S
system
Guest
Brennan Doherty:
Your point is not made. The Mass of 1970 is far from “somersaults around the altar”.
- Status
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Melman:
My point is that changes in the liturgy can affect Catholics and their faith (“lex orandi, lex credendi–the law of prayer is the law of belief”) for better or worse regardless of whether or not they were around when the changes were made.
P
penitentman22
Guest
Liturgical reform, any reform, must be and will be centered and focused on the Eucharist. Eucharistic adoration is huge, as well as putting the tabernacle in a **prominant **place!
S
system
Guest
Brennan Doherty:
That is, I think you’re saying that people of our generation (who have known only the new mass, with very few exceptions) have beliefs that are somehow defective and that this defect is due in some large part to the new mass itself. If the mass had not been changed, that we would somehow be “better” Catholics. There is simply no way that I’ll ever agree with that.
Now, folks that were raised a generation before us, who had the mass changed beneath their feet with (often) no explanation? I can see where their faith might be affected a bit. But I will continue to insist, that I have yet to meet anyone (in person) old enough to remember the old mass, that doesn’t prefer the new mass.
How can a change affect me, if I didn’t experience it? I am talking about the actual impact of the change itself. I think you’re focusing on the result of the change.
That is, I think you’re saying that people of our generation (who have known only the new mass, with very few exceptions) have beliefs that are somehow defective and that this defect is due in some large part to the new mass itself. If the mass had not been changed, that we would somehow be “better” Catholics. There is simply no way that I’ll ever agree with that.
Now, folks that were raised a generation before us, who had the mass changed beneath their feet with (often) no explanation? I can see where their faith might be affected a bit. But I will continue to insist, that I have yet to meet anyone (in person) old enough to remember the old mass, that doesn’t prefer the new mass.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Melman:
I am focusing on the results of the change itself since the liturgy is meant to form the soul of Catholics.
I have met Catholics (and not even at an indult parish) who are old enough to remember the old Mass and they do prefer it.
Further, if people who lived through the changes actually prefer the new Mass (and I don’t deny there are those who do), then why the statistical drop in Mass attendence from something like 75% to 25% of Catholics after the New Mass was introduced? (The statistics vary a bit but any statistical analysis I have seen records a significant drop). This article is a good example of the statistical analysis I am talking about:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html
If there really was a preference for the new Mass among those who experienced the old then one would expect either an increase in attendance, or at least not such a significant drop. And I am maintaining that the most significant factor as to whether Catholics attend Mass is whether or not they like the liturgy itself. That and catechesis.
I agree that someone who was alive during the actual changes went through something different than I did and will thus have a different experience of it.
I am focusing on the results of the change itself since the liturgy is meant to form the soul of Catholics.
I have met Catholics (and not even at an indult parish) who are old enough to remember the old Mass and they do prefer it.
Further, if people who lived through the changes actually prefer the new Mass (and I don’t deny there are those who do), then why the statistical drop in Mass attendence from something like 75% to 25% of Catholics after the New Mass was introduced? (The statistics vary a bit but any statistical analysis I have seen records a significant drop). This article is a good example of the statistical analysis I am talking about:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html
If there really was a preference for the new Mass among those who experienced the old then one would expect either an increase in attendance, or at least not such a significant drop. And I am maintaining that the most significant factor as to whether Catholics attend Mass is whether or not they like the liturgy itself. That and catechesis.
G
gjbevil
Guest
jaybird said:
I’ve also noticed how the new music is man centered and not God centered anymore. The music in the Mass is my biggest complaint. But, I have for years told protestants it isn’t about feeling good, it is about worshipping God. So, that the music doesn’t move me, tells me I must focus on God more and my being moved or feeling emotional at Mass less.
D
Dolly
Guest
My belief, having lived with the pre-Vat II liturgy as I said before into my adulthood, is that it is was the lack of teaching by Bishops and their priests from the time of the Council onwards. They neither explained the Council fully or even adequately (most people got their knowledge and opinions from the media) and even the diocesan papers were not that helpful.
Changes, probably from '65-early 70’s came in many places very rapidly with not even the priests being fully taught by their Bishops.
We as laity are never free and clear from all fault, but from my own personal perspective and that of family and friends, the primary fault lay with the hierarchy. To me, historically, they just seem to miss the ‘signs of the times’ and keep running to catch up (if they are running in the right direction).
Remember, these bishops and priests were raised and ordained in the pre-Vat.II church. I have no clue, there are a lot of theories, as to all the reasons or the primary ones why they failed to implement the Council correctly–the age we were living in and the culture I am sure played a part.
But all I can say is what one Bishop admitted to a group of us on a retreat--------He asked our forgiveness for what the Bishops did wrongly or did not do adequately or timely after the Council. He’s the only Bishop I have ever heard who took responsibility with no qualifications in admitting not only had they failed us, but hurt many in the process and that they (at that time–mid to late 80’s) seemed to still be doing so.
I have thanked the Lord many times for that humble Bishop and it looks like we may wait quite awhile more before any of us hear the same type of confession from other Bishops as he made to his flock that day.
Those of us raised in the traditions and liturgy of the pre-Vat II church saw a lot of confusion and chaos around us as to what the church was saying/teaching and pretty much had to make decisions on our own as to what was true or not. For those less informed about their faith or who just lived out the faith by rote and not in depth of belief, I think they just may have taken the more easy road.
The Tridentine liturgy wasn’t and isn’t a magic bullet—if it were, the foundation laid by it should have held. Likewise the current liturgy doesn’t stand by itself------there is not liturgy without priests and Bishops and those they surround themselves with and allow a supportive role.
But no liturgy is separate from life and the culture around it, and if we try to make it static, I think it eventually could fail the culture. If we try to conform it to the culture, we lose the power of the faith. We are truly to be IN the world (not detached robots or dualists seeing the created world as evil) but not OF the world (that which is not redeemed in Christ, that which is of the anti-Christ). Walking that line in faith is an act of faith.
Changes, probably from '65-early 70’s came in many places very rapidly with not even the priests being fully taught by their Bishops.
We as laity are never free and clear from all fault, but from my own personal perspective and that of family and friends, the primary fault lay with the hierarchy. To me, historically, they just seem to miss the ‘signs of the times’ and keep running to catch up (if they are running in the right direction).
Remember, these bishops and priests were raised and ordained in the pre-Vat.II church. I have no clue, there are a lot of theories, as to all the reasons or the primary ones why they failed to implement the Council correctly–the age we were living in and the culture I am sure played a part.
But all I can say is what one Bishop admitted to a group of us on a retreat--------He asked our forgiveness for what the Bishops did wrongly or did not do adequately or timely after the Council. He’s the only Bishop I have ever heard who took responsibility with no qualifications in admitting not only had they failed us, but hurt many in the process and that they (at that time–mid to late 80’s) seemed to still be doing so.
I have thanked the Lord many times for that humble Bishop and it looks like we may wait quite awhile more before any of us hear the same type of confession from other Bishops as he made to his flock that day.
Those of us raised in the traditions and liturgy of the pre-Vat II church saw a lot of confusion and chaos around us as to what the church was saying/teaching and pretty much had to make decisions on our own as to what was true or not. For those less informed about their faith or who just lived out the faith by rote and not in depth of belief, I think they just may have taken the more easy road.
The Tridentine liturgy wasn’t and isn’t a magic bullet—if it were, the foundation laid by it should have held. Likewise the current liturgy doesn’t stand by itself------there is not liturgy without priests and Bishops and those they surround themselves with and allow a supportive role.
But no liturgy is separate from life and the culture around it, and if we try to make it static, I think it eventually could fail the culture. If we try to conform it to the culture, we lose the power of the faith. We are truly to be IN the world (not detached robots or dualists seeing the created world as evil) but not OF the world (that which is not redeemed in Christ, that which is of the anti-Christ). Walking that line in faith is an act of faith.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am pleased to have the good fortune to attend a liturgy that doesn’t need fixing. It is valid. We have Jesus present. Our priest follows the direction of his bishop. Does any one else attend a good liturgy?
PS - We use the Novus Ordo.
PS - We use the Novus Ordo.
A
aByzantineCatho
Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to HIM forever!
I say do away with the Novu Ordo. It’s the ONLY way to “fix” your Liturgy.
But that is my humble opinion…
By the way I was born way after Vatican II. To be honest I refuse to go to a Novus Ordo liturgy if I can’t find an Eastern Rite Liturgy I go to the Traditional Latin Mass if I can’t find that I go an Orthodox Church.
Even if I did go to a Novus Ordo liturgy most are illicit here in Florida. Whether it is nun giving the homily or the sweetness of the Eucharist bread there is always something illicit going on. To be honest I really don’t care for the Novus Ordo on EWTN. Where is the mystery? The Eucharist is a mystery and the liturgy should reflect that fact.
Give me the Old Time Religion!
God Bless!
Glory to HIM forever!
I say do away with the Novu Ordo. It’s the ONLY way to “fix” your Liturgy.
But that is my humble opinion…
By the way I was born way after Vatican II. To be honest I refuse to go to a Novus Ordo liturgy if I can’t find an Eastern Rite Liturgy I go to the Traditional Latin Mass if I can’t find that I go an Orthodox Church.
Even if I did go to a Novus Ordo liturgy most are illicit here in Florida. Whether it is nun giving the homily or the sweetness of the Eucharist bread there is always something illicit going on. To be honest I really don’t care for the Novus Ordo on EWTN. Where is the mystery? The Eucharist is a mystery and the liturgy should reflect that fact.
Give me the Old Time Religion!
God Bless!
S
S_Corda
Guest
Same here.
Asking “How to fix the Liturgy” assumes that the Liturgy needs to be fixed. I don’t think it does. I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
The Mass is a beautiful thing.
Maybe there are some liturgical abuses that need to be addressed. The existence of abuses doesn’t mean the Liturgy is “broken.”
Maybe some people should concentrate a little more on worship when they are at Mass than on watching like hawks to find fault with everything they can.
In the last few years I have seen more and more “conservative” but not necessarily orthodox Catholics who seem to do nothing but complain and gossip about “Oh I heard there was this priest somewhere that did this awful thing.”
I know I’m fortunate to be in a relatively orthodox diocese (Diocese of Lincoln). In my parish and diocese, the liturgy does NOT need to be fixed.
And about the survey, I think “Prayer” should be one of the responses.
A
aByzantineCatho
Guest
S_Corda,
There is NO mystery in the Novus Ordo. That can led to some serious problems peoples faith. I guess the facts speak for themselves with the number Catholics who believe in the Eucharist pre verse post Vatican II.
God Bless!
There is NO mystery in the Novus Ordo. That can led to some serious problems peoples faith. I guess the facts speak for themselves with the number Catholics who believe in the Eucharist pre verse post Vatican II.
God Bless!
S
S_Corda
Guest
- Please explain the comment. I don’t know what you mean.
- About the beliefs in the Eucharist - I don’t suppose there have been any other changes in society since Vatican II? I guess the spread of crack cocaine is the fault of Vatican II as well. And computer viruses and spam. And teenage sex. And hippies. And the Arms for hostages deal.
Sorry, but I’m one of those who believe that God did not abandon His church in Vatican II. - In your previous message you wrote “I really don’t care for the Novus Ordo on EWTN” That reminds me when I heard Bill O’Reilly’s say on his radio show that he never really cared for this pope. Sounds too much like Cafeteria Catholicism, picking and choosing what one likes and what one doesn’t about the teachings of the Church.
D
Dolly
Guest
To aByzantineCatho,
If you are truly a Byzantine Catholic you cannot deny the validity of the Roman Mass. You do not help, but hinder, the witness of the Eastern Catholic Church with that type of attitude. Byzantine parishes do not want members who pit themselves against the western church or are just dissatisfied Latin Catholics.
If you are a member of an eastern Catholic parish, I would sincerely suggest to have some serious discussions with your pastor regarding your view of the western liturgy.
If you are truly a Byzantine Catholic you cannot deny the validity of the Roman Mass. You do not help, but hinder, the witness of the Eastern Catholic Church with that type of attitude. Byzantine parishes do not want members who pit themselves against the western church or are just dissatisfied Latin Catholics.
If you are a member of an eastern Catholic parish, I would sincerely suggest to have some serious discussions with your pastor regarding your view of the western liturgy.
A
agname
Guest
The Liturgy isn’t broken.
A
agname
Guest
Finally…where is the proof that the current low Mass turnout is directly related to the new Mass? There is zero proof. Low Mass turnout is likely related to the moral decline within America…partly as a result of the sexual revolution within the 60s. Individuals nowadays are more attracted to worldly pursuits…money…fame…power.
I
iguana27
Guest
Amen to that. Pray that you personally remain open to the move of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church and protect Her.
P
pnewton
Guest
Actually there is Jesus substantially present on the altar in the hands of the priest. That is still very mysterious to me.
C
condan
Guest
From what I have personally seen in my very “progressive” parish where people are “special” and where they do things “our way”, the uninformed laity exerts undue influence. The pastor runs the parish by concensus, so we see things like Santa Claus at Christmas Mass, the Easter Bunny, liturgical dancing, Kwanza candle lighting on the altar during Mass, Baptists giving homilies…
Any attempts on the part of the Pastor, who is new, is met with hostility and resistance. Its really sad because he is trying. Our previous Pastor is ultra-liberal as was the one before him and they left quite a legacy.
(Obviously, we stepped into this one. We’re new to the Parish, about 4 years and came over b/c of the wheelchair accessibility of the school. We also are members of a more orthodox/traditional parish where there is absolutely no baloney.)
Any attempts on the part of the Pastor, who is new, is met with hostility and resistance. Its really sad because he is trying. Our previous Pastor is ultra-liberal as was the one before him and they left quite a legacy.
(Obviously, we stepped into this one. We’re new to the Parish, about 4 years and came over b/c of the wheelchair accessibility of the school. We also are members of a more orthodox/traditional parish where there is absolutely no baloney.)
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
As far as “proof” goes regarding the Liturgy and Mass attendance, I wish to refer to the article from “Homiletic and Pastoral Review” in their October, 2000 issue titled: “Novus ordo Missae: The record after thirty years” by Dr. James Lothian.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html
The entire article is good, but here is an excerpt:
“The picture that emerges is distressing. Mass attendance of U.S. Catholics fell precipitously in the decade following the liturgical changes and has continued to decline ever since. This decline moreover is not an isolated phenomenon, confined solely to the Church in America. In England and Wales, the time pattern of Mass attendance has been just as bad, perhaps even worse. Church attendance of 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 actually has 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.”
God bless.
J
JCB
Guest
The fact of the matter is that the NO mass does not promote reverence. A fundamental flaw with the NO. Instead the focal point tends to be on the congregation not the Eucharist (e.g. the sign of peace is the apparent climax of the mass )
This is not to say the NO is not valid, but rather that it is truly the body and blood of or lord, which by reason then demands a certain reverence and attention that is ignored for the most part during the NO.
- Status