Is there anything you DO like?

[Annc]

I agree there are a lot of generalizations but our own experiences are all we have to go on for the most part, since those experiences are what give us our viewpoint/bias/perspective. I have read all kinds of documents, books, attened Bible studies, etc., attend Mass regularly and have a regular prayer life. All those things along with my life experiences tell me that for all that we gained post VII we lost just as much. The good news is that we are making progress in recent years building up the faithful. The irony is that the good we got from VII (Bible Study, are retreats a post VII thing?, various adult faith formation activities) in my experience bring people to a more orthodox or traditional perspective.

Devotions like Rosary, Perpetual Adoration, and Liturgy of the Hours were much more common in the Pre VII era and suffered tremendously until the last few years. The Rosary and other Marian devotions took a big “hit” and have been practically non-existent in some parishes except on an individual basis. Where I am now there was no recognition of the importance of any of these devotions until very recently and only as a result of those who are trying to “reform the reform”. In my current diocese which is still very liberal, daily Mass was non-existent except at the more traditional parishes. Most parishes only had 1 or 2 Masses during the week. Some still do, and these are not small parishes.

Your assessment of the social upheaval and it effects is probably accurate. It was such a tumultuous time outside the Church that it was bound to affect the Church. I am sad that so many faithful were led astray in the process. There is a whole generation or 2 that has grown up completely ignorant of the beautiful faith that they were born into. That said, times of trial and suffering are what strengthen our faith so I have to believe that in the long run the Church will be stronger and individuals will be stronger in their faith. I believe that we will see the NO (celebrated as it was meant to be celebrated) and the EF exists peacefully side by side. I believe that if anything the NO will become more traditional looking than many have experienced it.

Benedict XVI recently celebrated a Mass “ad orientum”. I beleive this was at least the 2nd time he has publicly done so. Was this a NO or EF? I believe that we will be gently but firmly catechised to bring back reverence to the NO.

God bless.

 

[brotherhrolf]

As a matter of fact, yes. I am a product of a “mixed marriage” in that my mother and protestant father could not get married inside the sanctuary in 1947 and had to be married in the sacristy. My father had to promise that he would raise his children as Catholics. My father took that promise very seriously. It was he who got me up and drove me to church to serve all of those six AM TLMs. It was he who worked two jobs to put the three of us through Catholic school.

When my father’s mother died in 1967, I was 16. My sister and brother and I attended the wake but were not allowed to attend the burial. My father’s church had a “memorial service” for my grandmother a month later. We had to get permission from our parish priest to attend.

I could regale you further about being taken by my maternal great-aunt to visit my paternal great-aunt across the cemetary on All Saints Day.

I grew up with “no salvation outside of the Church”. As a practical experience, do any of you have any idea of how that affected me as a child? To pray constantly, “Dear God, don’t let my Daddy die until he accepts HMC”?

My father embraced HMC after Vatican II. His father was a Catholic who married my divorced Protestant grandmother in 1910. He was excommunicated from HMC and excommunicated from his family.

Vatican II changed things - positively in this case.

 

[Rabbititus]

…Of course Vatican ll did not fix everything in the Church and in my opinion, the Council Fathers were not fully prepared for the great upheaval in society that took place afterwards. In particular, the repudiation of authority. Church authorities have a good deal of responsibility for the many problems still facing us. Many of the heirachy neglected their duty to fully inform the faithful of the Council’s documents and allowed themselves to get with the spirit of the age. But the laity are not totally blameless either.

Based on your childhood experiences, you seem to be between the ages of my parents (my dad born in the early 40’s and my mom born in the early 50’s), as they’ve told me about stuff like ice boxes and party lines. It seems that back then there was a stronger notion of Catholic “culture” and identity that, for good or ill, my generation never had. I’m sure for a lot of people that that culture was suffocating rather than a positive force.

Actually, an impression I sometimes get from older people regarding traditional stuff is that they negatively associate it with repressive childhoods, or the negative aspects of 1950’s society as a whole. I’ve sometimes said on these forums that I wonder what would have happened if the changes had not occurred in the 1960’s, when everyone became disenchanted with authority. Dropping Latin Masses and traditional devotions at that time pretty much guaranteed there would be a correlation between them and the other negative things shed at that time. The friendliness towards traditional practices amongst the liturgical protestant churches who didn’t really update/reform their liturgies until the 70’s and 80’s seems to confirm this. I’ve talked to Lutherans who grew up with chant and classical music at their parishes - in Latin - and it’s a local protestant church that performs Latin Mass settings at Christmastime. Traditional stuff for them is just traditional, not a step back into the “dark ages” or a reversal of the progress society has made in regards to racism and sexism.

Perhaps for people raised after the council the same thing is occurring, and negative associations will be made between the council and the generally weak formation people my age had. I honestly don’t remember learning anything important in CCD, and most people my age don’t seem to know anything about their faith and end up leaving it once they move out.

Sorry, I’m rambling and likely not making a lot of sense to you in what I am trying to say. Yes, there was great good in the “old days” but there is also great good now if only everyone would open their eyes, get rid of pre-conceived or ill-informed ideas and actually look about them. Look at all the Perpetual Adoration Chapels springing up all over; Rosaries said by groups as an everyday occurrances before of after Daily Mass; the thousands of people who have taken to praying the Liturgy of the Hours, which, pre Vll was pretty much reserved for the clergy and Religious Orders; all the retreats regularly scheduled by either individual parishes or Dioceses; Bible study groups and so on. These are marvelous things that are happening. Perhaps we can "blame’ them on Vatican ll as well?

Those sorts of things may be fruits of the council, though they are often portrayed as pre-Vatican II throwbacks since a lot of churches dropped them in the 60’s and 70’s and only revived them recently. Adoration would have been totally foreign to me growing up - I didn’t hear of it until I was 19 or 20. I had no idea that people would just visit the Eucharist and adore it.

I think increased vernacular and encouraging people to sing and make responses at the mass are good fruits of the council. I should mention that I don’t consider myself a traditionalist and don’t live my life as one, even though my preference is for traditional liturgy.

 

[Annc]

I grew up with “no salvation outside of the Church”. As a practical experience, do any of you have any idea of how that affected me as a child? To pray constantly, “Dear God, don’t let my Daddy die until he accepts HMC”?

My father embraced HMC after Vatican II. His father was a Catholic who married my divorced Protestant grandmother in 1910. He was excommunicated from HMC and excommunicated from his family.

Vatican II changed things - positively in this case.

I am sorry that these types of situations were so difficult in the “old days” and would agree that changes were in order. But they were changes in understanding not in the teaching itself.

“no salvation outside of the Church” has often been misinterpreted as “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. The Church’s teaching hasn’t changed since VII. My understanding is that the Church has always taught that the best path to salvation is through the Catholic Church directly but that since Jesus established the Church, and there is only one Church, all Christian churches fall under the Catholic Church in the sense that we are one Church therefore none of the Christian Churches are “outside” of the Catholic Church in that sense. In addition, it is possible that non-Christians can be saved as well. Fr. Leonard Feeney and his associates were excommunicated in the 1950’s for teaching that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Please see this article for a more thorough explanation than mine.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

Bigotry and prejudice on both sides made this teaching harder to understand and to live faithfully.

God bless.

 

[brotherhrolf]

That wasn’t the way things were before Vatican II. I’m sorry if it is so hard to understand today but that was NOT the way things were in the 1960s.

To put it quite bluntly, in the way it was explained to me in Religion class back then…there is no salvation outside of HMC and all those Protestants are going to hell - including my father, grandmother, great aunt, etc.

I didn’t go to Catholic school for thirteen years without growing up with this understanding. There WAS a sea change after Vatican II.

My parents could not be married on the altar at church in 1947. They had to be married in the sacristy after getting dispensation from the Archbishop of New Orleans.

Sorry, Annc but that is NOT what HMC taught when I was growing up. Vatican II changed that. Even then, we had to get permission from our parish priest to attend my grandmother’s memorial at here church in 1967. I am not making this up. I experienced it.

 

[Dauphin]

That wasn’t the way things were before Vatican II. I’m sorry if it is so hard to understand today but that was NOT the way things were in the 1960s.

To put it quite bluntly, in the way it was explained to me in Religion class back then…there is no salvation outside of HMC and all those Protestants are going to hell - including my father, grandmother, great aunt, etc.

I didn’t go to Catholic school for thirteen years without growing up with this understanding. There WAS a sea change after Vatican II.

My parents could not be married on the altar at church in 1947. They had to be married in the sacristy after getting dispensation from the Archbishop of New Orleans.

Sorry, Annc but that is NOT what HMC taught when I was growing up. Vatican II changed that. Even then, we had to get permission from our parish priest to attend my grandmother’s memorial at here church in 1967. I am not making this up. I experienced it.

It sounds like you received the correct teaching and experienced the traditional discipline of the Church.

The salvation of heretics and schismatics is not a subject for dispute. It has been settled dogmatically by the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Prayer with heretics isn’t a matter to be taken lightly (During the Arian heresy, it would have been unthinkable to go “check out” the Arian Church). The requirement of a dispensation to attend Protestant services is very prudent.

 

[Dauphin]

“no salvation outside of the Church” has often been misinterpreted as “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. The Church’s teaching hasn’t changed since VII. My understanding is that the Church has always taught that the best path to salvation is through the Catholic Church directly but that since Jesus established the Church, and there is only one Church, all Christian churches fall under the Catholic Church in the sense that we are one Church therefore none of the Christian Churches are “outside” of the Catholic Church in that sense. In addition, it is possible that non-Christians can be saved as well. Fr. Leonard Feeney and his associates were excommunicated in the 1950’s for teaching that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

I hate to be so insistent about this, but that’s totally incorrect. The Catholic Church isn’t just the “best option” among many. The Church teaches and has always taught that no heretic or schismatic may be saved. There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.

The teaching on innocent ignorance isn’t new, but only applies to those who do not know Christ and His Church. In such cases, it is possible to for someone to be implicitly united to the Church through a baptism of desire. As such, their salvation is through the one Church, which they would have entered into explicit communion with if they had known of it.

This is the perennial teaching of the Church. Nothing will change it.

 

[hays1122]

It sounds like you received the correct teaching and experienced the traditional discipline of the Church.

The salvation of heretics and schismatics is not a subject for dispute. It has been settled dogmatically by the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Prayer with heretics isn’t a matter to be taken lightly (During the Arian heresy, it would have been unthinkable to go “check out” the Arian Church). The requirement of a dispensation to attend Protestant services is very prudent.

What are the “requirements of a dispensation to attend Protestant services”?

 

[brotherhrolf]

What are the “requirements of a dispensation to attend Protestant services”?

Today? None. I attend the funeral services of my co-workers and their families w/o regret or hesitation. This would include marriages too. My immortal soul is not going to be endangered simply because I attended a Protestant funeral or wedding.

Dauphin correctly interprets the mind-set of the pre-Concilliar Church. Catholics simply did not attend Protestant services back then on pain of our motal souls… Which is why we had to get permission from our parish priest to attend my grandmother’s memorial service.

I have been to many funerals and weddings since 1965 for my Protestant friends. I am glad that I am a Catholic. Protestant funerals leave me absolutely “cold”.

 

[cameron_lansing]

What are the “requirements of a dispensation to attend Protestant services”?

As noted, attendance does not require a dispensation.

You find the norms and principles in the Ecumenical Directory (not its title but useful for brevity) under Section IV, beginning with n. 92

Especially look under sub title Sharing in Non-Sacramental Liturgical Worship at 116. But remember the individual numbers have to be put in the context of the entire directory. The entire document is worth at least a brief read.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html.

Protestant Churches fall into the category of "ecclesial communities in the judgement of the Holy See as opposed to true Churches, such as the Orthodox. So keep that in mind when reading a particular item in the text.

 

[CradleCath]

I hate to be so insistent about this, but that’s totally incorrect. The Catholic Church isn’t just the “best option” among many. The Church teaches and has always taught that no heretic or schismatic may be saved. There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.

The teaching on innocent ignorance isn’t new, but only applies to those who do not know Christ and His Church. In such cases, it is possible to for someone to be implicitly united to the Church through a baptism of desire. As such, their salvation is through the one Church, which they would have entered into explicit communion with if they had known of it.

This is the perennial teaching of the Church. Nothing will change it.

Dauphin, This is EXACTLY what I was taught in Catholic school in the 1940’s. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church…but love God & do their best to follow His will & are filled with a desire to love, honor & serve Him, are included in the Catholic faith by a Baptism of Desire. You are right. Therefore, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does not refer to them.

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin, This is EXACTLY what I was taught in Catholic school in the 1940’s. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church…but love God & do their best to follow His will & are filled with a desire to love, honor & serve Him, are included in the Catholic faith by a Baptism of Desire. You are right. Therefore, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does not refer to them.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does refer to them, although their union with the Church is implicit. If they were not innocently ignorant of the Church, they would make this communion explicit.

 

[Annc]

That wasn’t the way things were before Vatican II. I’m sorry if it is so hard to understand today but that was NOT the way things were in the 1960s.

To put it quite bluntly, in the way it was explained to me in Religion class back then…there is no salvation outside of HMC and all those Protestants are going to hell - including my father, grandmother, great aunt, etc.

I didn’t go to Catholic school for thirteen years without growing up with this understanding. There WAS a sea change after Vatican II.

My parents could not be married on the altar at church in 1947. They had to be married in the sacristy after getting dispensation from the Archbishop of New Orleans.

Sorry, Annc but that is NOT what HMC taught when I was growing up. Vatican II changed that. Even then, we had to get permission from our parish priest to attend my grandmother’s memorial at here church in 1967. I am not making this up. I experienced it.

There is a difference between being married in the sacristy and being excommunicated. Even today a couple in a mixed marriage may or may not be able to be married with a Mass. They might be able to be married in the Church but not with a Mass. They are still married and the marriage is blessed by the Church. Back in the 40’s my aunt and uncle got married in the sacristy because they couldn’t afford a wedding with a Mass and reception. If the Church really taught “no salvation outside of the Catholic church” a couple wouldn’t have been married in the sacristy either. Would the Church be an accomplice to sending someone to hell by marrying them to a protestant if that marriage would send them to hell? I think not.

Please explain the excommunication of Fr. Feeney if he what he was teaching was the official teaching of the Church.

I attended Catholic school as well and I was never taught that those outside the institutional Catholic Church automatically went to hell and neither were my parents who grew up in the 30’s and 40’s. You have to read the documents to know what the Church actually taught. Unfortunately, many times those teaching us get it terribly wrong and teach us that “the Church teaches thus and so” when it doesn’t. I am sure we all have dozens of examples of issues that are being taught today incorrectly but the faithful walk away with “the Church teaches this…” .

The Church’s teaching on this may not be easy to understand and is misunderstood often.

Again, I am sorry for your family’s painful experience. Unfortunately, no matter what the Church’s actual teaching, it is often misunderstood, misapplied or when not accepted just causes pain.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My grandfather married my divorced Protestant grandmother sometime during the 1910s and was excommunicated not only from HMC but from his family. In Catholic New Orleans this was a really, really big deal back then.

My great aunt Claire (on my mother’s side) was a childhood friend of my great aunt Sophie (on my father’s side). This was some fifty years later. The only contact I ever had with my father’s Catholic relatives was around All Saints Day when we would go as an extended family to clean the tomb and put a fresh coat of white wash on it. When we were finished, Aunt Claire would take the three of us across the cemetary where we would meet my father’s Catholic family. The breach was just that serious.

When my father died, his cousin came to his funeral. He remembered us as children at the cemetary.

Sis married a Protestant within the context of a Mass. BIL has acted just like my father. He put my niece through 13 years of Catholic school and is helping her get through Loyola in New Orleans.

I am merely reporting that which I experienced growing up. I did grow up fretting for my father’s (and my father’s family) safety. My father’s brother married a Catholic. My cousin was in the same boat with the three of us when our grandmother was buried.

Vatican II changed that paradigm and I am grateful.

 

[cathguy]

My grandfather married my divorced Protestant grandmother sometime during the 1910s and was excommunicated not only from HMC but from his family. In Catholic New Orleans this was a really, really big deal back then.

My great aunt Claire (on my mother’s side) was a childhood friend of my great aunt Sophie (on my father’s side). This was some fifty years later. The only contact I ever had with my father’s Catholic relatives was around All Saints Day when we would go as an extended family to clean the tomb and put a fresh coat of white wash on it. When we were finished, Aunt Claire would take the three of us across the cemetary where we would meet my father’s Catholic family. The breach was just that serious.

When my father died, his cousin came to his funeral. He remembered us as children at the cemetary.

Sis married a Protestant within the context of a Mass. BIL has acted just like my father. He put my niece through 13 years of Catholic school and is helping her get through Loyola in New Orleans.

I am merely reporting that which I experienced growing up. I did grow up fretting for my father’s (and my father’s family) safety. My father’s brother married a Catholic. My cousin was in the same boat with the three of us when our grandmother was buried.

Vatican II changed that paradigm and I am grateful.

I hate to point this out, but your personal experience is belied by the objective data available. I am NOT saying your story is untrue, or invalid. Just that the empirical data available tell a different story.

Statistically speaking, Catholics and Protestants in the US began intermarrying in small numbers as soon as Catholics arrived on US shores. When Catholics arrived here they were greeted with prejudice, bigotry, and conversely, with offers to throw down the walls of the Catholic ghetto and integrate with society. Many did just that.

Vatican II changed a great deal. But the trends were already there before the council. Its just that Vatican II allowed these trends to “flower” and “grow.”

That said, what has been the result of the Catholic Church’s “changes” post the council?

The divorce rate has SKYROCKETED as Catholics, ennobled by Theologians who refer constantly to the VII documents, rejected Humanae Vitae and the teachings of the Church as outdated and “pre-Vatican II”.

Catholic divorce rates began to mirror protestant divorce rates almost IMMEDIATELY after the council. Before, the Catholic divorce rate was lower than their protestant counterparts.

Protestant/Catholic marriages have resulted in children who are committed to neither tradition.

With each successive generation since the Council, Catholics are taking the teachings of the Church less seriously according to all the objective data available. A stunning 0% (a small but statistically insignificant group of millennials buck the trend) believe that the Church’s teachings should guide their lives.

We are in serious trouble; and the start of the trouble starts with the Council.

I hasten to add that I am loyal son of the Church, and I do not reject the Council. It contains no heresy.

However, just because it is free from error, doesn’t make it prudent. It wasn’t wise. It didn’t come about at a historically fortuitous time, and it exacerbated a serious decline in the Church.

 

[DMMMike_B]

Question? What do all these abbreviations mean? OF, NO? I was raised in the traditional church and been away a long time so I am lost.

 

[Ghoti]

Question? What do all these abbreviations mean? OF, NO? I was raised in the traditional church and been away a long time so I am lost.

TLM: Traditional Latin Mass, a.k.a. Tridentine Mass, after Tridentus, the Latin name of Trent (and Council thereof), where that order of the Mass was promulgated; called the EF or Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite as it follows the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. – as ooposed to –

NO: Novus Ordo, “New Order of the Mass”, a.k.a. OF, Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, a.k.a. the Pauline Mass – the Mass introduced by Paul VI subsequent to the Second Vatican Council.

I believe that the OP is referring to Masses which (seem to) include, but may not be limited to, the following off-the-top-of-my-head list:

• priest facing the people (versus populum) as opposed to facing “liturgical east” (ad orientem)
• communion in the hand as opposed to on the tongue
• Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHCs) at all Masses instead of communion distributed only by the priest
• sermons given by other than the priest
• standing through the Consecration, holding hands during the Our Father, priest sitting with the congregation during readings, or other unusual postures during Mass, and removal of traditional postures/acts of reverence, such as beating one’s breast during the Confiteor or bowing/kneeling during the words of Incarnation in the Creed
• “liturgical dancers”
• vernacular only, no Latin (and in some cases, poor translation at that – for example, pro multis translated as “for all” instead of “for the many”)
• no Gregorian chant
• changing the words of prayers or having the priest “wing it” or improvise on what’s written in the Roman Missal – especially the words of Consecration, which can invalidate the Mass
• use of bread other than wheat and water, or liquid other than wine, for Consecration (“invalid matter”)
• use of glass pitchers, clay goblets, or ceramic dishes in place of chalices or patens to hold the Precious Body and Blood
• removal of the Crucufix, kneelers, altar rails, high altar, statues, stained glass, i.e. having a minimalist “barebones” decor
• “inclusive” language, including not ever referring to God as “the Father” or “He”
• felt banners

On the one hand, there are those on these fora who say that the above were never permitted by the documents of Vatican II, but were implemented by a liberal clergy adhering to a so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” and permitted by vague wording of the conciliar documents and lack of control from Rome, as well as an appearance of an abrogation of the TLM by Rome. On the other hand, there are also those who maintain that, either because of the times and circumstances by which the new form was implemented, or the attitudes of those who implemented it, in conjunction with the poor catechesis of the laity and a change in emphasis from “worship” to “community”, “reverence” and “assisting” to “full participation”, and “traditional Catholic” mores to modern “social justice”, the new form lends itself more easily to misuse/abuse. They also maintain that, even when properly said, the OF was not an organic development of the Mass – as say the TLM was when set down at Trent – but a wholesale overhaul which was (at best) not necessary, or (at worst) flawed.

To the Traditionalists out there: do I have a handle on it?

For sake of full disclosure: I am a Vatican II baby who likes to attend a Latin OF. I am reserving my opinion of the OF as opposed to the EF (and vice versa) since the OP was not addressed to me.

 

[DL82]

OTOH, If I ever found a “reform of the reform” offered ad orientem and in Latin, I might give it a try. So far, though, no luck in that department.

I regularly attend such a mass, and with the correct propers (introit, offertory, recessional) chanted it’s a very beautiful, simple and reverent mass. Shame it’s so poorly attended where I am.

One thing I do like about the ordinary form is the readings in English, it doesn’t make sense to me to proclaim the epistles and gospel in a language people can’t understand, though I do appreciate the chanting of the gospel, have heard one priest do that in English, but only once.

 

[bkovacs]

Truth be told, no. Nothing. Some of it isn’t so bad in and of itself, but when compared to the Tridentine…well, there is no comparison. Non Catholics who do not believe in the priestly hierarchy, the True Presence, the intercession of the Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass…they approve of this Mass, or at the least prefer it to the Tridentine. Need I say more? My mother prefers the NO, but one could say she’s still a Baptist at heart. I also know non Catholics who scoff at the NO because it’s so, as they put, “watered down,” and “no different from the other Christian churches.” I also know of converts to the Faith who were disgusted by the change because it resembled what they left. I am not opposed to *gradual *changes to the Mass, but a total revision? What a joke! There was no need for what was done except pleasing the non Catholics. Caving in is not the way to convert.

Before the accusation gets thrown out, I am not saying that those who offer/attend/prefer the NO have no faith, or lack true faith or are not/can’t be holy. My favorite priest in the world doesn’t offer the Tridentine, and my current spiritual director actually prefers the NO. My brother prefers the old ways but has no special desire to attend the Tridentine. And my confirmation sponsor, who happens to be the holiest woman I know, never attends the Latin. I’m just saying that the changes were and still are pathetic…ridiculous…pointless…etc, etc, etc. The result of someone with too much time on their hands.

Couldn’t say it any better! Hence why I go to an Orthodox Church now vs a Catholic NO Mass. To me it doesn’t seem Catholic at all. St Dominic, St Francis, St Benedict, etc would not recognize the NO Mass at all.

 

[malphono]

I regularly attend such a mass, and with the correct propers (introit, offertory, recessional) chanted it’s a very beautiful, simple and reverent mass. Shame it’s so poorly attended where I am.

One thing I do like about the ordinary form is the readings in English, it doesn’t make sense to me to proclaim the epistles and gospel in a language people can’t understand, though I do appreciate the chanting of the gospel, have heard one priest do that in English, but only once.

It’s probably poorly attended for pretty much the same reason that so many people carp about the EF: they’re afraid of it for one reason or another. I remarked on some of those fears a while back in another thread.

Anyway, except for certain oratories, monasteries, and the very rare parish church, it’s a commodity that’s not readily available to the vast majority. Perhaps if more people learned about it, and were able to overcome their fears, they might attend it. Who knows, they might even like it. If I ever find one, I’ll let you know how it struck me.

You do have a point about the readings, but I personally prefer the flow of the Latin when they’re sung. Same with the Credo.