Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[Timothysis]

I do know that since the New Mass has been around there has been a drastic fall in the number of people answering the call to the priesthood and religious life. (I apologize for not having a source on hand). Perhaps this has nothing to do with the New Mass but I doubt it.

The Beatles and the Playboy magazine culture had more to do with the change in society in the 1960’s than Vatican II. Do you think that the introduction of the birth control pill didn’t change society’s morality?

Woodstock didn’t happen because of the Vatican II council. Had the council not happened, do you think all of the hippies would have been at mass instead of getting stoned and being nothing but a bunch of deadbeats? Please…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

"as conducive to worship and the lifting of the soul up to God" is more emotional than intellectual. I’ve always understood that the worship of God was with the intellect, for emotions can be very wishy washy.

One can argue that certain parts of the missal of Pope Paul VI are not very rich in language and I would agree. My hope is that, since a new translation is on the way, we’ll see a general revision in the upcoming years that might elevate it a bit. However, it is still a valid and efficacious liturgy that heals our souls, which is the point of the Eucharist.

I’d say it has do with the spirit more than the emotions. And I agree it is also intellectual (which is one more reason I prefer the Gregorian rite).

Thus liturgy (and the music, art, and architecture are to be a help in lifting (or elevating) our souls to God. Whether our emotions are touched is not something we can really control, I don’t think. Nor do I think the time at Mass has to be emotional one way or the other. Sometimes it may be, sometimes not.

God bless.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The Beatles and the Playboy magazine culture had more to do with the change in society in the 1960’s than Vatican II. Do you think that the introduction of the birth control pill didn’t change society’s morality?

Woodstock didn’t happen because of the Vatican II council. Had the council not happened, do you think all of the hippies would have been at mass instead of getting stoned and being nothing but a bunch of deadbeats? Please…

So, one of the most cataclysmic events in the Church’s history, the implementation of Vatican II, where so many things changed almost overnight (the Church’s mode of worship, catechesis, art, and architecture) really didn’t have much of an effect on the behavior of Catholics? (Regardless of whether Vatican II actually called for all the changes).

And things like the drop off in Mass attendance, baptisms, conversions, vocations, etc. which all have to do with the vitality of the Church, just coincidentally happened to occur when Vatican II was implemented?

 

[ethelzguy]

So, one of the most cataclysmic events in the Church’s history, the implementation of Vatican II, where so many things changed almost overnight (the Church’s mode of worship, catechesis, art, and architecture) really didn’t have much of an effect on the behavior of Catholics? (Regardless of whether Vatican II actually called for all the changes).

And things like the drop off in Mass attendance, baptisms, conversions, vocations, etc. which all have to do with the vitality of the Church, just coincidentally happened to occur when Vatican II was implemented?

Are there any definitive surveys or studies, where individual Catholics were identified and questioned as to whether Vatican II affected their practice of Catholicism in a negative way?

Or is this all just speculation based on coincidence? The radical changes in societal behavior are indisputable, yet there are those who continue to insist that “it must be Vatican II”.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Are there any definitive surveys or studies, where individual Catholics were identified and questioned as to whether Vatican II affected their practice of Catholicism in a negative way?

Or is this all just speculation based on coincidence? The radical changes in societal behavior are indisputable, yet there are those who continue to insist that “it must be Vatican II”.

I could also ask, “Are there any definitive studies that show that the cultural changes affected the behavior of Catholics?”

However, I am not taking an either/or approach as I certainly don’t think the cultural changes were helpful to the Church at all. Yet neither do I take the stance that when you completely alter your worship, catechesis, art, architecture and other areas practically overnight that this is going to have little or no effect on the behavior of Catholics. To me this is just common sense. And I don’t really believe in coincidences anyway.

One study by James Lothian is described by Michael Davies:

"That this is also the case in the United States is made clear in an article by Dr. James Lothian, a professor of economics, published in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review in October 2000.10 Dr. Lothian notes that the official view from the Vatican on down is that what it terms the “liturgical renewal” that was promised “has taken place and that the Church is all the better for it.” The statistics that he cites prove that the opposite is true. Particularly significant is that he proves that during the period following Vatican II, when the catastrophic decline in Mass attendance got under way, there was no such decline within Protestant denominations. “Church attendance for Protestants, in contrast, has followed a much different path. For most of the period it was without any discernible trend, either up or down. In recent years it has actually risen. The notion that the Catholic fall off was simply one part of a larger societal trend, therefore, receives absolutely no support in these data.”

latinmassmagazine.com/missal.asp

The original article is here (but it is not pulling up right now):

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

God bless.

 

[Binx]

I do know that since the New Mass has been around there has been a drastic fall in the number of people answering the call to the priesthood and religious life. (I apologize for not having a source on hand).

Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones

Here is Pat Buchanan’s review of the book.

 

[Timothysis]

So, one of the most cataclysmic events in the Church’s history, the implementation of Vatican II, where so many things changed almost overnight (the Church’s mode of worship, catechesis, art, and architecture) really didn’t have much of an effect on the behavior of Catholics? (Regardless of whether Vatican II actually called for all the changes).

And things like the drop off in Mass attendance, baptisms, conversions, vocations, etc. which all have to do with the vitality of the Church, just coincidentally happened to occur when Vatican II was implemented?

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was not implemented until 1970. Are you telling me that the excesses of the 1960’s didn’t begin until then? In reality, one could look at the post-war economic boon of the 1950’s to see the seeds of the future already planted. Elvis and the rock and roll explosion, Frank Sinatra and the “hip,” Marilyn Monroe ( you don’t think she was popular because of her singing and acting, do you?) and the other pop icons of 50’s set the stage for what was to come.

Someone on this forum posted that if the Vatican II council happened in the 40s or 50s, noone would even be talking about it today.

 

[cam100]

Are there any definitive surveys or studies, where individual Catholics were identified and questioned as to whether Vatican II affected their practice of Catholicism in a negative way?

Or is this all just speculation based on coincidence? The radical changes in societal behavior are indisputable, yet there are those who continue to insist that “it must be Vatican II”.

I’d like to see such studies myself. Anecdotally, however, it seems that most people who stopped practicing their faith did it because the Church still seemed too out of touch with the world. In other words, it seems that they think Vatican II didn’t go far enough to “modernize” the Church – not that it went too far. How many people do you know who have said “I quit practicing my faith because they stopped saying the mass in Latin”?

 

[eelpis]

No kidding.

You are correct.

Protestant notions? You’ll forgive me but I thought that most of the mainline protestant denominations regard Holy Communion as a “symbol” and not a true sacrifice whereas we catholics believe it to be. How do you come up with “protestant notions” in anything I’ve written?

Nothing except that you mentioned holy mass as an opportunity to recieve holy communion.I’m sorry I may have read more into it than was stated.

 

[eelpis]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that a Eucharist from TLM is somehow better than a Eucharist from an NO Mass.

What we are saying is that the NO often leaves a lot of room for abuses on the celebrant’s part, and in the American Church such abuses are quite common.

That doesn’t make the Eucharist any better or worse, but it can certainly have a negative impact on the more impressionable members of the congregation.

Exactly.

 

[eelpis]

Are there any definitive surveys or studies, where individual Catholics were identified and questioned as to whether Vatican II affected their practice of Catholicism in a negative way?

Or is this all just speculation based on coincidence? The radical changes in societal behavior are indisputable, yet there are those who continue to insist that “it must be Vatican II”.

Dear ethelzguy, this thread was about the liturgy promulgated AFTER Vatican II, I just want you to know that I in no way whatsoever dispute Vatican II.

My point was that you can indeed be faithful and obiedient to the pope and the council and yet think that the TLM is superior to the NO.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I’d like to see such studies myself. Anecdotally, however, it seems that most people who stopped practicing their faith did it because the Church still seemed too out of touch with the world. In other words, it seems that they think Vatican II didn’t go far enough to “modernize” the Church – not that it went too far. How many people do you know who have said “I quit practicing my faith because they stopped saying the mass in Latin”?

Ok, the following is not based on studies, the following is based on personal experiences with several parishes in my area.

Firstly, the people who are angry about the TLM not being common are, in my experience, the least likely to leave the Church for any reason.

Secondly, whether or not people are coming or going into the Church IS NOT NECESSARILY an indicator of how healthy the Church is!

Now going into my experience: I attend two parishes and an abbey: one is my home parish, one is a parish that I help out the youth ministry at, and the abbey is a Norbertine abbey in which they do TLM, the Liturgy of the Hours, etc. In high school I was active in the youth ministry of both of those parishes (when I could bear to be…)

In any event, while the parishes are certainly “healthy” in that the congregation comes to Mass on Sundays (in their BMW’s or Escalades…) and donates substantial portions of their well-above-poverty-line-incomes to the parish, my personal experience is that most of them do NOT practice their faith any more than that one hour per week, most of them have little to no idea about Church teaching on morality (because the pastor is quite wishy-washy on that kind of thing) and those who are aware of it think I’m crazy for buying into it, very few attend regular confession (not that it matters because the pastor’s confessions are quite watered down and generally give a ‘follow your conscience jesus loves you’ vibe), and fewer still pray the rosary on any sort of regular basis.

So despite the large amount of parishioners, are these parishes healthy? I should say not. And because of poor catechism for the youth they’re not going to get any healthier in the near future unless something is done.

Compare this congregation to those who attend aforementioned abbey for TLM daily and on Sundays. Daily Mass has people who actually go to it, there is Adoration every night (and I generally see several rosaries out), people are reading works by the Fathers and other such theological books, and there is Confession every night where there’s always a delightfully long line, which is so long not for want of priests but because they actually go into detail on the sinner’s confession and penance.

In my personal experience, this abbey which does Mass the traditional way is far more healthy than the parishes which practice the NO despite the fact that the regular congregation there is smaller than at a typical parish.

That is not to say there are no good Catholics at the normal parishes, and that is certainly not to say that there are no good Catholics who prefer the vernacular. That IS, however, to say that parishes that follow a more traditional form of the Mass generally attract a more devoted body of believers form a healthier future for the Church. I was Catechized by the Norbertines, and I tell you I would probably not be Catholic if it wasn’t for that.

Sorry for the ramble, I know it’s a long post

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was not implemented until 1970. Are you telling me that the excesses of the 1960’s didn’t begin until then? In reality, one could look at the post-war economic boon of the 1950’s to see the seeds of the future already planted. Elvis and the rock and roll explosion, Frank Sinatra and the “hip,” Marilyn Monroe ( you don’t think she was popular because of her singing and acting, do you?) and the other pop icons of 50’s set the stage for what was to come.

Someone on this forum posted that if the Vatican II council happened in the 40s or 50s, noone would even be talking about it today.

I am not discounting the excesses of the 1960’s. However even though the New Mass was officially promulgated in 1970, Michael Davies (who was alive during that time) notes:

“The liturgical destruction did not begin in 1969 with the promulgation of the new rite of Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The debacle was well under way in 1965 when the Vatican allowed its liturgical bureaucrats to begin revising the Missal that had last been revised in 1962.”

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/missal.asp

It’s also interesting to observe that the article in my signature line, “The Case for the Latin Mass”, was written in 1966, and in there von Hildebrand notes how difficult it is to find a Latin Mass celebrated anywhere in the U.S. at that time.

Just as I can’t ignore the effects of the 1960’s, I don’t think others can discount the effects of the monumentous changes in all aspects of Church life after Vatican II as if everything resulting after was just a “coincidence.”

And with all the tremendous changes in all aspects of Church life, particularly in the liturgy and all that is associated with it, I’m pretty sure we’d still be discussing it today even if it happened in the 1950’s.

 

[ethelzguy]

I’d like to see such studies myself. Anecdotally, however, it seems that most people who stopped practicing their faith did it because the Church still seemed too out of touch with the world. In other words, it seems that they think Vatican II didn’t go far enough to “modernize” the Church – not that it went too far. How many people do you know who have said “I quit practicing my faith because they stopped saying the mass in Latin”?

ZEE-RO

 

[ethelzguy]

I am not discounting the excesses of the 1960’s. However even though the New Mass was officially promulgated in 1970, Michael Davies (who was alive during that time) notes:

“The liturgical destruction did not begin in 1969 with the promulgation of the new rite of Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The debacle was well under way in 1965 when the Vatican allowed its liturgical bureaucrats to begin revising the Missal that had last been revised in 1962.”

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/missal.asp

**An article from *Latin Mass Magazine ***hardly strikes as objective.

It’s also interesting to observe that the article in my signature line, “The Case for the Latin Mass”, was written in 1966, and in there von Hildebrand notes how difficult it is to find a Latin Mass celebrated anywhere in the U.S. at that time.

Coincidentally during a time period when a well-known catch-phrase was "“Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”…"

Just as I can’t ignore the effects of the 1960’s, I don’t think others can discount the effects of the monumentous changes in all aspects of Church life after Vatican II as if everything resulting after was just a “coincidence.”

And with all the tremendous changes in all aspects of Church life, particularly in the liturgy and all that is associated with it, I’m pretty sure we’d still be discussing it today even if it happened in the 1950’s.

 

[otjm]

Well, I’d say that is correct. Most catholics in the pews have never assisted at an EF Mass. Most are not aware of BXVI’s SP. Most are not even aware of the concerns of traditionalists. This forum is not an indication of the average catholic’s views. Only a tiny percentage of Roman Catholics have visited this forum.

Perhaps a short ereview of current statistics on attendance at Mass may be in order. Keep in mind that they are not raw numbers, only percentages; and while contemplating that fact, keep in mind also that the Pill came into full availability in the early 1960’s, and the move was very rapid to smaller families: weekly attendance at Mass by age group: Pre Vatican 2 52%; Vatican 2 38%; Post Vatican 2 age 31-43 22%; Post Vatican 2 age 18-30 21%. Of those attending Mass, there is a very good likelyhood that better than half attended Mass regularly as children and young adults under either the 1962 Missal, or the missal prior to that.

Well, that’s quite an assumption. If all those you are taking the liberty to speak for, actually knew what all the fuss is about, then yes, I’d say most would still stick with all they’ve ever known. So your assumption would indeed be proven correct as far as sheer numbers go.

And I would suggest that far more people attending Mass regularly today have some idea of what the fuss is about than you are crediting. Not “all they have ever known”, but having had exposure to both.

But please don’t think you are going to convince me that the average catholic in the U.S. is a “THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholic”. It’s not their fault they aren’t. I blame their pastors.

Most people have had nothing more than a high school education in their faith; many not even that; and that is not different from what the population in the pews exhibited prior to Vatican 2. Most people don’t really know, in terms of theological knowledge, a whole lot about their faith. But that is not particularly unusual; what has skewed it badly is the education of those from about 1970 forward to somewhere in the mid 90’s when the bishops started to realize how little people actually knew, and changed catechetical texts. The text changes haven’t caught up everywere, but we have lost about 2 generations. However, the point still is that most people didn’t have a very large theological base of information prior to that. It was doctrinally sound, but limited.

Don’t tell me someone who is slated to be a lector or EMHC shows up wearing shorts(men), or revealing attire(women), is a “THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholic” either.

Don’t confuse faith with cultural attitudes.

I don’t blame this on the OF itself, but I can attest these sad displays of irreverence don’t tend to be found at the Forma extraordinaria. (btw way, that’s Extraordinray form in venacular )

Again, don’t confuse cultural responses with faith.

Your Venacular flag is going to have to be put on a stick and be waved by hand. It’s a preferrence based on opinion, not based on any ecclesiastical or theological grounds.

the vernacular is not a theological issue. Christ spoke in the vernacular; the Apostles spoke and taught in the vernacular, and as the Church spread throughout the then known world, the Mass tended towards Greek (which it appears the Gospels may have been written in; I am not going to ramble through a side issue); and eventually, since the Romans conquered much of the then known world, and Latin became the more common denominator language, Latin became the language of the western Church; in the East it remained more the native languages. The use of the vernacular has a long hsitory theough the Church (as oppsoed to simply the Roman rite), and the issue is hardly one of theology so much as practicality; people want to pray in the language they know, and few could converse in Latin prior to Vatican 2 - I took Latin in both high school and college, and we could barely converse in it as it was not taught as a spoken language in most areas.

I seriously doubt that the Church, and particularly the Roman rite, is going to try to go back to an all Latin Mass as the average Mass for the average person. I would not be surprised to see it celevbrated in Latin - under either the EF or the OF - more than it was a year ago, or ten years ago, or 30. But for those who are holding their breath waiting for some sort of edict moving all back to that, well, blue in the face goes well with a number of colors. That does not preclude more use of Latin during the Mass in the OF (which wouldn’t take much, would it?). But as to whether it will go beyond the Gloria, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei, I woldn’t be willing to bet.

 

[eelpis]

Perhaps a short ereview of current statistics on attendance at Mass may be in order. Keep in mind that they are not raw numbers, only percentages; and while contemplating that fact, keep in mind also that the Pill came into full availability in the early 1960’s, and the move was very rapid to smaller families: weekly attendance at Mass by age group: Pre Vatican 2 52%; Vatican 2 38%; Post Vatican 2 age 31-43 22%; Post Vatican 2 age 18-30 21%. Of those attending Mass, there is a very good likelyhood that better than half attended Mass regularly as children and young adults under either the 1962 Missal, or the missal prior to that.

And I would suggest that far more people attending Mass regularly today have some idea of what the fuss is about than you are crediting. Not “all they have ever known”, but having had exposure to both.

Most people have had nothing more than a high school education in their faith; many not even that; and that is not different from what the population in the pews exhibited prior to Vatican 2. Most people don’t really know, in terms of theological knowledge, a whole lot about their faith. But that is not particularly unusual; what has skewed it badly is the education of those from about 1970 forward to somewhere in the mid 90’s when the bishops started to realize how little people actually knew, and changed catechetical texts. The text changes haven’t caught up everywere, but we have lost about 2 generations. However, the point still is that most people didn’t have a very large theological base of information prior to that. It was doctrinally sound, but limited.

Don’t confuse faith with cultural attitudes.

Again, don’t confuse cultural responses with faith.

the vernacular is not a theological issue. Christ spoke in the vernacular; the Apostles spoke and taught in the vernacular, and as the Church spread throughout the then known world, the Mass tended towards Greek (which it appears the Gospels may have been written in; I am not going to ramble through a side issue); and eventually, since the Romans conquered much of the then known world, and Latin became the more common denominator language, Latin became the language of the western Church; in the East it remained more the native languages. The use of the vernacular has a long hsitory theough the Church (as oppsoed to simply the Roman rite), and the issue is hardly one of theology so much as practicality; people want to pray in the language they know, and few could converse in Latin prior to Vatican 2 - I took Latin in both high school and college, and we could barely converse in it as it was not taught as a spoken language in most areas.

I seriously doubt that the Church, and particularly the Roman rite, is going to try to go back to an all Latin Mass as the average Mass for the average person. I would not be surprised to see it celevbrated in Latin - under either the EF or the OF - more than it was a year ago, or ten years ago, or 30. But for those who are holding their breath waiting for some sort of edict moving all back to that, well, blue in the face goes well with a number of colors. That does not preclude more use of Latin during the Mass in the OF (which wouldn’t take much, would it?). But as to whether it will go beyond the Gloria, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei, I woldn’t be willing to bet.

You may right, but what’s the future of the Chuch? - another megachurch- according to american standards? Is there room for a liturgical Church? A church where the sacrifice of Christ is center-stage?

 

[Frosty]

I realize that this is basically an American forum and that probably the majority of posters are American. With all due respect, so many of the posters arguing that either Vatican II and/or the Pauline Mass are responsible for the decline in Mass attendance only serve to reinforce the stereotype of Americans as believing that they are the centre of the world and what is true for the U.S.A. must be true everywhere else.
It seems to be a common practice for some to either totally dismiss the enormous cultural upheaval that took place in the 60’s and 70’s as irrevelevant or to grudgingly agree that “yeah, maybe it had some effect but it was pretty marginal”. I have a question for those posters. How do you square this line of thinking with what has happened to the Church fairly recently in countries such as Poland, Ireland or those in South America? Or are they irrelevant and inconvenient because they don’t fit into a preconceived idea?
How can one honestly blame the Pauline Mass for the decline of Mass going Catholics in Poland? Did it take the Poles 20 years to decide that they didn’t like that Mass and thought it was irreverent or was it conceivably that the societal change and prosperity that came after the fall of Communism had much to do with it? The same with Ireland, only substitute the entry into the EEC and the astonishing economic growth that changed the country literally overnight from relative poverty to prosperity. The decline in South America is much more recent as well, but the factors are even more complex than the intrusion of Western culture or any economic gain.

 

[eelpis]

I realize that this is basically an American forum and that probably the majority of posters are American. With all due respect, so many of the posters arguing that either Vatican II and/or the Pauline Mass are responsible for the decline in Mass attendance only serve to reinforce the stereotype of Americans as believing that they are the centre of the world and what is true for the U.S.A. must be true everywhere else.
It seems to be a common practice for some to either totally dismiss the enormous cultural upheaval that took place in the 60’s and 70’s as irrevelevant or to grudgingly agree that “yeah, maybe it had some effect but it was pretty marginal”. I have a question for those posters. How do you square this line of thinking with what has happened to the Church fairly recently in countries such as Poland, Ireland or those in South America? Or are they irrelevant and inconvenient because they don’t fit into a preconceived idea?
How can one honestly blame the Pauline Mass for the decline of Mass going Catholics in Poland? Did it take the Poles 20 years to decide that they didn’t like that Mass and thought it was irreverent or was it conceivably that the societal change and prosperity that came after the fall of Communism had much to do with it? The same with Ireland, only substitute the entry into the EEC and the astonishing economic growth that changed the country literally overnight from relative poverty to prosperity. The decline in South America is much more recent as well, but the factors are even more complex than the intrusion of Western culture or any economic gain.

Perhaps it is so that when people are relatively secure (economically) they don’t have room for God anymore. Or they make less room for God.

 

[ethelzguy]

Perhaps it is so that when people are relatively secure (economically) they don’t have room for God anymore. Or they make less room for God.

Quite likely.

Think back to the 50’s. Daddy brought home the bacon and Momma cooked it. Life was simple. People respected each other, and feared God. FEAR of God played a huge role in our lives back then. We had very little in the way of material things, and made do with it.

One TV in the house (maybe) and if you were REALLY fortunate, by the mid 60’s you had a COLOR set!

One car in the garage. Mom fixed your clothes. Dad fixed everything else. We didn’t have money to blow on every new gadget that came out. Of course, there weren’t that many gadgets back then either.

Kids played ball in the back yard. Boys scoured the neighborhood for broken lawnmowers and such to cobble together go-carts…the list goes on and on…

But nobody dreamed of not going to Church on Sunday, Catholic or otherwise. If you didn’t go to Church you didn’t allow your kids to play “with those kind of people”.

Times have changed. Fear of God has evolved into “God Loves You Just The Way You Are”…as a means of brushing off a more sinful lifestyle.

I truly believe that the realization of this coming trend by the Church leaders is what drove Vatican II and what happened afterwards. I shudder to think of what would have happened if the Church stood idly by and did nothing, while the world changed rampantly around it.

I think the Church leaders back then were a lot smarter than some of us give them credit for.