As a Catholic convert from a multidenominational background (everything from Baptist to Episcopal), I'd like to offer a different perspective on the conservative movement in the Catholic Church from that of the WSJ and other mainstream media. At my university-serving Catholic parish, we have been blessed with numerous young adults coming into the Church each year (53 this Easter, a new record, a majority of which were young men). We are not a "Trad" Catholic parish, at least in terms of offering a Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). (There is a another church in town, however, that does offer an authorized but unadvertised TLM.) Rather, we are a parish that is trying to live out the positive (and actual, vice, alleged) changes brought about by Vatican II while resurrecting long-neglected practices that help create an authentic Catholic community. I believe our converts are drawn to the reverent worship using the Novus Order (New Mass) in English, intelligent and thoughtful homilies (we are blessed to be served by five Dominican priests - the Order of Preachers), and the beauty of our new Romanesque sanctuary, statues and iconography. They are also drawn to seriousness with which our parishioners, including our hundreds of students, practice the faith. Confession is offered multiple times a week by 2-4 priests and waits of 30 minutes or more are the norm. Adoration (the practice of praying in what we believe to be the physical presence of Christ) is offered each weekday and on special occasions throughout the night. Many of the male students serve as altar boys at Masses, particularly the High Mass on Sunday that features incense, bells and organ-lead hymns (ironically most of which are Protestant in origin.) A not insignificant number of the young (and older) women wear head coverings at Mass. Finally, our OCIA classes (the six-month instruction in the Catholic faith for most converts) offer an intellectual and coherent explanation of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. All this to say that my experience and reading and discussion of the Church with others, has lead me to conclude that the TLM and the communities formed around that Mass are but a part (and perhaps not even the largest part) of the "conservative" renaissance in the Catholic Church. It is the serious, thoughtful and joyful expression of the Catholic faith by Catholic Churches, regardless of the form of the Mass, that is the ultimate draw.
I, too, have been thinking a lot about divides within Christianity and the decline in Christianity as measured if Church attendance. Said decline seems to scare church leaders more in lost revenue than in the possibility of lost souls. Decline in Church memberships is an encouraging trend in my thinking. But, mor relevant to your discussion, I think that you're on to something in mentioning that Evangelicals, especially, are increasing the loses by doubling down on dissing tradition. The incredibly ugly 'worship' music they have adopted to replace traditional church music, intended to attract younger people, attracted only those young people most addicted to self-referencing and danceable sexual crap. In most such churches attendees are restricted to 12-18 year-olds and those over 65. Nothing is more disgusting to see in church than old women humping on the back of a pew and waving their arms in pretend ecstasy. And sermons are not much more than 10 minute watered down homilies. The young leave off attending as soon as they get married, get pregnant, or leave for college.
Many American Catholic churches have similar styles and similar results. The only Churches that buck that trend are Easter Orthodox and traditional Catholic ones. Young married couples and middle aged people feel out of place in either. I grew up in Evangelical circles but could not stomach the fake youth culture that has invaded it. The majority of the boomers and older generation was infected by the sexual and other 'liberation' of the sixties, as a result they tend to cling to it however they are able, I guess.
I really don’t like the idea of rejoicing over someone going to hell, it’s an incredibly nasty instinct. God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked as I recall.
Next, by evangelical standards all it takes is belief in Jesus Christ to be saved, you don’t know if someone did or didn’t. People aren’t meat computers where they always and at all times go by the doctrine they were taught, or always have a perfect understanding either (see Galatians).
It seems related to what John Eldredge calls “hard ass Christianity” where like it says in the Screwtape letters men ask what is strong, or stark, or bold, not what is true, or prudent.
Enjoyed all the thoughts on the RCC/Protestant divide here.
As for this statement:
>Catholicism is a religion of the past, with trad Catholicism almost explicitly being positioned in those terms. Protestantism is a religion of the future, indeed which has created the future, the modern world in which we live.
I can't help but think this statement is doubly true for EO, which has always struck me as being structured in a way that would make a lot of sense if you thought the discovery of the New World was an inconvenient and temporary fact that would work itself out without need for further action.
By contrast America is the exemplar of Protestantism. New World Protestantism is Protestantism unfettered, Protestantism taken to its natural conclusions; both its best and its worst can be found here, regardless of what you think its best and its worst *are*.
I think the forces in the RCC that tried to modernize it, that pushed ahead with Vatican II, saw what Aaron sees here. They were dissatisfied with the position of being a faith that merely attracted intellectual converts with reactionary inclinations -- "Medieval history nerds," in my parlance (which I say with all due respect as a medieval history nerd myself).
But the lesson of Vatican II's failure is that structurally, in the contest of better adapting to modernity, a bureaucratic Old World organization can't keep up with the decentralized and entrepreneurial New World approach. The RCC survives, in the face of Protestant competition, by accepting this reactionary niche, with EO surviving by occupying an even more reactionary niche.
Yes, but I wonder if Eastern Orthodoxy can survive the influx of Americans pouring into it! I can hardly imagine a more fundamental clash of mindsets. Americans may be enamored by the traditions of an ancient denomination, but can they really grasp what that means, when in this country, REALLY OLD is maybe 250 years??
Sooner or later, the American in them is going to get impatient, and begin expecting change.
As a Catholic convert from a multidenominational background (everything from Baptist to Episcopal), I'd like to offer a different perspective on the conservative movement in the Catholic Church from that of the WSJ and other mainstream media. At my university-serving Catholic parish, we have been blessed with numerous young adults coming into the Church each year (53 this Easter, a new record, a majority of which were young men). We are not a "Trad" Catholic parish, at least in terms of offering a Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). (There is a another church in town, however, that does offer an authorized but unadvertised TLM.) Rather, we are a parish that is trying to live out the positive (and actual, vice, alleged) changes brought about by Vatican II while resurrecting long-neglected practices that help create an authentic Catholic community. I believe our converts are drawn to the reverent worship using the Novus Order (New Mass) in English, intelligent and thoughtful homilies (we are blessed to be served by five Dominican priests - the Order of Preachers), and the beauty of our new Romanesque sanctuary, statues and iconography. They are also drawn to seriousness with which our parishioners, including our hundreds of students, practice the faith. Confession is offered multiple times a week by 2-4 priests and waits of 30 minutes or more are the norm. Adoration (the practice of praying in what we believe to be the physical presence of Christ) is offered each weekday and on special occasions throughout the night. Many of the male students serve as altar boys at Masses, particularly the High Mass on Sunday that features incense, bells and organ-lead hymns (ironically most of which are Protestant in origin.) A not insignificant number of the young (and older) women wear head coverings at Mass. Finally, our OCIA classes (the six-month instruction in the Catholic faith for most converts) offer an intellectual and coherent explanation of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. All this to say that my experience and reading and discussion of the Church with others, has lead me to conclude that the TLM and the communities formed around that Mass are but a part (and perhaps not even the largest part) of the "conservative" renaissance in the Catholic Church. It is the serious, thoughtful and joyful expression of the Catholic faith by Catholic Churches, regardless of the form of the Mass, that is the ultimate draw.
I, too, have been thinking a lot about divides within Christianity and the decline in Christianity as measured if Church attendance. Said decline seems to scare church leaders more in lost revenue than in the possibility of lost souls. Decline in Church memberships is an encouraging trend in my thinking. But, mor relevant to your discussion, I think that you're on to something in mentioning that Evangelicals, especially, are increasing the loses by doubling down on dissing tradition. The incredibly ugly 'worship' music they have adopted to replace traditional church music, intended to attract younger people, attracted only those young people most addicted to self-referencing and danceable sexual crap. In most such churches attendees are restricted to 12-18 year-olds and those over 65. Nothing is more disgusting to see in church than old women humping on the back of a pew and waving their arms in pretend ecstasy. And sermons are not much more than 10 minute watered down homilies. The young leave off attending as soon as they get married, get pregnant, or leave for college.
Many American Catholic churches have similar styles and similar results. The only Churches that buck that trend are Easter Orthodox and traditional Catholic ones. Young married couples and middle aged people feel out of place in either. I grew up in Evangelical circles but could not stomach the fake youth culture that has invaded it. The majority of the boomers and older generation was infected by the sexual and other 'liberation' of the sixties, as a result they tend to cling to it however they are able, I guess.
I really don’t like the idea of rejoicing over someone going to hell, it’s an incredibly nasty instinct. God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked as I recall.
Next, by evangelical standards all it takes is belief in Jesus Christ to be saved, you don’t know if someone did or didn’t. People aren’t meat computers where they always and at all times go by the doctrine they were taught, or always have a perfect understanding either (see Galatians).
It seems related to what John Eldredge calls “hard ass Christianity” where like it says in the Screwtape letters men ask what is strong, or stark, or bold, not what is true, or prudent.
Enjoyed all the thoughts on the RCC/Protestant divide here.
As for this statement:
>Catholicism is a religion of the past, with trad Catholicism almost explicitly being positioned in those terms. Protestantism is a religion of the future, indeed which has created the future, the modern world in which we live.
I can't help but think this statement is doubly true for EO, which has always struck me as being structured in a way that would make a lot of sense if you thought the discovery of the New World was an inconvenient and temporary fact that would work itself out without need for further action.
By contrast America is the exemplar of Protestantism. New World Protestantism is Protestantism unfettered, Protestantism taken to its natural conclusions; both its best and its worst can be found here, regardless of what you think its best and its worst *are*.
I think the forces in the RCC that tried to modernize it, that pushed ahead with Vatican II, saw what Aaron sees here. They were dissatisfied with the position of being a faith that merely attracted intellectual converts with reactionary inclinations -- "Medieval history nerds," in my parlance (which I say with all due respect as a medieval history nerd myself).
But the lesson of Vatican II's failure is that structurally, in the contest of better adapting to modernity, a bureaucratic Old World organization can't keep up with the decentralized and entrepreneurial New World approach. The RCC survives, in the face of Protestant competition, by accepting this reactionary niche, with EO surviving by occupying an even more reactionary niche.
Yes, but I wonder if Eastern Orthodoxy can survive the influx of Americans pouring into it! I can hardly imagine a more fundamental clash of mindsets. Americans may be enamored by the traditions of an ancient denomination, but can they really grasp what that means, when in this country, REALLY OLD is maybe 250 years??
Sooner or later, the American in them is going to get impatient, and begin expecting change.