This is not completely true. I think the pope said in the book “light of the world” when they asked him if this was the reason why he “brought” back the EF. He had stated that it was not the reason. I can’t remember exact answer as I don’t have the book or quote with me. Sorry.
Its like in sports. You have the fans who simply enjoy watching the game and then you have the fans who scrutinize every last stat. I wouldn’t say one loves the sport more than another, they love it in different ways.
I agree with you to a point. But there’s a reason that when changes need to be made in a parish that a Bishop’s advice to the pastor is usually: “go slow.”
This is where I’ll agree and disagree. We shouldn’t insert things that don’t belong in liturgy just because they’re popular. However, when facing two legitimate options there’s simply no point to change a legitimate option that’s extremely popular to a legitimate option that is unpopular. What’s the motivation in such cases?
OK, but in this situation there are two right things.
Seriously, can we have threads that don’t mention Obama?
They were confused by the changes but also welcomed them. In the case of the priest in the OP, I’d venture a guess that his changes were not welcomed.
Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger had mentioned in a book that he thought it would be good for the Church to have more than one legitimate liturgy. Its actually more in keeping with the tradition of the Church since it wasn’t really until Trent that the Church only allowed one main liturgy (though exceptions were made for 200+ year old liturgies and for religious orders).
I wonder how many of the many millions of Catholics, who left the Church after the changes, “welcomed” these changes. Although I am still around, I darn sure did not “welcome” them and I still don’t welcome them.
I didn’t say everyone welcomed the changes. However the overwhelming majority did. You said many millions left the Church because of the changes. Reference? The highest number I’ve seen for SSPX (largest post Vatican2 split group) membership has been 2 million but that its reportedly down to 600,000 today.
This is an interesting point to discuss. I agree that it is perhaps worth having more than one legitimate liturgy in the Latin Church, as long as catechesis and understanding of the faith are in no way compromised in the communities following either liturgy, and as long as the celebrations are celebrated with the reverence and solemnity due to them in all of the possible Forms or rites, and as long as the commonality (as in, their Latin Rite history) is preserved in all of the possible Forms or rites.
True, but 2 million is still larger than all but two of even the Eastern Catholic Churches.
For starters, I would assume that people who prefer the Extraordinary forum of Mass have already “done their homework” and have chosen that form for a reason. People who attend the OF do so usually because that’s simply their local parish. Not everyone cares all that much about history and tradition, they simply want to worship God and receive the sacraments.
Well, it was 2 million and even that is the highest estimate that I was able to find, so the actual number may have been less. Its also a number from 40 years ago, I don’t know if the Eastern Churches had greater numbers 40 years ago. The Eastern Churches have had their own problems with persecution in their native lands and emigration to the West that led to their children becoming “Latinized.”
Your perception of “seems that” is only a perception. How many OF Catholics have you actually engaged in dialog about these specifics, including their ages and catechetical background?
I’m not exactly sure what to think of this. Seems a bit… I don’t want to say lazy but, perhaps severely lacking? I find it kind of hard to properly worship and know God if one doesn’t know the faith, because to know the faith is to know God, right? I don’t think everyone has to be an expert or anything, especially in poor or newly-evangelized countries, but thoroughly knowing elementary Church doctrine, back to front, is kind of basic.
True. I would actually think 2 million is an exaggeration, admittedly.
Most folks who left because of the changes did not and still do not have access to SSPX or other Traditional chapels. Many of these folks simply lost confidence when their Immutable church, did in fact mutate, at least liturgically. The percentage of even those remaining who actually attend Mass regularly has dropped precipitously since the changes, not exactly “welcoming” in my book.
Well, there’s only so many hours in a day and different things interest different people.
I think most people know the basics. Most of what’s discussed on CAF is beyond the basics. Its wonderful that there’s a community of people here that want to know more about the Church and our traditions but not everyone has the desire to get this detailed.
I don’t think that’s what’s taking place.
Sources?
The form of the Mass is not the reason Mass attendance has dropped. In fact, an alternate theory is that it was the proclamation of Humanae Vitae that caused a mass exodus from the Church (no pun intended).
Once again, I highly doubt the changes in the Mass are the reason they don’t attend.
Indeed there are some people like that.
Could you go in to this? This is interesting.
Well, perhaps this would be better for a new topic. Feel free to open one. I’ll just say this:
I have seen these studies and heard this from clergy who were around at the time. No one I know has ever said, I left the church because they stopped saying Mass in Latin. Usually it’s a long convoluted story that ends up being about divorce and remarraige, not wanting the priest in their bedroom (ie, birth control), or a similar issue.
I disagree. If you mean “know” as in *education *in the faith, that is not the same as “know” experientially in deep love and communion with Him. Maybe you’ll remember the verse that devils know the scriptures, probably better than any being, but do they love God in their “knowing?”