FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Have You Developed a Fast Food Faith?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
PrairieMom Wrote:This article starts promising, but then kind of fizzles, but I think she's on the right track. I just wish she'd come right out and say what most of us at FE already know - the NO, like fast food, will kill you.


from http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cgress/ha...food-faith

Have You Developed a Fast Food Faith?


[Image: kk201512171541-650x340.jpg]


One of the patterns I have noticed among combox chatter when Latin, litanies and rich liturgy are discussed is the ever-present individual who chimes in with, “You just want to take the Church back to the 1950s.” This prevalent sentiment in the blogosphere and beyond (I assume it isn’t just one person repeating it over and over) seems to imply that Catholicism in the 1950s was bad and anything that came after it is good.

Quote:I didn't think that's what we're implying, but we'll go with that premise for the sake of argument.

This “old is bad, new is good” idea is an odd response given the age of the Catholic Church – it’s pretty much older than dirt. The Church is the only organization still standing that witnessed the Roman Empire, the historic eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Quote:Something we need to remember!

In fact, the five decades from 1960 to the present are not much more than a flash on the timeline of 2000 years of Church history. Much of what exists within the Church, from the Mass to prayer to defining doctrine, happened before 1960.

But even if we ignore all of these facts, there is still another compelling reason to consider looking back to what the Church offered before the 1960s: simply the reality that the Church knows how to help people become holy. Those of us accused of wanting to dredge up the 1950s (personally, I prefer the 1350s – the Dawn of the Renaissance) aren’t simply looking for traditional trappings but to slake the very real thirst for true holiness and union with God.

Many of the changes that have come about since the 1960s have focused on making the Mass more accessible to parishioners – certainly a good thing. Pope John XXIII’s stated goal of the Second Vatican Council was to “throw open the windows of the Church so we can see out and the people can see in.” But there have been changes (that were not necessarily part of the Council) that offer a lot of conveniences to the Sunday Mass-goer: the relaxing of fasting requirements before Mass, on Fridays and during Lent; the almost exclusive use of the vernacular, freeing up those in the pew from learning any Latin; a general trend in homiletics to downplay moral theology; changes to the types of music played and the instruments used in to play it; and any sort of a dress code for the laity. Even the odd anomaly of “Ascension Thursday Sunday” and other nomadic feasts has more to do with not wanting to make it difficult for people to get to Mass.

Quote:Ahhhh... convenience. That's what we're all about as a culture these days, aren't we? The easier something is, the more likely we are to buy it and/or buy into it, right?

There is another industry that has undergone similar cultural changes as the Church: the food industry (which is even older than the Church). For decades, convenience has been a significant driving factory in food production. People want tasty food that they can select and consume quickly without much regard for where it came from, who prepared it, how it was prepared, what it is prepared with – and they want to “have it their way” any time and in any attire.

Over the last few decades, resistance to fast eating has been gaining steam. Allergies, disease, obesity, broken communities, and the environment are some of reasons people are thinking more about what they eat and how. Trends are popping up all over such as farm-to-fork restaurants, homesteading, expanding farmers markets, the global Slow Food movement (founded in Rome as a protest to a McDonald's at the Spanish Steps), and the emphasis on organic food, with even Costco promising to be a leader in the market. People aren’t just interested in Soylent, that is, just filling bodies with the right nutrients, but something deeper and broader. These new trends involve every aspect of food preparation from food sourcing, farming techniques, fair trade, transport and so on. Most people involved in this cultural shift aren’t condemning the old or the new outright, but trying to figure what actually works to nourish bodies, enrich local communities and care for the environment. Of course, there are also inconveniences to a slower approach to feeding people – it isn’t cheap, it takes longer and requires forethought and planning, and it relies upon local resources and availability of products. Most people who are concerned about their health and beyond think the expense is worth it.

Quote:The expense with worth it. Fast Food is killing us, not only our bodies but our farms, industries, everything. We cannot thrive on meat-like pastes and diet colas. Just like we can't thrive on Catholic-like liturgies. Survive, maybe. Thrive? Never. 

The parallels between nourishing food and nourishing faith go deeper. We have to ask ourselves, have we become McDonald's type consumers at Mass? Are we focused upon making Mass as painless as possible in order to check off the Sunday obligation box? If so, then perhaps we have forgotten what the real reason for the Mass is in the first place.

Quote:Whowhuddathunk?

The Church has shown over and over that it isn’t opposed to innovation and new ideas, even if it happens at an elephant’s pace (the Church has time on its side). But so much of the culture in our parishes doesn’t truly lead the average Joe to a deeper holiness. This isn’t to say it can’t be found, but so many just go through the motions, unaware of the most basic moral tenets, such as the worth reception of the Eucharist. This is why the Church is hemorrhaging numbers – not because it isn’t trendy.

Quote:Is that the reason? If someone actually understands the Eucharist, do they stick around? Those who stick around understand it, but it's because we've sought the answer. But I'm not sure even if we taught them basic moral tenets if they'd stay... Catholicism is hard, dude. It's not for the faint-of-heart, and it's certainly not something you "consume" the same way you consume a burger, a TV show, or even Evangelical Protestanism. It's something you have to live. I'm not sure we, as a society, have the gumption for something so radical.

People are starved for true spiritual nourishment. There is a real hunger for something deeper, transforming, personal and real. They want God. As ever, the truth of the Church as the Body of Christ offers the best nourishment there is – we just have to be willing to serve it. It may not be “having it your way,” but hopefully it is God’s.
Excellent commentary on your part PrairieMom. The Faith is something to be lived. It's a worldview and a way of life. Incidentally this is precisely why the externals matter immensely. There are very few so called " small t" traditions. The whole package is important. That old saying about how we pray affects our believing is of the utmost importance.

If people understood the Real Presence and what it means they never would have destroyed our sanctuaries and dumbed down and whitewashed our churches in the first place. The wreckovators were egghead academics who never got beyond reading about things,and so they destroyed what they never really took to heart.

Sadly today in many parishes it takes a lot of imagination to fill in the blanks. You can believe in the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation or any number of things but without the externals you have to retreat to the imagination. The connection has been lost.

Part of me thinks this is why so many only look to the 1960's and 1970's for their reference points, because the Faith as it's presented today externally and otherwise is basically something fabricated by a committee during the Brady Bunch era. The only references or so called small t traditions they have to go by are Haugen/Haas, Dan Schute and the whole architectural and theological edifice erected by the Council.

At least in my case the most important thing has been the externals. The chant, the incense,the hagiography, the physical gestures like crossing oneself, bowing and prostrations, the various round of hours in the Office, statues and icons and the various prayers of the saints are all necessary. Take away the so called small t traditions and it's no longer the same Faith. 

Inner and outer are intertwined and interconnected.

This is why I find it hard sometimes to be at home in the new rite, because my reference points are elsewhere. My guideposts exist only sporadically and in truncated ways in new rite Catholicism.
(12-18-2015, 05:21 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I find it hard sometimes to be at home in the new rite, because my reference points are elsewhere. My guideposts exist only sporadically and in truncated ways in new rite Catholicism.

This is a great analogy.  In my opinion, the path is still there (the substance of the faith), but under pretext of simplification a lot of the signposts to guide you along it were either taken away or all of a sudden put in a different language.  It's a lot easier to wander off the path without those familiar helps.
(12-18-2015, 05:57 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-18-2015, 05:21 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I find it hard sometimes to be at home in the new rite, because my reference points are elsewhere. My guideposts exist only sporadically and in truncated ways in new rite Catholicism.

This is a great analogy.  In my opinion, the path is still there (the substance of the faith), but under pretext of simplification a lot of the signposts to guide you along it were either taken away or all of a sudden put in a different language.  It's a lot easier to wander off the path without those familiar helps.

Thanks.  :) Your own addition to this is good too, that the substance of the faith is still there but many of the guideposts are either redone in a different way or taken away.