Do We Need To Modernize The Church?

[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)

[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).