine to the Catechumen and I'm staggered by what he tells them. Say that today and it won't be long before someone cries heretic or insists its an assertion of pantheism, or a 'spiritual analogy'.
Misinformation...why didn't you post the link?

The Pew study, issued Aug. 5, showed that 69% of all self-identified Catholics said they believed the bread and wine used at Mass are not Jesus, but instead "symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ." The other 31% believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, known as transubstantiation.
 
My bad, and yes, there seems a discrepancy.

I took my stats from the original article.
That's the U.K version of the Catholic Herald dated August 1, 2019, and I'm not sure if that survey covers only the U.K. That 'original article' doesn't give the link to that Pew survey. The Pew article I posted was dated August 5, 2019. I think "Fr Dwight Longenecker" may have gotten his information from Pew survey a few years earlier. Pew seems to take these surveys every couple of years.
 
Last edited:
That's the U.K version of the Catholic Herald dated August 1, 2019, and I'm not sure if that survey covers only the U.K. That 'original article' doesn't give the link to that Pew survey. The Pew article I posted was dated August 5, 2019. I think "Fr Dwight Longenecker" may have gotten his information from Pew survey a few years earlier. Pew seems to take these surveys every couple of years.
Father Longenecker wrote his piece as the priest of a Catholic church in South Carolina. He does not provide a date for the Pew study he used, but he specifically states that the numbers he presents are for the United States. By the way, the Catholic Herald has been a British publication with an international readership. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there has been anything other than, as you put it, a U.K. version.
 
Last edited:
According to a recent Pew survey, 50% of US Catholics believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, they believe in the Transubstantiation.

The other half — a staggering 50% — think the change is 'symbolic'.
The stagger continues...

This was 4 years ago and 3 years after your original post...the next survey I have faith will.show that that faith will falter further.
 
Back
Top