When you change the words, you change the concepts.
The liberal progressivist liturgical terrorist reformers were successful in changing our way of speaking about our sacred liturgical worship.
For example, they made us – and no one asked them to do this, by the way – give up talking about “sacrifice”. And when we lost “sacrifice”, we therefore lost a clear understanding of “priesthood”. No “sacrifice”, no “priest”. Today, “minister” dominates. We are losing or have, in some places, lost the words “worship” and “adoration”. Now we talk about “celebration”. We “gather”. We still “pray”. But do we? Really? To whom or what?
“Sin”? It is to laugh. “Hell”? What’s that?
“Worship” and “adoration” had to go, of course. They smack too much of Tantum ergo, and all that stuff. You can see why the now aging-hippies tried to do away with those words. In seminary, after all, the same generation of Richard McBrien types incessantly crammed down our throats “Jesus said ‘Take and eat’, not ‘sit and look’!”
“Altar” is now associated more with protestant “altar calls”. Catholics, talk about “table”. Altars are connected with “sacrifice”. Thus, the concept of altar had to go. “Tables” are us!
Thankfully, I see worship and adoration coming back. Your thoughts?
I think he’s right about a certain mindset you can find among some in the Baby Boomer Generation who embraced the “hermeneutic of rupture” concerning Vatican II.
Because they so wanted to implement the Council’s teachings about the shared priesthood by virtue of our baptism of the People of God, they went to extremes in reducing the role of the sacramental priesthood. Yes, the idea of sacrifice is repugnant to many of these people, so the whole meaning of the priesthood and what truly happens in the Eucharist is lost. Hence you have arguments for women’s ordination that proceed from that misunderstanding.
And sin? That hits the nail on the head. I attended a conference on the Second Vatican Council recently and in one of the workshops on baptism, a sheet was handed out with a list of about 20 different statements about what baptism does. All of them came from the Catechism or from some teaching materials given to catechumens. Anyway, the participants were asked to check off the ones they agreed with or best found met their understanding.
Well, one lady in front of me, said she didn’t like any of the ones that referred to sin; she was not going to have anything to do with any reference to original sin, or to our being translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of Light.
Most of the folks liked that baptism makes us “part of Christ.”
Whatever that means to them, because without the sin business, I am not sure they get it. So it seems some of them think their sin selves are part of Christ and that when they consult this sin-self they are hearing from the Holy Spirit. We must die with Him to rise with Him, not skip the inconvenient dying part aka the cross.
This is a gospel of welcome and inclusiveness, and God loves you just as you are without the cross, without any requirement of repentance or conversion on our part.