I am 22 and a revert to the Faith. The Cathedrals in Europe and beautiful liturgies played a large part in my reversion. I’m from Miami, where not only is the architecture and art scene terrible, but nearly all Catholic liturgy is. So initially, the TLM movement was VERY attractive to me (as it is to most young Catholics these days). Indeed I think the Church makes a huge mistake in not listening to the few Catholic youth left (who are nearly all traditional). However I do agree that us younger trads are longing for a liturgical paradise that never really existed and never will. The TLM’s around now are so niche that of course they are mostly all done beautifully. However, I agree it would be ridiculous to say that many Tridentine Rite masses in the 50s were not banal. In fact, I now realize that I really do prefer the Novus Ordo to the TLM in many ways (The introduction of the vernacular, reception of both species, the responses being available to the entire congregation, etc.). However there are a few changes I still maintain are massive mistakes. 1. Versus Populum (which inevitably leads to abuses and lessens transcendence) 2. Communion in the hand 3. Excessive and imprudent announcements at the beginning and end of Mass 4. The anti-V2 practice of ridding Latin completely from the Mass. THAT BEING SAID the real enemy here is really the new “spirit” of looseness and banality in the liturgy that is nowhere found in the new GIRM. I have grown to love liturgy and have served in the Novus Ordo extensively. In many parishes in Miami, my suggestion that we try and improve the liturgy by walking slowly, having chalice veils, adding more candles, including Incense where we can etc. (all consistent with the GIRM) has been met many times with a sort of strange suspicion. Many think I am too focused on the “exteriors”. For a time I listened to them, out of respect for my elders in the Faith, but I can confidently say now that this is wrong and we have a duty to correct people who think this way. Aesthetic beauty has always been a sign of the heavenly realities we believe, and V2 never stated otherwise. Only its amorphous evil twin, the “Spirit of V2”, did.
Great interview! Couldn’t agree more with everything said here! Thank you Bishop Barron for taking the time! Thanks Larry, and pray for a good recovery from your injuries!
I'm a young recently baptised (easter vigil) convert in a Trad Parish in Melbourne and I appreciate the conversation. I am glad to hear Bishop Barron recognise what is so obvious to a 23 year-old who has grown up in this mad postmodern culture, which is that synodality is simply an attempt at perpetual revolution in the Church. Though I do dispute equating Rad Trads and Progressives. I was converted by Trads, I have formed my conscience to align with the teaching of Jesus Christ because of spending time around authentic traditional followers of Our Lord. If anyone is evangelising successfully it is the Trads, our Parish has so many young converts and reverts from Monash and Melbourne University, we are the ones fighting the good fight, we are evangelising, we do believe in the dogmas and doctrines of the faith whereas you conservatives I am afraid to say are pusillanimous and undermine us constantly, allowing the progressive and feminist agenda to be taught in Catholic schools, allowing irreverence to persist in Churches, removing altar rails from the Churches, introducing communion on the hand, you conservatives are the obstacle --- stop pretending like the removal of altar rails and kneelers are not abuses they are! There can be no compromise position with the liberals they will always keep pushing and pushing and pushing. They bracket holy scripture in the Churches, omitting St. Paul because he is sexist, you are defending this unless you are attacking it. Trads accept everything up until 1962 and the progressives only accept 1962 onwards, who is worse? The progressives must be excised from the Church like a cancer because that is what they are, a heretical cancer, then we can begin to have a discussion about Trads.
I agree with the sentiment here. I am also a younger revert (22) who was put off by the lib banality infecting the Church these days. I was only brought into the faith by attending beautiful (Novus Ordo) liturgies in breathtaking cathedrals in Spain. I am not sure why the modern church is bracketing traditionalists (which are sometimes a problem but many times not) while allowing more dangerous groups (progressive Catholics like Rohr, Martin, etc.) to grow. The priorities are off.
You know what kind of sucks? This bifurcation between the laity and the clergy. We’re in this together. Yes, we have differences offices, but the “ball” is dropped not by the “laity”, but Catholics, regardless of office. I think so long as there is a finger to point amongst Catholics at a different kind of office, we forget that the whole *body* is sick when one part is sick.
I was as a boy raised till age 11 in the traditional liturgy. Was it aestheticly well done? Cannot say. Was I devout? Not very. After I was confirmed (at age 11) my parents stopped driving into town for mass. I lost the practice of the faith...till I was 21. Those years were the 1960's with all that entails. The point? Communion on my knees, with the altar rail, NEVER touching the sacred host gave me an experience of the sacred, the holy, the set apart that I never lost which drew me back to the Catholic faith. Bishop Barron has called our loss of faith in the Blessed Sacrament a disaster. Well if a barely believing kid could take that away from that form of liturgy to such a degree that years later after...well the 1960s outside the Church. You might want to look closely at that phenomenon in less abstract intellectual ways and say the practice itself, in that form has power that needs attention paid to it. I intend this text for the speakers.
Talking about Vatican II reforms let me draw your attention to some practical implications, if such reforms are implemented in a specific, rather controversial way. The reforms in the Catholic Church are sometimes not so much organic development but also a sort of total reform, which included (among many other changes) not only the reversal of the orientation of prayer, changing liturgical language, the calendar, the unchanging since time immemorial times the order of the readings, but also (albeit indirectly) the numbering of the psalms. It also affected Corpus Christi, not only the procession itself, but also the the Mass readings. Since the establishment of this feast, the Church has read (and continues to read in the traditional lectionary, TLM) the passage from 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. In the Reformed liturgy (Novus Ordo), it was already only once every three years. This is how it was read one year ago and will be read in two years. And with one notable omission - the last passage (1 Corinthians 11:27-29): "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty Body and Blood of the Lord. Let him therefore man take heed to himself, in eating this bread and drinking from this cup. For he who eats and drinks , disregarding the Body, judgment to himself eats and drinks." This is more than just a practical cutting. It's a muting of the strongest apostolic call to respect the sacred character of the Eucharist. This change (and others like it) have become a signpost of desacralization, an entire practical weakening of the reverence given to the Most Holy Eucharist: changes in the way it is reception, administration (without the necessary mediation of a priest or deacon), turning prayer away from the Most Holy (and most visible) Presence. Let us thank God that in in some countries (like Poland and some other in Europe), at least processions are going the old way. This is (most literally) a priceless treasure of our religious and national life
As someone who turns 70 this year, I can attest to what both Barron and Chapp say about liturgy, both pre- and post-Vatican II. Most Masses of my boyhood were dry, mechanical, and routine. One priest at my parish would not only whip through a Sunday Mass in 30 minutes or so, but if memory serves, in Confession (as it was called then) he would be pronouncing absolution as you were naming your sins. Liturgical abuses didn’t begin with the NO; there were simply abuses of a different kind. I also suspect, as expressed in the video, that if every Roman rite church on the planet were required to return to the TLM, within five years the situation would be no different from how it was in my childhood, an idea I’ve expressed on several occasions.
34:00 I heard a sermon from Cardinal Cupich a month ago. It was so saccharine and unbiblical it made me wonder, "if this is the faith, why would anyone give their life for this?"
Priests were taught not to write and memorize their sermons????? That's bewildering and explains SO much. I am a Catholic convert, and I have trouble understanding why I hear so many bad sermons.
The problem with many members of the laity is a 1) a lack of knowledge, education, and formation, and 2) even if they have knowledge, education, and formation they lack the confidence and conviction to take it up with others.
Wow, as a Catholic, I would expect a Catholic Bishop to speak of Christ, Our Lady, Holy Angels, and the thousands of saints, many who died defending Jesus Christ and his bride the Catholic church.
Very interesting about the failure of the laity. I think it might be said that instead of rising to the challenge the laity formed parish councils and have even interfered with Bishops by creating bureaucracies. I’m thinking of the recent canceling of Calvin Robinson at Easter by the choir at a Catholic Church in the UK as one example. But this issue is mentioned in Denis Crouan’s book The Liturgy Betrayed.
We are divided in the Catholic world. That is a fact. For me the synthesis of that division is expressed clearly in the words of that man that was part of the “agiornamento” but later, experiencing the unwanted changes of Vatican II, and seeing the division in the church, expressed clearly his evaluation and call. That man was Joseph Ratzinger who told the world : to abandon the dictatorship of relativism. Today, everything in our church is relative, and on top of that the highest authority is telling us that probably there is no hell. The serpent in the garden of Eden , told the first man and woman: be relativistic and you shall be god. Christ came so we may embrace reality in his Cross.
"A coerced Faith is no faith...." I think this means, one doesn't coerce into baptism. Once baptized, the Faithful are IN FACT under sanctions when they espouse heresy in Faith or morals. They are coerced by the sanctions, and rightfully so.
Dear Bishop Barron and Mr. Chapp, thank you for this wonderful interview. Being Catholic, I have a question about the Vatican II doctrine - Can a person who worships other deities(hindus, muslims, budhists for examples) while listening to their inner voice(they may call it their conscience) be saved? Acts Chapter 4 and John 14:6 are only some of the verses in the Holy Bible that unambiguously state that Jesus is exclusive and the only way to salvation(Salvation is found in Jesus alone). Deductively, there can be only one conclusion, that the Vatican II doctrine is playing around the subject(being secular as to not hurt people who aren't Christian) and attempting to dilute Jesus' exclusiveness and the Evangelion. I am trying to be a devout Catholic, which is why I must say that this doctrine of Vatican II stands in conflict with the Gospel. We as Catholics(laity and clergy) should speak out respectfully yet uncompromisingly. The Gospel is exclusive in its narrative.
Are you sure, beyond on doubt, that there is no way for Christ to participate in a person’s life without them intellectually understanding the mechanism by which they are transformed and saved?
@@thebacons5943 you put it beautifully. Christ has no limitations, agreed. However, the person's cooperation with His Grace also plays a part. Which is why my question states - a person who is listening to their conscience for most of the time, however, is a practicing Hindu. I.e. they worship a different 'deity'. Can such a person be saved?
@@richard6216 I think the answer is simply that it is reasonable to hope this is the case. In strictly my opinion, it would be hard to imagine the alternative, but we aren’t in a position to know with certainty/probability
@@thebacons5943 right. God has no limitations and that is obvious. For instance, the Sacraments are there for us, but they don't limit God. A good example is the thief on the cross. He was a non-believer until the last moments of his life here. However, he believed in the True Saviour and was saved. I understand this - John 3:16 is the key and it has to be an exclusive belief in the Lord Jesus. We can't be serving two or more masters. As an evangelist, we ought to preach this exclusive and unique claim of Jesus about Himself. Tell people about this claim and then the ball is in their court.
The words of the enticement, that is to say the temptation, as formulated in the sacred text, are in inducement to transgress this prohibition - that is to say, to go beyond that ' limit ' : " you are all dead in your trespasses" or " when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". The adoption of this theme also has extremely important methodological implications, for it reverses the momentum of such liberal theological speculation, which has tended to read CAULDIUM ET SPES and hence misread Christ in light of man
I confess: I’m Protestant- but I found this dialogue delightful- I learn so much from you both! Thanks Dr. Chapp!
I am 22 and a revert to the Faith. The Cathedrals in Europe and beautiful liturgies played a large part in my reversion. I’m from Miami, where not only is the architecture and art scene terrible, but nearly all Catholic liturgy is. So initially, the TLM movement was VERY attractive to me (as it is to most young Catholics these days). Indeed I think the Church makes a huge mistake in not listening to the few Catholic youth left (who are nearly all traditional). However I do agree that us younger trads are longing for a liturgical paradise that never really existed and never will. The TLM’s around now are so niche that of course they are mostly all done beautifully. However, I agree it would be ridiculous to say that many Tridentine Rite masses in the 50s were not banal. In fact, I now realize that I really do prefer the Novus Ordo to the TLM in many ways (The introduction of the vernacular, reception of both species, the responses being available to the entire congregation, etc.). However there are a few changes I still maintain are massive mistakes. 1. Versus Populum (which inevitably leads to abuses and lessens transcendence) 2. Communion in the hand 3. Excessive and imprudent announcements at the beginning and end of Mass 4. The anti-V2 practice of ridding Latin completely from the Mass. THAT BEING SAID the real enemy here is really the new “spirit” of looseness and banality in the liturgy that is nowhere found in the new GIRM. I have grown to love liturgy and have served in the Novus Ordo extensively. In many parishes in Miami, my suggestion that we try and improve the liturgy by walking slowly, having chalice veils, adding more candles, including Incense where we can etc. (all consistent with the GIRM) has been met many times with a sort of strange suspicion. Many think I am too focused on the “exteriors”. For a time I listened to them, out of respect for my elders in the Faith, but I can confidently say now that this is wrong and we have a duty to correct people who think this way. Aesthetic beauty has always been a sign of the heavenly realities we believe, and V2 never stated otherwise. Only its amorphous evil twin, the “Spirit of V2”, did.
❤❤❤
Great interview! Couldn’t agree more with everything said here! Thank you Bishop Barron for taking the time! Thanks Larry, and pray for a good recovery from your injuries!
I'm a young recently baptised (easter vigil) convert in a Trad Parish in Melbourne and I appreciate the conversation. I am glad to hear Bishop Barron recognise what is so obvious to a 23 year-old who has grown up in this mad postmodern culture, which is that synodality is simply an attempt at perpetual revolution in the Church. Though I do dispute equating Rad Trads and Progressives. I was converted by Trads, I have formed my conscience to align with the teaching of Jesus Christ because of spending time around authentic traditional followers of Our Lord. If anyone is evangelising successfully it is the Trads, our Parish has so many young converts and reverts from Monash and Melbourne University, we are the ones fighting the good fight, we are evangelising, we do believe in the dogmas and doctrines of the faith whereas you conservatives I am afraid to say are pusillanimous and undermine us constantly, allowing the progressive and feminist agenda to be taught in Catholic schools, allowing irreverence to persist in Churches, removing altar rails from the Churches, introducing communion on the hand, you conservatives are the obstacle --- stop pretending like the removal of altar rails and kneelers are not abuses they are! There can be no compromise position with the liberals they will always keep pushing and pushing and pushing. They bracket holy scripture in the Churches, omitting St. Paul because he is sexist, you are defending this unless you are attacking it. Trads accept everything up until 1962 and the progressives only accept 1962 onwards, who is worse? The progressives must be excised from the Church like a cancer because that is what they are, a heretical cancer, then we can begin to have a discussion about Trads.
I agree with the sentiment here. I am also a younger revert (22) who was put off by the lib banality infecting the Church these days. I was only brought into the faith by attending beautiful (Novus Ordo) liturgies in breathtaking cathedrals in Spain. I am not sure why the modern church is bracketing traditionalists (which are sometimes a problem but many times not) while allowing more dangerous groups (progressive Catholics like Rohr, Martin, etc.) to grow. The priorities are off.
You know what kind of sucks? This bifurcation between the laity and the clergy. We’re in this together. Yes, we have differences offices, but the “ball” is dropped not by the “laity”, but Catholics, regardless of office. I think so long as there is a finger to point amongst Catholics at a different kind of office, we forget that the whole *body* is sick when one part is sick.
This is a great interview! Bishop Barron really lets his hair down. Thank You, Dr Chapp.
Can’t wait to watch this!!
I was as a boy raised till age 11 in the traditional liturgy. Was it aestheticly well done? Cannot say. Was I devout? Not very. After I was confirmed (at age 11) my parents stopped driving into town for mass. I lost the practice of the faith...till I was 21. Those years were the 1960's with all that entails. The point? Communion on my knees, with the altar rail, NEVER touching the sacred host gave me an experience of the sacred, the holy, the set apart that I never lost which drew me back to the Catholic faith. Bishop Barron has called our loss of faith in the Blessed Sacrament a disaster. Well if a barely believing kid could take that away from that form of liturgy to such a degree that years later after...well the 1960s outside the Church. You might want to look closely at that phenomenon in less abstract intellectual ways and say the practice itself, in that form has power that needs attention paid to it. I intend this text for the speakers.
Thank you again bishop! Don’t forget to slide on the floor diagonally! Peace be with you!!!!
Talking about Vatican II reforms let me draw your attention to some practical implications, if such reforms are implemented in a specific, rather controversial way. The reforms in the Catholic Church are sometimes not so much organic development but also a sort of total reform, which included (among many other changes) not only the reversal of the orientation of prayer, changing liturgical language, the calendar, the unchanging since time immemorial times the order of the readings, but also (albeit indirectly) the numbering of the psalms.
It also affected Corpus Christi, not only the procession itself, but also the the Mass readings. Since the establishment of this feast, the Church has read (and continues to read in the traditional lectionary, TLM) the passage from 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. In the Reformed liturgy (Novus Ordo), it was already only once every three years. This is how it was read one year ago and will be read in two years. And with one notable omission - the last passage (1 Corinthians 11:27-29): "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty Body and Blood of the Lord. Let him therefore man take heed to himself, in eating this bread and drinking from this cup. For he who eats and drinks , disregarding the Body, judgment to himself eats and drinks."
This is more than just a practical cutting. It's a muting of the strongest apostolic call to respect the sacred character of the Eucharist. This change (and others like it) have become a signpost of desacralization, an entire practical weakening of the reverence given to the Most Holy Eucharist: changes in the way it is reception, administration (without the necessary mediation of a priest or deacon), turning prayer away from the Most Holy (and most visible) Presence. Let us thank God that in in some countries (like Poland and some other in Europe), at least processions are going the old way. This is (most literally) a priceless treasure of our religious and national life
Brilliant, thank you
As someone who turns 70 this year, I can attest to what both Barron and Chapp say about liturgy, both pre- and post-Vatican II. Most Masses of my boyhood were dry, mechanical, and routine. One priest at my parish would not only whip through a Sunday Mass in 30 minutes or so, but if memory serves, in Confession (as it was called then) he would be pronouncing absolution as you were naming your sins. Liturgical abuses didn’t begin with the NO; there were simply abuses of a different kind. I also suspect, as expressed in the video, that if every Roman rite church on the planet were required to return to the TLM, within five years the situation would be no different from how it was in my childhood, an idea I’ve expressed on several occasions.
Great stuff here, thank you
34:00 I heard a sermon from Cardinal Cupich a month ago. It was so saccharine and unbiblical it made me wonder, "if this is the faith, why would anyone give their life for this?"
Priests were taught not to write and memorize their sermons????? That's bewildering and explains SO much. I am a Catholic convert, and I have trouble understanding why I hear so many bad sermons.
The problem with many members of the laity is a 1) a lack of knowledge, education, and formation, and 2) even if they have knowledge, education, and formation they lack the confidence and conviction to take it up with others.
Wow, as a Catholic, I would expect a Catholic Bishop to speak of Christ, Our Lady, Holy Angels, and the thousands of saints, many who died defending Jesus Christ and his bride the Catholic church.
Go to mass, stupid. He is not evangelizing here.
I've seen a lot of masses even recently where the priest Make up his own prayers
I would love to talk about Blondel sometime! He's my main intellectual interest.
Kris Kristofferson's version is the best ;)
Very interesting about the failure of the laity. I think it might be said that instead of rising to the challenge the laity formed parish councils and have even interfered with Bishops by creating bureaucracies. I’m thinking of the recent canceling of Calvin Robinson at Easter by the choir at a Catholic Church in the UK as one example. But this issue is mentioned in Denis Crouan’s book The Liturgy Betrayed.
We are divided in the Catholic world. That is a fact. For me the synthesis of that division is expressed clearly in the words of that man that was part of the “agiornamento” but later, experiencing the unwanted changes of Vatican II, and seeing the division in the church, expressed clearly his evaluation and call. That man was Joseph Ratzinger who told the world : to abandon the dictatorship of relativism. Today, everything in our church is relative, and on top of that the highest authority is telling us that probably there is no hell. The serpent in the garden of Eden , told the first man and woman: be relativistic and you shall be god. Christ came so we may embrace reality in his Cross.
I am so sad to see the abuse of the mass, particularly the blasphemy of our Holy Eucharistic Host. Pray for our church during the time of the storm.
"A coerced Faith is no faith...." I think this means, one doesn't coerce into baptism. Once baptized, the Faithful are IN FACT under sanctions when they espouse heresy in Faith or morals. They are coerced by the sanctions, and rightfully so.
Why not commune with the church by dialogue with the body?
Dear Bishop Barron and Mr. Chapp, thank you for this wonderful interview. Being Catholic, I have a question about the Vatican II doctrine - Can a person who worships other deities(hindus, muslims, budhists for examples) while listening to their inner voice(they may call it their conscience) be saved?
Acts Chapter 4 and John 14:6 are only some of the verses in the Holy Bible that unambiguously state that Jesus is exclusive and the only way to salvation(Salvation is found in Jesus alone).
Deductively, there can be only one conclusion, that the Vatican II doctrine is playing around the subject(being secular as to not hurt people who aren't Christian) and attempting to dilute Jesus' exclusiveness and the Evangelion. I am trying to be a devout Catholic, which is why I must say that this doctrine of Vatican II stands in conflict with the Gospel.
We as Catholics(laity and clergy) should speak out respectfully yet uncompromisingly. The Gospel is exclusive in its narrative.
Are you sure, beyond on doubt, that there is no way for Christ to participate in a person’s life without them intellectually understanding the mechanism by which they are transformed and saved?
@@thebacons5943 you put it beautifully. Christ has no limitations, agreed. However, the person's cooperation with His Grace also plays a part.
Which is why my question states - a person who is listening to their conscience for most of the time, however, is a practicing Hindu. I.e. they worship a different 'deity'. Can such a person be saved?
@@richard6216 I think the answer is simply that it is reasonable to hope this is the case. In strictly my opinion, it would be hard to imagine the alternative, but we aren’t in a position to know with certainty/probability
@@thebacons5943 right. God has no limitations and that is obvious. For instance, the Sacraments are there for us, but they don't limit God.
A good example is the thief on the cross. He was a non-believer until the last moments of his life here. However, he believed in the True Saviour and was saved.
I understand this - John 3:16 is the key and it has to be an exclusive belief in the Lord Jesus. We can't be serving two or more masters.
As an evangelist, we ought to preach this exclusive and unique claim of Jesus about Himself. Tell people about this claim and then the ball is in their court.
@@richard6216 : I don't believe the thief on the cross is a good example. Being at the end of his rope, he turned to the right on Leviticus 18:24
Look, if Bishops are so useful to human knowledge, why change a good thing?
The words of the enticement, that is to say the temptation, as formulated in the sacred text, are in inducement to transgress this prohibition - that is to say, to go beyond that ' limit ' : " you are all dead in your trespasses" or " when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". The adoption of this theme also has extremely important methodological implications, for it reverses the momentum of such liberal theological speculation, which has tended to read CAULDIUM ET SPES and hence misread Christ in light of man