Do We Need To Modernize The Church?

[Theosis3]

We have seen an enormous makeover in the Catholic Church since Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in 1959. This council brought about major changes concerning beliefs, practices, liturgical worship, changes in structure and other things. There was an arguable presence of those who held modernist views and saw the council as their opportunity to bring about change in the Church according to those views. Needless to say, there was also a majority of those who were on the opposite side and argued against such changes in the Church. In the end, Vatican II prevailed in the way that modernist views had won over the traditional. Many of us have never been to a traditional mass(also known as the tridentine mass), so we have not seen the black and white / before and after pictures when it comes to the new order mass. There are no arguments that the change has been dramatic. There are arguments that Vatican II did not "require" these changes, at least not forcefully. Regardless of this, changes in the Church have occurred in everything from new altars, to new prayers(or for those who look at it differently, 'revised' prayers). Modernism has indeed effected the Church and it's mantra has been the view that the church was "out-of-date". This has weakened the expression of the Catholic faith in the mass in words, gestures, acts, and has watered down the heart of the Church, that is the sacrifice of the mass. What happened to confessionals? What happened to ALL the prayers that were recited during mass? Our expression in worship years ago is no longer the same expression that Catholics have today. While the core of our beliefs has not changed substantially like this, we have become an 'evolved' Church. So the question presented is: How do you feel about the Church changing to suit the needs of the times?

Edited November 25, 2008 by Theosis3

[Snowflake3981]

I am sometimes disapointed how some of the church leaders tiptoe around some of the biggest issues in society, as if they are afraid to take a stand (I'm speaking more of local leaders, definately not messages coming from Rome, as they are always clear). I think part of that is that they are trying not to offend people, or don't want to alienate people who feel differently from the church. One of the things I appreciate most about the Catholic church is the catechism, and how the viewpoints are so clearly defined. I wish that they would utilize these clearly outlined beliefs in sermons and talks to the people.

Not only that, look at the new church's that are being built. Sometimes you can't even tell if they're Catholic because they are so bare, no decorations, statues, art, etc. At the masses at the church two blocks from my house they don't kneel at any point in the service.... so I joined a church that is over 30 minutes away. Part of what seperates the Catholic church is the tradition, and I think its sad that some of the Catholic society is getting away from that. Many converts also appreciate that tradition and history, and I would worry that too much modernization in the church would affect the amount of conversions.

But I'm an old fashioned girl, with old fashioned values, and thats MHO.


~Abby

[jeffpugh]

Define this Modernism more? I personally find the actions of the last 40 years to be destructive, but I believe the Second Vatican Council was inherently good. I'll withhold my vote for now.

[Vincent Vega]

In short: No. Modernism is NOT what we need. Modernization has become something of a buzzword, which in my mind equates to gradually transforming the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a protestant, arm-waving, hand-clapping, happy party featuring the music of such 'greats' as Michael W. Smith and his posse there.
"Updated language" and "P+W Music" aren't what keep people in the pews; it's the truth that does that. We shouldn't conform to society and what they want.
Remember - we are in this world, but not of it.

[Church Punk]

I think that there is always a new way we can look at things and to add to our worship and faith in the life of the Church.

That said, completely gutting the liturgy and replacing it with something more "relevant" may not have been the best choice. The result of such action has done little for unity and has erected schisms with in the body it self.

Since these changes were made we have seen an explosion of scandal. Abuses by both clergy and laity, various liturgical abuses, women priestesses, support by Catholics for things contrary to the faith (abortion, homosexual behaviours etc etc).

It has promoted a spirit of "cafeteria Catholicism" and a severe hemorage to the Church leave many of its members spiritually bankrupt. People have little to no Catholic education. Just ask any average Catholic today to name the 7 sacrements and they will have trouble, or reciet all the prayers of the rosary. When you talk to them about the real Church teachings they come as a shock to them.

To quote Dr. Peter Kreeft in referance to prayer of St. Michael the Arch Angel in todays liturgy....

[quote]St. Michael, archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls.

"This prayer was known by every Catholic and prayed after every Mass—until the 60s. Exactly when Leo’s Church was struck with the incomparably swift disaster, which we have not yet named, but which future historians must: The disaster that has taken away half of our priests, three-quarters of our nuns, and nine-tenths of our children’s theological knowledge by turning the Faith of Our Fathers into the doubts of our dissenters in a miraculous reversal of Christ’s first miracle at Cana, turning the wine of the gospel into the water of psychobabble. An anti-miracle by the anti-Christ.

"The restoration of the Church, and thus the world, might well begin with the restoration of the Lion’s prayer and the Lion’s vision. Because this is the vision of all the saints, all the apostles, and Our Lord Himself—the vision of a real Satan, a real hell, and a real spiritual warfare."

- Peter Kreeft[/quote]

Our world is truly on the verge of a new dark age. As John Paul II calls it the "Culture of Death", even within the Church!!

[thessalonian]

The Church does change practice to fit the times but not doctrine, which it explains more explicitly over time. Modernization is neither good nor bad, therefore I did not answer your poll.

[Church Punk]

Another quick thought,

Why does the Church need to change or become relevant? It has a great history rich of traditions, customs and culture. We are barers of the truth. So when the world is going to hell, it is the Church that crys out, No this way!

So in this sense we want our culture to conform to what we celebrate at Mass, the summit of our lives! Not vice versa (which I am affriad may have happened).

edit for grammar

Edited November 25, 2008 by Church Punk

[Dave]

Pope St. Pius X called Modernism the "synthesis of all heresies." 'Nuff said.

[Theosis3]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1710796' date='Nov 25 2008, 02:49 PM']Define this Modernism more? I personally find the actions of the last 40 years to be destructive, but I believe the Second Vatican Council was inherently good. I'll withhold my vote for now.[/quote]

Thank you for commenting on this post. May the blessings of the Lord be with you.

To get into every detail of the modern changes that have occured since Vatican II would extend past the scope of this forum(and would probably be many pages long as well). But to touch on specifics for a more clear definition on what I say when I speak of modernism, lets consider these particular innovations (modernisms) that have came about since the introduction of Vatican II:

(1) Atmosphere during worship. The traditional mass holds an emphasis on the congregation lifting their hearts in prayers towards God (not one another) in a peaceful and non-worldly environment. The house of the Lord is not just a regular building resembling a community center or lecture hall. Worship was to be the center of the house of God. People would go to pray, not to be instructed, entertained or to socialize.

(2) The reverence for the Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. 16 genuflections, whereas now there are 3 or 4? Communion was given only on the tongue, with care that no pieces of our Lord would fall on the floor. Now communion is given on the hand adapting a protestant practice that was introduced to deny the Real Presence.

(3) Priest is the Sacrificer. The priest would to face the tabernacle, cross and altar, reciting ALL the prayers and performing all the actions of the mass, leading everyone in prayer TOWARDS GOD. Today the priest faces the people, again a protestant practice. Symbolically the priest has turned away from God and turned toward the people instead.

There are a great deal of many other changes but the gist of it all is that Catholic worship has moved away (some might say 'watered down') from a worship wholly focused directly to God and prayer in terms of reverence and approach, and shifted this focus more on the people. This can be argued as a good thing or a bad thing. Which is why I ask this very question: Do we need to modernize the Church?

I don't want to shift focus of this post on the individual changes of Vatican II, but rather then modernization that has come through Vatican II. I believe these before and after pictures may give us a visual explanation on how things once were and how they are now.

Then...
[img]http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1726/11845145/21048389/344671921.jpg[/img]

and now...
[img]http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1726/11845145/21048389/344671922.jpg[/img]

It's said a picture is worth a thousand words. I think these pictures speak clearly on the subject of modernism in the church.

[HisChildForever]

The Church is infallible. Whatever the Church does, I agree with. I would never speak against Her.

[HisChildForever]

I actually have a question. Are you defining "modernism" to mean "post-Vatican II" ?

[dominicansoul]

...like we guardians of the Faith haven't done enough damage modernizing Holy Mother Church as it is?

the Pope speaks but no one listens...look at how we worship at Mass...none of what I see in the churches in my area look anything like what Vatican II says it should look like...it's all someone else's "great vision" of "community..." and worshipping horizontally rather than vertically.....

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1710796' date='Nov 25 2008, 01:49 PM']Define this Modernism more? I personally find the actions of the last 40 years to be destructive, but I believe the Second Vatican Council was inherently good. I'll withhold my vote for now.[/quote]

Agreed.

I have a problem with the usage of the term "modernism" because going along with strict terminology, modernism is a heresy.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism)[/url]

The church is not meant to be "old" or "new" -- the church is timeless.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Ash Wednesday

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1710859' date='Nov 25 2008, 04:42 PM']I have a problem with the usage of the term "modernism" because going along with strict terminology, modernism is a heresy.[/quote]

Thank you, this is [i]exactly[/i] what I was driving at.

If one means "modernism" by inappropriate dress, lack of reverence (people text messaging or writing out grocery lists during the Mass), and fluffy homilies then sure, I agree this is terrible. But if one means "modernism" by "I am dead-set against Vatican II" then [i]that[/i] is not alright.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1710796' date='Nov 25 2008, 12:49 PM']Define this Modernism more? I personally find the actions of the last 40 years to be destructive, but I believe the Second Vatican Council was inherently good. I'll withhold my vote for now.[/quote]


[quote name='Theosis3' post='1710836' date='Nov 25 2008, 02:22 PM']To get into every detail of the modern changes that have occured since Vatican II would extend past the scope of this forum(and would probably be many pages long as well). But to touch on specifics for a more clear definition on what I say when I speak of modernism, lets consider these particular innovations (modernisms) that have came about since the introduction of Vatican II:

(1) Atmosphere during worship. The traditional mass holds an emphasis on the congregation lifting their hearts in prayers towards God (not one another) in a peaceful and non-worldly environment. The house of the Lord is not just a regular building resembling a community center or lecture hall. Worship was to be the center of the house of God. People would go to pray, not to be instructed, entertained or to socialize.

(2) The reverence for the Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. 16 genuflections, whereas now there are 3 or 4? Communion was given only on the tongue, with care that no pieces of our Lord would fall on the floor. Now communion is given on the hand adapting a protestant practice that was introduced to deny the Real Presence.

(3) Priest is the Sacrificer. The priest would to face the tabernacle, cross and altar, reciting ALL the prayers and performing all the actions of the mass, leading everyone in prayer TOWARDS GOD. Today the priest faces the people, again a protestant practice. Symbolically the priest has turned away from God and turned toward the people instead.

There are a great deal of many other changes but the gist of it all is that Catholic worship has moved away (some might say 'watered down') from a worship wholly focused directly to God and prayer in terms of reverence and approach, and shifted this focus more on the people. This can be argued as a good thing or a bad thing. Which is why I ask this very question: Do we need to modernize the Church?

I don't want to shift focus of this post on the individual changes of Vatican II, but rather then modernization that has come through Vatican II. I believe these before and after pictures may give us a visual explanation on how things once were and how they are now.

Then...

and now...

It's said a picture is worth a thousand words. I think these pictures speak clearly on the subject of modernism in the church.[/quote]

Then maybe you can reword the survey to ask what people think of some liturgical changes since Vat II? i'm witholding my vote as well.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Church Punk'][b]I think that there is always a new way we can look at things and to add to our worship and faith in the life of the Church.[/b]

That said, completely gutting the liturgy and replacing it with something more "relevant" may not have been the best choice. The result of such action has done little for unity and has erected schisms with in the body it self.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly, more or less. I do think that there has been a lot of good out of Vatican II--put away the torches--but I think there has been just as much bad.

The Mass has been made more 'accessible' for the people to be active participants, understanding fully what they are doing and why, particularly in the use of the vernacular. We are made to notice our neighbors, rather than have church become a "me and Jesus" experience like the Protestant mindset displays. The Church is about community--remember the symbolism about the cross going both ways--so we have improved there.

For my thoughts on music in the Mass, check out the praise and worship thread. I like the words, and I like the intention behind it, but the rock concert element should be removed, and that means proper instrumentation. Mass musicians aren't performers; they draw us to contemplation and prayer.

But, like Church Punk said, with Vatican II came a serious watering down of the FAITH and our catechesis. We don't get the meat and potatoes anymore because we're "too little" or true study of theology is unnecessary (again, this is often a Protestant view), even at RCIA in some cases. I know that I, along with everyone else in my CCD class, fell away because we didn't realize what we were learning was Truth. It was Jesus loves me sugary stuff, devoid of any actual knowledge, and what an affect that's had on today's Church.

[Theosis3]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1710864' date='Nov 25 2008, 04:48 PM']Thank you, this is [i]exactly[/i] what I was driving at.

If one means "modernism" by inappropriate dress, lack of reverence (people text messaging or writing out grocery lists during the Mass), and fluffy homilies then sure, I agree this is terrible. But if one means "modernism" by "I am dead-set against Vatican II" then [i]that[/i] is not alright.[/quote]

Thank you for your post and may the Lord's blessings be upon you.

I am not defining modernism to mean everything after Vatican II, no. What I'm speaking of is general changes that have occurred in the Catholic Church. Modernism as in accepting and adopting modern ways and ideas that again reflect the times and blend in more with society in general. Is this good? Is this bad? This isn't a post of "Is Vatican II bad?" But rather how you feel about the modernization that HAS occurred and does the Church need to be modernized in general? This isn't an attack on Vatican II, but keep in mind that it is safe to say that the Church has undergone more changes since Vatican II then it has in the last 400 years. Overall, these changes have effected practices in worship like the examples I gave previously... So I ask, how do you feel about those changes? Do you think they're good or bad? That is the only question purposed here.
Moderism : 1. Modern thought, character, or practice; 2. Sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards.

[Theosis3]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1710879' date='Nov 25 2008, 05:06 PM']Then maybe you can reword the survey to ask what people think of some liturgical changes since Vat II? i'm witholding my vote as well.[/quote]

I apologize if the wording was confusing. I am not very found of forums and do not hardly converse with others on boards. I recently registered and have been familiarizing myself with posts/posting and whatnot. That being said, I would reword the survey, but it is not allowing me to do so. You do not have to answer the survey, but i hope you do not feel as if I'm trying to manipulate the question/answer. That is far from my intention.

Peace be with you my friend. Take Care.

[rkwright]

Don't worry, I think you have clarified your intention through the posts.

Terms are important. The term 'Modernism' entails an actual heresy, so your use of the word threw some people off. See Ash Wednesday's post....

But I think you've made yourself clear now. Welcome BTW...

[BG45]

Making Mass available in the vernacular isn't a bad bit of modernizing, but to say...go the route of Cardinal Schonborn and have electric guitars, strobe lights, etc. would indeed be bad.

Let me say something as a Protestant who has watched his home church and many others slide below the waves as it were; to try to be relevant to today's society by being "cool" and a part of the world does nothing to share the truth of Jesus Christ. To try to be hip, to try to reach out by being something one is not, is to betray the Christian faith. I've watched churches break up over more contemporary music vs. traditional hymns, grow in numbers due to an anything goes attitude but have their actual faith diminish to almost nil...my own home church I grew up in went from monthly communion to quarterly communion because it's too traditional and not relevant to people in modern days.

Modern technology can be awesome; it allows a priest's voice to carry further during the course of the Mass; but on the flip side someone with a cell phone is going to interrupt the Mass. Usage of vernacular language allows the common man to understand what's going on, but it also allows for the breeding of familiarity and laxity in paying attention.

The Church, all said, should not conform to modern ways of thought on many issues which are inherently evil, nor should it go into the practice of such things. (Hope this helps, sorry for the disjointedness, under the weather)