Catholic cartoon trivia

Gumby

“Gumby” gets his name from the Latin, which means “flexible”.

My response to a reader comment shocked me.

BHCommwAl

Remembering simpler times. Were they really better?

by Doug Lawrence

Responding to a recent comment about the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, I wrote:

I lived during the era of the pre-Vatican II Church, so I’m an eye-witness.

Way back then, 75% of Catholics attended Mass every Sunday. Urban renewal projects had yet to break up and disperse faithful Catholic communities. Contraception and abortion were not yet central issues of the day. The clarity of Catholic teaching was superb.

The quality of Catholic schools was excellent and the tuition was easily affordable, even for families with many children. Catholic churches were beautiful. Men and women religious were numerous, orthodox, and wholly dedicated to their work.

The liturgy was traditional, Latin, and quite adequate. The seminaries had yet to be liberalized and feminized, so there was an abundance of good priests available to serve the needs of most parishes.

In those days, the Catholic Church was respected, all around the world. We had a strong Pope in the Vatican, no nonsense bishops running most of the dioceses, and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen proclaiming Catholic truth to the masses every week, on network TV.

Of course, there were a few “bad apples” and scandals, even then. But the pre-Vatican II church knew how to properly handle them.

Then there was Vatican II … somebody put the radicals in charge … the church tore itself apart, lost its focus, along with much of its good sense, and with a few exceptions, things have been going downhill ever since. 

Were things really that good, back then? Comments, anyone?

Thanks to Cathy for the original comment!

Feeling “down”? Enjoy listening to “The Litany of the Saints” in English or Latin.

rosarysaints

Listen in English (mp3) (about 5 minutes)

Listen in Latin (mp3) (about 16 minutes)

Visit the site for these and more free Catholic downloads

Revised Roman Missal: They should have put in just a bit of Latin.

by Doug Lawrence

By far the greatest difficulty with the newly revised Mass translation is remembering to say “And with your spirit” instead of “And also with you.”

The “old” response is so ingrained as to be virtually automatic, with probably half or more of the congregation routinely “flubbing it”.

Perhaps things will improve over time, but the elegant and traditional solution (and one that will really irritate the libs) is to go back to the Latin! (What’s the problem? The liturgy already retains certain phrases, in Greek.)

Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo.

(“The Lord be with you. And with your spirit.”)

Most of today’s Catholics have never heard it, so there should be absolutely no problem with prior conditioning or habit.

Note to surviving, pre-Vatican II Catholics: Please try to remember that “Et cum spiritu tuo”  is NOT the emergency phone number for the Vatican!

You might be a progressive Catholic if …

… you think “Latin” refers only to South America, or some “hot” dance moves.

Traditional Latin Mass Explained


The theology of the Catholic Faith is expressed in the rich symbolism of the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, commonly known as the Traditional Latin Mass.

Read all about it

What was wrong with the old ICEL translation of the Mass?

“New” (top) vs. “Traditional” (below)


From God’s perspective (or man’s, for that matter)
which Mass looks more like genuine, authentic worship?

Anyway, that’s the most striking thing I noticed about the ICEL, just from contrasting Eucharistic Prayer I with a word-for-word rendition of the Latin Canon. God is dethroned; we are no longer servants offering a Pure Victim, an Holy Victim, an Unblemished Victim unto God’s most illustrious majesty, which we beg of Him to accept with a serene countenance. Rather, we are “ministers,” bossing God around like fussy matrons in an hurry, so unimpressed with the sacred that we tend not to qualify anything with superlatives or ennobling adjectives.

Even where such adjectives are used, something seems amiss. It may seem small, but I think there is a big difference between offering a Pure Victim, an Holy Victim, an Unstained Victim unto the Most Illustrious Majesty of God, and offering a sacrifice to the God of glory and majesty… just like there is a difference between Jesus’ “glorious Ascension into the heavens,” and Jesus “ascending into glory” (whatever that means). I.e., in subtle ways, even in the places where positive adjectives are used of God’s actions or attributes, the phrasing is usually reworked so that any sense of subordination to the Divine Attributes, or awe of the loftiness of the divine actions, is replaced by a simple acknowledgment that God happens to be great. It’s almost as if it were saying, “I’m not offering this unto Your Majesty, I’m offering it to You, Who happen to be majestic… but, don’t expect me to trip over myself in adulation just because You happen to be majestic. After all, I am Church; I am child of God; I am God. Lord, I am worthy that You should come under my roof. Because You said the word, I have no further need of You.”

In short, I think that is why they eliminated all the “majestic” and “noble” sentiments of the Canon, even in places where seemingly no pet project of the liberal agenda was involved. It may seem like there was nothing to be gained from demoting “This All-Illustrious and Venerable Chalice” to “the cup.” But, if you detest any hint of men fawning before an Holiness transcendent of their limitations, you especially can’t bear for a mere “cup” to capture man’s awe and devotion.

More comments from Father Z’s site