Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“And that presumes that anything that is done is a roadblock? I don’t agree;”

Sorry, but you didn’t convince me. Again, the idea was to make it easier, not more difficult to have the Tridentine mass. There are lots of ways to drag your feet on something when you really, really don’t want to do it. And you don’t really have to guess with some priests and bishops. They have publicly expressed their dismay at the wider availability of the extraordinary form. What we should see is a “Yes, Holy Father” attitude, and then a visible move to actually make the extraordinary form available in the diocese. If that means teaching a few priests how to say the Latin and how to follow the rubrics, then so be it. You know, when I was growing up, my own father tended to be more impressed with a “Yes, Father”, followed by actual, visible obedience, than by complaints, foot-dragging, and a litany of excuses why I didn’t want to do something. You know something else? He was pretty smart in figuring out which was which.
 
"The Mass in Latin is a distortion of religious fact. Not even university professors who teach Latin pray in Latin. It is not an appropriate instrument for establishing a true relationship with God.
Click to expand...
This is the way in which the Latin Church has painted itself into a difficult corner. There is an unhealthy attachment to the language itself. Although I fully believe it has a right to be in Latin, if there was only a fine translation of the Latin liturgy into the vernacular with the exact same traditions in place that one finds in the pre-1950 Latin liturgy one could not use language alone as an excuse to end liturgical tradition.

As another user said, this is definitely a chess game.
 
TAquinas said:
“And that presumes that anything that is done is a roadblock? I don’t agree;”

Sorry, but you didn’t convince me. Again, the idea was to make it easier, not more difficult to have the Tridentine mass. There are lots of ways to drag your feet on something when you really, really don’t want to do it. And you don’t really have to guess with some priests and bishops. They have publicly expressed their dismay at the wider availability of the extraordinary form. What we should see is a “Yes, Holy Father” attitude, and then a visible move to actually make the extraordinary form available in the diocese. If that means teaching a few priests how to say the Latin and how to follow the rubrics, then so be it. You know, when I was growing up, my own father tended to be more impressed with a “Yes, Father”, followed by actual, visible obedience, than by complaints, foot-dragging, and a litany of excuses why I didn’t want to do something. You know something else? He was pretty smart in figuring out which was which.
Click to expand...
You missed the point entirely. It would appear that you see the world in black and white. I have made no suggestion that anyone should drag their feet, nor that any foot dragging should be acceptable.

Let me try it a different way: some people are quick to judge issues without having many, if any of the facts at hand. As anxious as many are to the the EF, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people go to the OF, and few of them seem to be complainging; few of them seem to be coming forward and asking for the EF, and they too have a right to have their liturgical needs fulfilled. The spectrum of needs and desires is much wider than many people acknowledge. Right now we have almost two generations who have not seen an EF ever in their life. They may like it, they may dislike it; they may not care one way of the other. The power of the vernacular may ulitmately prove to be a bigger factor than anything else. Only time will tell.

But just as the needs of those wanting the EF must be met, so must the needs of the OF; and how this will get worked out is going to take time and patience. I ahve already talked to a few people who have indicated that if there was an attempt to pull together several parishes to have and EF amongst them, they would be protesting to Rome as they have a right to have the EF, never mind the logistics. My bet is that complaint won’t even grow wings, let alone get off the ground. I thinkt that it will be very graudal, in many places, in terms of getting much of anything available in the EF; and those who lack patience are going to be screaming “foul”; all the screaming in the world is not going to prve that was foot dragging.

I have heard it posited that the priest will only have to learn to prounounce the words - that is, essentially have no knowledge of Latin whatsoever - and learn the rubrics and that is all that could be required. My reading of the MP doesn’t agree with that interpretation, nor does my experience; and I was in seminary before Vatican 2 was finished, so well before the 1969 release of the OF. It wasn’t the rule then, and I don’t think it will be the rule now; but there are those who say requiring learning Latin to some proficiency is “foot dragging” and negating rights". I don’t think so.

I can understand people being suspect of some bishops. But being suspect is a good way to go down a path of judgementalism for anything one doesn’t like.

I find some of the comments about bishops having no ability to say “no” under any circustances an absolute hoot. Article 5 Section 4: “Priests who use the missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.” Anyone who thinks that the bishop is not going to be the one to make that decision is beyond naieve.

And my bet is that if any bishop has the temerity to say what it means to be “qualified to do so”, maybe with the exception of Bruskowitz and maybe Chaput, he is going to find that there has been a letter sent to the good Cardinal. My money is that legitimate qualifications will be upheld; in other words, there will be circumstances where someone may be told “no” to the issue of a public Mass.

But then, I just read the plain language of the MP. Silly me.

Of course, I suspect your father would have understood that, too.
 
otjm said:
…The power of the vernacular may ulitmately prove to be a bigger factor than anything else.
Click to expand...
The “power of the vernacular”? Many people may not have been vocal after the changes to the liturgy, but many did vote with their feet. That’s why we saw the plummeting in Mass attendance after the introduction of the New Mass and the vernacular. Not only has it failed to bring people in, but it has also demonstrated little holding power (and of course there are a number of Catholics who will attend Mass no matter what the form is–out of obedience–and good for them). And of course there is the dividing of parishes into the Spanish group and the English group and the Korean group etc.
 
  1. “You missed the point entirely.” Nope. I nailed it.
  2. You see the world in black and white. How would you know that? How many of my blogging posts have you read?
    3."Right now we have almost two generations who have not seen an EF ever in their life. They may like it, they may dislike it; they may not care one way of the other. " True—and how are they going to see it unless it is more available for them to choose?
  3. “but there are those who say requiring learning Latin to some proficiency is “foot dragging” and negating rights”. I don’t think so."
I don’t think so either. Let them learn Latin. I think all priests should learn it—Vatican documents are still written in Latin before they are translated into the various other languages. There are some groups that moved immediately to offer training in how to offer the Tridentine mass. That’s the kind of obedience that I’m talking about. There are priests here in the Southwest that say the O.F. in Spanish, even though their native language is English and their Spanish is not that great. Some may not even know Spanish at all. And yet I wouldn’t say they don’t know what they are doing----they know the mass in English, so they know what is happening throughout the mass.

“But being suspect is a good way to go down a path of judgementalism for anything one doesn’t like.”

I only mentioned one specific area that I find problematic—stalling on the implementation of the motu propio (or outright refusal to do it). “Anything” is rather broad, don’t you think?
I believe “judgmentalism” has only one “e”, unlike the word “obedient”, which has two.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
The “power of the vernacular”? Many people may not have been vocal after the changes to the liturgy, but many did vote with their feet. That’s why we saw the plummeting in Mass attendance after the introduction of the New Mass and the vernacular.
Click to expand...
That is simply a post hoc ergo propter hoc arguement without any substantiation, and further, ignores one of the most powerful effects that happened at that time - the sexual revolution.

I work with returning Catholics, and I have yet to find one, or talk to anyone else who has found one, who left because of the change in rubrics or language. Divorce and second marriage outside the Church? Yep. Sleeping with their girlfiend/boyfriend prior to marriage? Yep. Angry because a priest challenged them or said something mean? Yep. Lazy and just drifted away? Yep. Poorly catechized, and made no connection to Jesus or God other than intellectual lessons taught (many of which weren’t too intellectual)? Yep. Got confirmed and thought that was all they needed? Yep. Had parents who didn’t go, and followed their parents’ example? Yep.

But left with their feet? Maybe in France, which has one of the highest numbers of SSPX’ers, but here? Nope.

You are most welcome to your opinion, but I work with the facts.

There just is no clamoring by most people for a Mass they have never seen or experienced. The silence is a bit deafening.
 
TAquinas said:
  1. “You missed the point entirely.” Nope. I nailed it.
  2. You see the world in black and white. How would you know that? How many of my blogging posts have you read?
    3."Right now we have almost two generations who have not seen an EF ever in their life. They may like it, they may dislike it; they may not care one way of the other. " True—and how are they going to see it unless it is more available for them to choose?
Click to expand...
Since I have said the same thing, I fail to see your point. If you read what I have written, I have not said that I feel that the bishop was right; his comments as reported (and they are all we have to deal with) certainly seem to point to his desire to have no changes. My point is that a) someone has to judge whether or not a priest is qualified, and that will be the bishop, not the priest - which is the first way that a bishop can legitimately deny public Masses being said; and that b) under the guidance of the bishop has to have meaning; the bishop is not only responsible to see that the needs of those desiring the EF are met, but also those desiring the OF, and as such, I do believe that he would have the power to say, for example, that due to the numbers for each, that the EF would be siad in one parish for several other close parishes rather than having the Mass siad in each. That would not be “negating a right” but would be legitimate guidance. Sorry, I don’t buy your arguement. I have never said that he could make anything but legitimate directions. You say he can make none, because anything would be a “denial of a right”. The right is not denied if it is not necessarily exercised just the way you want it to be.
TAquinas said:
  1. “but there are those who say requiring learning Latin to some proficiency is “foot dragging” and negating rights”. I don’t think so."
I don’t think so either. Let them learn Latin. I think all priests should learn it—Vatican documents are still written in Latin before they are translated into the various other languages. There are some groups that moved immediately to offer training in how to offer the Tridentine mass. That’s the kind of obedience that I’m talking about. There are priests here in the Southwest that say the O.F. in Spanish, even though their native language is English and their Spanish is not that great. Some may not even know Spanish at all. And yet I wouldn’t say they don’t know what they are doing----they know the mass in English, so they know what is happening throughout the mass.
Click to expand...
And I have no problem with that either, except that out here, we barely have enough priests to go around; not all parishes are staffed by a priest, and most of the rest of them have one. With the workload, just how do you propose they do this - by osmosis? I am not talking about excuses to avoid it, I am talking about the real world practical side of not having enough hours in the month, let a lone the day.
TAquinas said:
“But being suspect is a good way to go down a path of judgementalism for anything one doesn’t like.”

I only mentioned one specific area that I find problematic—stalling on the implementation of the motu propio (or outright refusal to do it). “Anything” is rather broad, don’t you think?
I believe “judgmentalism” has only one “e”, unlike the word “obedient”, which has two.
Click to expand...
And I type faster than I proofread. If only I could figure out how to make the spell check work.
 
Well, it is clear that according to some here, Sumonrum Pontificum actually does nothing and a bishop can permit or stop the celebration of an EF Mass at his whim.

Just like it was before.
 
otjm said:
That is simply a post hoc ergo propter hoc arguement without any substantiation, and further, ignores one of the most powerful effects that happened at that time - the sexual revolution.

I work with returning Catholics, and I have yet to find one, or talk to anyone else who has found one, who left because of the change in rubrics or language. Divorce and second marriage outside the Church? Yep. Sleeping with their girlfiend/boyfriend prior to marriage? Yep. Angry because a priest challenged them or said something mean? Yep. Lazy and just drifted away? Yep. Poorly catechized, and made no connection to Jesus or God other than intellectual lessons taught (many of which weren’t too intellectual)? Yep. Got confirmed and thought that was all they needed? Yep. Had parents who didn’t go, and followed their parents’ example? Yep.

But left with their feet? Maybe in France, which has one of the highest numbers of SSPX’ers, but here? Nope.

You are most welcome to your opinion, but I work with the facts.

There just is no clamoring by most people for a Mass they have never seen or experienced. The silence is a bit deafening.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose when a liturgy is effectively suppressed for 40 years and is often portrayed as backward, reactionary, impersonal, and not understandable that may have an effect on the clamor level.

Since you deal with facts, great, here’s an article that deals in facts (and not merely personal anecdotes). There are some things in life which are not just coincidental. People can read the article for themselves and see if it is just a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” argument without any substantiation. I have talked with you on this before, but here’s an excerpt from the article:

"The data, therefore, confirm what casual impressions for some time have suggested. Mass attendance is way down, even in America and Britain where the Church had been strong. To make matters worse it continues to fall further. Liturgical change and liturgical renewal apparently have not gone hand in hand.

Correlation versus causation

Such a conclusion, it could be argued, confuses correlation and temporal ordering with causation. The observed trends may very well be real but have little to do with the post-conciliar liturgical changes per se. They could instead be a reflection of other factors. The declines in Mass attendance could conceivably be just one further consequence of the broader erosion of values that began in the late 1960s, and that has continued thereafter.

The data on church attendance of U.S. Protestants, which are plotted in Figure 3 together with the data for Catholics that we have just reviewed, provide evidence on this question. The Protestant series is, so to speak, the “control group.” The contrast between its behavior and those of the two Catholic series is stark indeed. In the Protestant data, we see no downward trend at all. Church attendance is lower than that for Catholics during most of the period but is certainly not declining. In fact it may even have begun to trend up. If the temper of the times had been the cause of the decline in Catholic Mass attendance however, there is no reason that similar forces should not have operated within Protestantism too. Church attendance should have declined there also.

Statistical tests applied to the three series reinforce these conclusions. They showed a less than one in ten-thousandth of a percent chance of the estimated trend rates of change for the two Catholic series and for the Protestant series being equal. The bottom line then is that the downward trends in the two Catholic series and the lack of a similar trend in the Protestant series appear to be behavioral phenomena, and not fluke occurrences.

This is a powerful finding, and quite at odds with the conventional view. If the post-conciliar changes had been the overwhelming success they very often are described as being, we would expect to see increases in Mass attendance. We would certainly not expect to see the substantial declines that have taken place in both the United States and England and Wales over the past 30 years. That Protestant church attendance during this period behaved so differently makes the data even more difficult to reconcile with the conventional view. Had Protestant church attendance declined too, it might have been possible to argue that the situation in Catholicism would have been even worse if the liturgical changes had not been implemented. Given the near constancy and then rise in Protestant attendance, however, that argument becomes quite tenuous, if not out and out untenable."

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

(also available on the net in non .pdf format)

God bless.
 
otjm said:
That is simply a post hoc ergo propter hoc arguement without any substantiation, and further, ignores one of the most powerful effects that happened at that time - the sexual revolution.

I work with returning Catholics, and I have yet to find one, or talk to anyone else who has found one, who left because of the change in rubrics or language. Divorce and second marriage outside the Church? Yep. Sleeping with their girlfiend/boyfriend prior to marriage? Yep. Angry because a priest challenged them or said something mean? Yep. Lazy and just drifted away? Yep. Poorly catechized, and made no connection to Jesus or God other than intellectual lessons taught (many of which weren’t too intellectual)? Yep. Got confirmed and thought that was all they needed? Yep. Had parents who didn’t go, and followed their parents’ example? Yep.

But left with their feet? Maybe in France, which has one of the highest numbers of SSPX’ers, but here? Nope.

You are most welcome to your opinion, but I work with the facts.

There just is no clamoring by most people for a Mass they have never seen or experienced. The silence is a bit deafening.
Click to expand...
Catholic who left because of problems would not be coming back to the Church the same what that a divorced/remarried person would. No, these people would have found a Latin Mass community somewhere or attended an SSPX chapel. So your claim that no one left because of liturgical changes cannot be proven or even supported by your personal experience.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Yes, I suppose when a liturgy is effectively suppressed for 40 years and is often portrayed as backward, reactionary, impersonal, and not understandable that may have an effect on the clamor level.

Since you deal with facts, great, here’s an article that deals in facts (and not merely personal anecdotes). There are some things in life which are not just coincidental. People can read the article for themselves and see if it is just a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” argument without any substantiation. I have talked with you on this before, but here’s an excerpt from the article:

"The data, therefore, confirm what casual impressions for some time have suggested. Mass attendance is way down, even in America and Britain where the Church had been strong. To make matters worse it continues to fall further. Liturgical change and liturgical renewal apparently have not gone hand in hand.

Correlation versus causation

Such a conclusion, it could be argued, confuses correlation and temporal ordering with causation. The observed trends may very well be real but have little to do with the post-conciliar liturgical changes per se. They could instead be a reflection of other factors. The declines in Mass attendance could conceivably be just one further consequence of the broader erosion of values that began in the late 1960s, and that has continued thereafter.

The data on church attendance of U.S. Protestants, which are plotted in Figure 3 together with the data for Catholics that we have just reviewed, provide evidence on this question. The Protestant series is, so to speak, the “control group.” The contrast between its behavior and those of the two Catholic series is stark indeed. In the Protestant data, we see no downward trend at all. Church attendance is lower than that for Catholics during most of the period but is certainly not declining. In fact it may even have begun to trend up. If the temper of the times had been the cause of the decline in Catholic Mass attendance however, there is no reason that similar forces should not have operated within Protestantism too. Church attendance should have declined there also.

Statistical tests applied to the three series reinforce these conclusions. They showed a less than one in ten-thousandth of a percent chance of the estimated trend rates of change for the two Catholic series and for the Protestant series being equal. The bottom line then is that the downward trends in the two Catholic series and the lack of a similar trend in the Protestant series appear to be behavioral phenomena, and not fluke occurrences.

This is a powerful finding, and quite at odds with the conventional view. If the post-conciliar changes had been the overwhelming success they very often are described as being, we would expect to see increases in Mass attendance. We would certainly not expect to see the substantial declines that have taken place in both the United States and England and Wales over the past 30 years. That Protestant church attendance during this period behaved so differently makes the data even more difficult to reconcile with the conventional view. Had Protestant church attendance declined too, it might have been possible to argue that the situation in Catholicism would have been even worse if the liturgical changes had not been implemented. Given the near constancy and then rise in Protestant attendance, however, that argument becomes quite tenuous, if not out and out untenable."

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

(also available on the net in non .pdf format)

God bless.
Click to expand...
A big problem with this is the way people identify themselves. Ever heard of a fallen away Lutheran, or a fallen away Baptist? Me either. People tend to cling to Catholicism with far more vigor. Makes sense considering it’s the fullness of Truth. That means there are many Catholics who don’t practice their Faith at all - like haven’t been to Church in 30 years, yet when they are surveyed and someone asks religion, they still check Catholic. This same phenomena just doesn’t happen with say, the Church of Christ, etc.
 
rpp said:
Well, it is clear that according to some here, Sumonrum Pontificum actually does nothing and a bishop can permit or stop the celebration of an EF Mass at his whim.

Just like it was before.
Click to expand...
No. the MP SP is TWO sets of instructions… in one document:

One that says private masses in the EF can be done without episcopal interference by any Roman priest who can physically and intellectually accomplish it. Private masses are limited to one per day by canon law.

The other that says the PUBLIC use of the EF is under the Bishop’s guidance.

Lets examine this with a young hypothetical priest…

So Fr. Joe Justbeenordained, he can say his private mass by the 62 missal if he wants any time he feels like it, so long as he doesn’t say more than one private mass a day.

But if Fr. Joe hasn’t got it down right, the bishop can say “Not yet, Joe” when joes wants to add a 7am EF, and further the bishop can rightly say “No, you may not replace one of the Ordinary Form celebrations on the weekend with the EF.”

But if Fr. Joe is getting 30-40 people asking for it, The bishop needs to consider getting Fr Joe the proper training, or send a priest well enough trained to do it.
 
Aramis said:
But if Fr. Joe hasn’t got it down right, the bishop can say “Not yet, Joe” when joes wants to add a 7am EF, and further the bishop can rightly say “No, you may not replace one of the Ordinary Form celebrations on the weekend with the EF.”

But if Fr. Joe is getting 30-40 people asking for it, The bishop needs to consider getting Fr Joe the proper training, or send a priest well enough trained to do it.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps the Bishop could direct the parishioners to an EF Mass that is being said 20-30 minutes away.
 
Sure said:
A big problem with this is the way people identify themselves. Ever heard of a fallen away Lutheran, or a fallen away Baptist? Me either. People tend to cling to Catholicism with far more vigor. Makes sense considering it’s the fullness of Truth. That means there are many Catholics who don’t practice their Faith at all - like haven’t been to Church in 30 years, yet when they are surveyed and someone asks religion, they still check Catholic. This same phenomena just doesn’t happen with say, the Church of Christ, etc.
Click to expand...
If one reads the article, I think it is clear the author is well aware of potential biases. Further, I don’t think there is any disagreement among people who study these issues that there has been quite a significant decline in Mass attendance (and pretty much every other area of Catholic practice). The disagreement comes when one is discussing the reasons for the decline. Here is an interview with Kenneth C. Jones who wrote “A Leading Index of Catholic Indicators” and did a broader analysis of Catholic practice which confirms the article’s findings:

unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm
 
rpp said:
Well, it is clear that according to some here, Sumonrum Pontificum actually does nothing and a bishop can permit or stop the celebration of an EF Mass at his whim.

Just like it was before.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly have not said that. Try reading what I actually have said, and not reading with suspicion and/or anger.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Yes, I suppose when a liturgy is effectively suppressed for 40 years and is often portrayed as backward, reactionary, impersonal, and not understandable that may have an effect on the clamor level.

Since you deal with facts, great, here’s an article that deals in facts (and not merely personal anecdotes). There are some things in life which are not just coincidental. People can read the article for themselves and see if it is just a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” argument without any substantiation. I have talked with you on this before, but here’s an excerpt from the article:

"The data, therefore, confirm what casual impressions for some time have suggested. Mass attendance is way down, even in America and Britain where the Church had been strong. To make matters worse it continues to fall further. Liturgical change and liturgical renewal apparently have not gone hand in hand.

Correlation versus causation

Such a conclusion, it could be argued, confuses correlation and temporal ordering with causation. The observed trends may very well be real but have little to do with the post-conciliar liturgical changes per se. They could instead be a reflection of other factors. The declines in Mass attendance could conceivably be just one further consequence of the broader erosion of values that began in the late 1960s, and that has continued thereafter.

The data on church attendance of U.S. Protestants, which are plotted in Figure 3 together with the data for Catholics that we have just reviewed, provide evidence on this question. The Protestant series is, so to speak, the “control group.” The contrast between its behavior and those of the two Catholic series is stark indeed. In the Protestant data, we see no downward trend at all. Church attendance is lower than that for Catholics during most of the period but is certainly not declining. In fact it may even have begun to trend up. If the temper of the times had been the cause of the decline in Catholic Mass attendance however, there is no reason that similar forces should not have operated within Protestantism too. Church attendance should have declined there also.

Statistical tests applied to the three series reinforce these conclusions. They showed a less than one in ten-thousandth of a percent chance of the estimated trend rates of change for the two Catholic series and for the Protestant series being equal. The bottom line then is that the downward trends in the two Catholic series and the lack of a similar trend in the Protestant series appear to be behavioral phenomena, and not fluke occurrences.

This is a powerful finding, and quite at odds with the conventional view. If the post-conciliar changes had been the overwhelming success they very often are described as being, we would expect to see increases in Mass attendance. We would certainly not expect to see the substantial declines that have taken place in both the United States and England and Wales over the past 30 years. That Protestant church attendance during this period behaved so differently makes the data even more difficult to reconcile with the conventional view. Had Protestant church attendance declined too, it might have been possible to argue that the situation in Catholicism would have been even worse if the liturgical changes had not been implemented. Given the near constancy and then rise in Protestant attendance, however, that argument becomes quite tenuous, if not out and out untenable."

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

(also available on the net in non .pdf format)

God bless.
Click to expand...
We are getting off point, so I’ll make one response. Humanae Vitae came out at about the same time as the change in the Mass. You say it is due to a change in the Mass; I say it is due to the sexual revolution that Mass attendance is down.

If it is due to the change in the Mass, then the statistics do not explain the drop in attendance in the Protestant area. Further, there are other statitstics that show that the Mainline Protestant churches have declined during the same period, but the evangelical and fundamental churches have had great growth. Neither the drop in mainline nor the growth in evangelical/fundamental churches are explained by a change in rubrics in the Catholic Church. I do not accept that people “voted with their feet” in anything like the amount of loss sustained over the time period. Some did, but nowhere near the number that are due to the sexual revolution, increasing secualrism, and poor and dumbed down catechesis, none of which have to do with rubric change.
 
otjm said:
We are getting off point, so I’ll make one response. Humanae Vitae came out at about the same time as the change in the Mass. You say it is due to a change in the Mass; I say it is due to the sexual revolution that Mass attendance is down.

If it is due to the change in the Mass, then the statistics do not explain the drop in attendance in the Protestant area. Further, there are other statitstics that show that the Mainline Protestant churches have declined during the same period, but the evangelical and fundamental churches have had great growth. Neither the drop in mainline nor the growth in evangelical/fundamental churches are explained by a change in rubrics in the Catholic Church. I do not accept that people “voted with their feet” in anything like the amount of loss sustained over the time period. Some did, but nowhere near the number that are due to the sexual revolution, increasing secualrism, and poor and dumbed down catechesis, none of which have to do with rubric change.
Click to expand...
The point of the article was to show that there was not a corresponding drop in attendance in the Protestant churches but rather attendance held steady and possibly started rising during the same period while it was plummeting in the Catholic Church indicating that the main factors were not primarily outside influences like the sexual revolution.

What is also interesting (and tragic) when one looks at the graphs is how suddenly, at a very specific point in time, the plummet begins and continues, which to me would indicate an immediate factor. If it was just the influence of the outside world I would expect the graph to be much more jumpy and/or gradual.

Further, Humanae Vitae reaffirmed a teaching most Catholics were obeying prior to Vatican II. It didn’t suddenly spring something new on them.

Do you have any studies which support your thesis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top