Do We Need To Modernize The Church?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Personally the term 'Modernization' in relation to the Church I immediately think fo those guys who want to 'Democratize' the Church as well. I know i'm wrong in this assumption, so I'll withhold my vote for now.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1710887' date='Nov 25 2008, 03:28 PM']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.[/quote]


[quote name='Theosis3' post='1710891' date='Nov 25 2008, 03:37 PM']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.[/quote]

thank you very much for the explanation above. i'll vote now.

[Apotheoun]

I am opposed to modernizing liturgical practices.

P.S. - This is my 10,000th post.

[jeffpugh]

Nice.

[philothea]

Oooh, I missed this earlier. Sorry about the late response.
[quote name='Theosis3' post='1710836' date='Nov 25 2008, 03:22 PM']{snip}
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.[/quote]
Maybe you didn't mean to be so, but the above comparison is somewhat dishonest. You're comparing an altar all decorated for the feast of a martyr, during a mass, vs. an unused altar stripped for Good Friday!

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1710843' date='Nov 25 2008, 03:29 PM']The Church is infallible. Whatever the Church does, I agree with. I would never speak against Her.[/quote]



[quote name='MissyP89' post='1710882' date='Nov 25 2008, 04:15 PM']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. [/quote]
You know, I'm not sure this is an effect of modernity at all. Every saint I've read who comments on the disposition of ordinary Catholics, as far as I can recall, always condemns them as willfully ignorant of their faith, reciting prayers out of rote, and going through the motions only for appearance. St. John Vianney is particularly brutal, and he was preaching in the early 1800s.

As for my opinion of 'modernism' ... well, I think the Church has always adapted to the culture she finds herself within, and I don't see why the modern world should be an exception. Of course there are abuses and confusion, but never changing anything is not the solution.

[cmotherofpirl]

The most important thing in a Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, so He can be present in a dirt hut or a soaring modern cathedral. The envelope is never as important than the letter inside.

[Guest nvzbl]

When Jesus lived their were temples. Then Peter modernized as so did Martin Luther. The "old' Catholic church was the modern Jesus place of worship. He worshiped on a mountain. Now we worship before the cross. There are many examples of modernization. Even before now.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1710843' date='Nov 25 2008, 03:29 PM']The Church is infallible. Whatever the Church does, I agree with. I would never speak against Her.[/quote]
Yes is this where I stand too!!

Let us MAKE SURE that we understand what the Church teaches and what Her intent was/is. I think Vatican II was [b]BADLY[/b] needed however as some one has said before these past 40 years have not been what Vatican II intended.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1715970' date='Dec 1 2008, 05:22 PM']The most important thing in a Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, so He can be present in a dirt hut or a soaring modern cathedral. The envelope is never as important than the letter inside.[/quote]

AMEN!

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1715970' date='Dec 1 2008, 03:22 PM']The most important thing in a Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, so He can be present in a dirt hut or a soaring modern cathedral. The envelope is never as important than the letter inside.[/quote]

Except when the letter inside clearly states what the envelope is to be like, and then an envelope is created which does not conform to what the letter demands. That gives no respect to the letter.

Christ is not honored by ugly buildings. Sure, he can be honored [i][b]in[/i][/b] them, but not [i][b]by[/i][/b] them. They are akin to the sacrifices of Cain: rejected because they are unfit, ugly monstrosities.

The modern Church is a sham. Before the abuse by clergy and laity of the Holy Second Vatican Council, 75% of Catholics regularly attended Mass. Now only 25% regularly attend. 50% of our brothers and sisters have left the faith, and this modern, tired, hippie refuse has done nothing to save them. In fact, it has driven them away.

I wish I could use stronger language, but damnation on the modernization of the Church (that is, modernization which does not conform to the maxims TRULY laid down in the Second Vatican Council).

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1716664' date='Dec 2 2008, 02:26 PM']The modern Church is a sham. Before the abuse by clergy and laity of the Holy Second Vatican Council, 75% of Catholics regularly attended Mass. Now only 25% regularly attend. 50% of our brothers and sisters have left the faith, and this modern, tired, hippie refuse has done nothing to save them. In fact, it has driven them away.[/quote]

...is this heresy?

Because this doesn't sound like it:

[quote]I wish I could use stronger language, but damnation on the modernization of the Church (that is, modernization which does not conform to the maxims TRULY laid down in the Second Vatican Council).[/quote]

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1716664' date='Dec 2 2008, 03:26 PM']Christ is not honored by ugly buildings.
The modern Church is a sham.[/quote]

Christ is honored by whatever we build in his honor. It doesn't matter what you think it looks like. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The modern Church is a sham, are you frickin serious!?! Go fly a kite.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1716666' date='Dec 2 2008, 12:40 PM']Christ is honored by whatever we build in his honor. It doesn't matter what you think it looks like. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The modern Church is a sham, are you frickin serious!?! Go fly a kite.[/quote]

"The modern Church is a sham"

Perhaps I should clarify myself here, because this could easily be interpreted to mean something I did not intend.

The Church, as the institution of Christ, is immutable and infallible. While the world lasts, it will continue to validly administer the sacraments and will be undefeated by the whiles of Satan.

So now that that is out of the way...

54% of Catholics voted for baby-killing Obama.

Only 25% of Catholics regularly attend Mass, as opposed to 75% in the last generation.

The Western Church is teeming with heterodox clergy, chancery officers, and liturgists. Many (if not most) of our Bishops in the US are too afraid (or are wholly unwilling) to take a stand against abortion and other modern crimes.

Sad.

So on a cosmic level, the Church is strong and always will be. On the practical level, in our day the Church is weak, marginalized, and overrun with heretics.

"Christ is honored by whatever we build in his honor."

Wrong. God rejected Cain's sacrifice. God made it very clear to the Jews how they were to worship him. The Western tradition is objectively good, true, and beautiful. Obstinate divergence from it is not in the spirit of true Catholic development. Good intentions are not enough when it comes to authentic, liturgical worship. Form is essential, and the Church has affirmed this time and time again.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Blasphemy. The eternal archetype of beauty is God himself. Beauty is not, on the ontological level, purely subjective (that is what this ridiculous statement makes it out to be), but is rather the most objective thing in existence.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1716665' date='Dec 2 2008, 12:31 PM']...is this heresy?

Because this doesn't sound like it:[/quote]

I wouldn't call it the Holy Second Vatican council if I was one of those ultra-traditionalists or Sedevacantists who call it an invalid Council. It was a valid council.

I do not attack any council, only the perversion of its teachings when it is received by local clergy and laity. The truth of Vatican II was twisted, mangled and completely lost amidst the wave of heretical and heteroprax innovations that took place in the decades after the council. None of the modern garbage that we see today was an authentic product of Vatican II.