Latin returning to Mass

[Joe_Gloor]

msproule:

We do have statistics that demonstrate a reduced belief in the Real Presence. Does that offset the supposed increase in warm bodies in the pews? Which is better?

Please keep in mind that I didn’t say there were statistically more people in the pew now than in the past, but rather, that there are more there now than there would be if the Mass hadn’t been changed. I am not able to defend this position with statistics either, because it’s purely conjecture.
Much the same can be said for the belief in the Real Presence.
To blame the lack of belief in the Real Presence, or fewer vocations or any of the usual litany of complaints on Vatican II or the change in the Mass or even the use of the vernacular is absurd.
I’d say that the reduced belief in the Real Presence is due to the lack of Catechetics.
Before you blame that on Vatican II or the NO or the lack of Latin at Mass, you should read this good article:
Why Catholic Schools Don’t Matter

 

[msproule]

Joe Gloor:

Please keep in mind that I didn’t say there were statistically more people in the pew now than in the past, but rather, that there are more there now than there would be if the Mass hadn’t been changed. I am not able to defend this position with statistics either, because it’s purely conjecture.

I did not intend to put words in your mouth if that is how it was understood. However, in my own experience I know quite a few people who stopped attending Mass in the 70’s. They did not run off to Traditionalist chapels but rather no longer felt the need to go at all. :crying:

To blame the lack of belief in the Real Presence, or fewer vocations or any of the usual litany of complaints on Vatican II or the change in the Mass or even the use of the vernacular is absurd.

Again, that was not my intent to suggest that Vatican II led to this crisis if it came across that way. It was simply my own conjecture that if one does not believe in the Real Presence then why do they even make an effort to attend a Catholic Church? Should they be counted as faithful Catholic Mass participants?

I’d say that the reduced belief in the Real Presence is due to the lack of Catechetics.

I wholeheartedly agree, but not without asserting that the waning of Latin from the Liturgy also stems from the same poor Catechesis.

 

[dljl]

palmas85:

Would the return of Latin have a positive effect? It wouldn’t hurt, the readings and the homily would still be in the vernacular.

To me, the issue is not the Latin. Here are the issues as I see them:

1. The tridentine mass focuses on Sacrifice and God, the NO focuses on ‘Lords Supper’ and the congregation. If you look at the liturgies side by side, this is obvious.
2. If the NO is more meaningful for many people, that’s terrific! Keep the NO, but give us the choice (as promised by the Holy Father). Right now that choice is mostly non-existent.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

No problem, msproule. I can agree with what you are saying as well. I wrongly assumed that you were taking the side of the argument against which my original post was made.
My apologies.

 

[msproule]

Joe Gloor:

I wrongly assumed that you were taking the side of the argument against which my original post was made.

Don’t get me wrong; I do disagree with much of what you state in both post #26 (your original post) and post #253 (to which I finally felt impelled to respond).

Inasmuch as these statements represent your own opinion, I welcome you to feel this way. But I happen to have a differing opinion overall. That is, I am not as convinced that things (and we) are better off now. Nor am I convinced that the pendulum will not swing back in the other direction.

In fact, I am counting on it.

 

[Confiteor]

Joe Gloor:

Yes, I do see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II.
Yes, it’s condition is better, Masses are better and the Church as a whole done what was expected (as much as the ‘future’ can be expected) and gone the direction that it was intended to.
The people do have a “closer relationship” with God and things are running smoothly.
Reverence is difficult to measure, but yes, on the whole I would say there is more reverence than pre Vatican II days.
Are more people going to Mass these days?
Yes, more people are going to Mass these days than would be going these days if the Church hadn’t offered the new Mass.

I disagree. More importantly, so does Pope Benedict. Your criteria are all pretty subjective and the “more people are going than would if the Church hadn’t offered the new Mass” is very speculative, in view of the fact that Mass attendance before VII averaged roughly 65 % of Catholics in the period immediately before the Council and is now about 25%.

Vocations are pretty abysmal in developed countries EXCEPT, as someone pointed out, the signs of hope that exist are in the orthodox groups with traditionalist leanings like the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Society of St. John Cantius.

There may be things we subjectively feel are better about the Church after Vatican II, but that’s all about taste. Most of the objective measurements show many Catholics who are so in name only --they don’t frequent the sacraments, don’t even get their children baptized or marry in the Church, and they do not know or believe what the Church teaches. I’m pretty sure that it not what the Council Fathers had in mind and that’s why our new Pope is concerned about the way things have gone since VII:

“Certainly, the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to a dissension which - to use the words of Pope Paul VI - seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction…
The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said then years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church”
in L’Osservatore Romano (English edition), 24 December, 1984

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Confiteor:

I disagree. More importantly, so does Pope Benedict. Your criteria are all pretty subjective and the “more people are going than would if the Church hadn’t offered the new Mass” is very speculative, in view of the fact that Mass attendance before VII averaged roughly 65 % of Catholics in the period immediately before the Council and is now about 25%.

Vocations are pretty abysmal in developed countries EXCEPT, as someone pointed out, the signs of hope that exist are in the orthodox groups with traditionalist leanings like the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Society of St. John Cantius.

There may be things we subjectively feel are better about the Church after Vatican II, but that’s all about taste. Most of the objective measurements show many Catholics who are so in name only --they don’t frequent the sacraments, don’t even get their children baptized or marry in the Church, and they do not know or believe what the Church teaches. I’m pretty sure that it not what the Council Fathers had in mind and that’s why our new Pope is concerned about the way things have gone since VII:

“Certainly, the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to a dissension which - to use the words of Pope Paul VI - seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction…
The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said then years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church”
in L’Osservatore Romano (English edition), 24 December, 1984

I appreciate you dating the article you quoted because it is telling in many ways.
It was not the Pope who wrote these words, if you are quoting Cardinal Ratzinger.
But more importantly, the Church has been self-correcting already since 1985. In my opinion, the most serious dissension came from the Traditionalists.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

maklavan:

Naturally, this was a scientific analysis with requisite cross-samplings and data? 10% ? That’s 120 million ! please! There is not a shred of evidence to support this gross exaggeration. Even 1% would be conceding a lot. Think about it. Those who support the Catholic Church in the 3rd world, in Africa Asia, South America would not even know what you mean by Traditionalism or latin for that matter.

Before you dismiss detailed and critical analysis, I suggest you find the thread where the 10% number was hashed out and agreed upon. We had near unanimity on this topic here on the board, until you started your dissension. To what end, I wonder?

There is likewise not a shred of evidence to support your “gross exaggeration” (is that 144 times worse than a regular exaggeration??) that “1% would be conceding a lot.”

Therefore, I’m going to go ahead and bump up my number. I think it can be safely said that Traditionalists comprise as much as 50%, and quite possibly 75% of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 900 million people who prefer Latin. Wow! Even in Australia, that’s impressive. :yup:

Or, are we only allowed “gross exaggeration” on the low side, in order to dismiss the significance of Traditionalists worldwide?

 

[MrS]

Dr. Bombay:

Before you dismiss detailed and critical analysis, I suggest you find the thread where the 10% number was hashed out and agreed upon. We had near unanimity on this topic here on the board, until you started your dissension. To what end, I wonder?

There is likewise not a shred of evidence to support your “gross exaggeration” (is that 144 times worse than a regular exaggeration??) that “1% would be conceding a lot.”

Therefore, I’m going to go ahead and bump up my number. I think it can be safely said that Traditionalists comprise as much as 50%, and quite possibly 75% of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 900 million people who prefer Latin. Wow! Even in Australia, that’s impressive. :yup:

*Catholics with a capital “C” would not include Kennedy, Kerry, Granholm etc, right? *

Or, are we only allowed “gross exaggeration” on the low side, in order to dismiss the significance of Traditionalists worldwide?

As for gross
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_2_6.gif take that and thathttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_7.gif

 

[palmas85]

Joe Gloor:

I appreciate you dating the article you quoted because it is telling in many ways.
It was not the Pope who wrote these words, if you are quoting Cardinal Ratzinger.
But more importantly, the Church has been self-correcting already since 1985. In my opinion, the most serious dissension came from the Traditionalists.

I thought that Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father were one in the same. I din’t know that upon taking his new name he ceased to be Ratzinger.

Oh well, live and learn I guess

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MrS:

*Catholics with a capital “C” would not include Kennedy, Kerry, Granholm etc, right? *

HA! The only Latin those Catholics should know is, “Domine non sum dignus…” I doubt they’d ever want to say, “Judica me, Deus.”

MrS:

As for gross
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_2_6.gif take that and thathttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_7.gif

I think I’m safe in saying that at least 10% of the people who see that will be revolted.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Joe Gloor:

Yes, I do see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II.
Yes, it’s condition is better, Masses are better and the Church as a whole done what was expected (as much as the ‘future’ can be expected) and gone the direction that it was intended to.
The people do have a “closer relationship” with God and things are running smoothly.
Reverence is difficult to measure, but yes, on the whole I would say there is more reverence than pre Vatican II days.
Are more people going to Mass these days?
Yes, more people are going to Mass these days than would be going these days if the Church hadn’t offered the new Mass.

Joe, what exactly are you basing this on, except wishful thinking?

Why am I the only one who must provide scientific data, while everyone else can get by on “feelings,” “perceptions” and anectdotal evidence?

This is indeed a disturbing universe. :nope:

 

[ComradeAndrei]

In my opinion, the most serious dissension came from the Traditionalists.

The only reason there is more attention on folks like the SSPX is because they were foolish enough to formally jump ship. Then of course you have the Sedevacantists, or people like “Pope” Pius XIII of the “True Catholic Church”. Those guys are always good for a laugh. The ones who (while I think them foolish) at least had the gumption to stick to their guns and get formally kicked out or the obvious nutjobs are merely more salient. We notice them more because of a) their more formal organization or b) because of the insanity of their claims.

However, while you are entitled to your opinion, I just cannot see how you think these folks are more serious dissenters than all the liberal wolves that infiltrated the legitimate offices and organizations of Holy Mother Church to poison the minds of the faithful with their garbage ideas about liturgy, sacred music, theology, aesthetics et cetera ad nauseam.

They are far worse than your average EDIT radical traditionalist or sedevacantist nut because they are devious enough to play by the rules just enough to not get formally kicked out and thus can more effectively pollute the minds of the faithful. Their deceitfulness is what makes them so awful.

Yes, I do see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II.

I too think that Vatican II was a good thing for the Church. I do think that some folks had gotten stodgy and legalistic and that a “fresh breeze” was a good thing for the Church. However, once dissenters and heretics get wind of “change” they are off and running.

Yes, it’s condition is better, Masses are better and the Church as a whole done what was expected (as much as the ‘future’ can be expected) and gone the direction that it was intended to.

How is the Mass better? I have absolutely no beef with the Pauline Rite, I think it is fine and dandy. However, if we celebrated it with even a touch more traditional reverence, it would be worlds better-and that is what the Church has called for.

The people do have a “closer relationship” with God and things are running smoothly.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

Reverence is difficult to measure, but yes, on the whole I would say there is more reverence than pre Vatican II days.

I would also say that reverence is difficult to measure (as far as the individual is concerned since we cannot read their mind and heart) but I really don’t see the external reverent ceremony that should be in the Mass.

Are more people going to Mass these days?
Yes, more people are going to Mass these days than would be going these days if the Church hadn’t offered the new Mass.

Why is it that traditional churches are often packed on Sunday morning (Novus Ordo and Tridentine)? I am not advocating not going to Sunday Mass because your local church or priest is too liberal but I think that if people had the choice they’d go to where they can get a good dose of unadulterated Catholicism. The externals might not be essential for our eternal salvation, but the candles, the incense, the statues, the beautful archetecture, priests in cassocks and nuns in habits are our Catholic tradition and Catholic culture. Why have we let these things lay on the wayside, abandoned for more toned down versions “acceptable” to the protestant and/or secular world?

 

[Confiteor]

Joe Gloor:

I appreciate you dating the article you quoted because it is telling in many ways.
It was not the Pope who wrote these words, if you are quoting Cardinal Ratzinger.
But more importantly, the Church has been self-correcting already since 1985. In my opinion, the most serious dissension came from the Traditionalists.

Please don’t be troubled by the date of the article or the fact that the author’s title has been changed from Cardinal to Pope. (Whatever weight his opinions had as prefect of the Congregation is much greater as Pope; and he is the same person though his role has changed.) I chose the quote from the 1984 article because it is the most straight forward statement, but you can find similar concerns in his more recent books and in the interview with Raymond Arroyo that he gave a few years ago. All of these are a couple of clicks away if you want to confirm that .

As far as the Church being self correcting, please look at Ken Jones book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, which is current through 2003. I’m not aware of anything more current with these kinds of objective measures, but perhaps someone else will know of something. If your parish has “self corrected,” count yourself lucky. I know there are places like that (and they may become more prevalent as some of the younger priests take the reins as pastors), but they are not yet the norm. I’m looking forward to the day when that will be the case, but based on the current tevidence on important issues like beliefs, mass attendance, frequenting the sacraments, and vocations, we are not there yet.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Dr. Bombay:

Joe, what exactly are you basing this on, except wishful thinking?

Why am I the only one who must provide scientific data, while everyone else can get by on “feelings,” “perceptions” and anectdotal evidence?

This is indeed a disturbing universe. :nope:

Well, Good Doctor, I was only answering the question ‘do I think…’ and the questions were all very subjective. The answers are based on what I think based on my experience - no science there.
You, on the other hand were making a statistical statement of fact, which in order to be believed, should be based on something other than a poll of subscribers to this forum.
Fear not, all is right with the universe. :yup:

 

[Joe_Gloor]

ComradeAndrei:

How is the Mass better?
Why is it that traditional churches are often packed on Sunday morning (Novus Ordo and Tridentine)?
The externals might not be essential for our eternal salvation, but the candles, the incense, the statues, the beautful archetecture, priests in cassocks and nuns in habits are our Catholic tradition and Catholic culture. Why have we let these things lay on the wayside, abandoned for more toned down versions “acceptable” to the protestant and/or secular world?

The Mass is better because the congregation is more directly involved in Worship.
Traditional churches are often packed (if you say they are) because there are so few of them. I wish there were more. Then no one would care if we didn’t add the Latin back into the normal Masses.
For the last question regarding the ‘externals’ - we have those at our Church except the cassocks and nuns.
Maybe that’s why I think things are looking up.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Confiteor:

Please don’t be troubled by the date of the article or the fact that the author’s title has been changed from Cardinal to Pope. (Whatever weight his opinions had as prefect of the Congregation is much greater as Pope; and he is the same person though his role has changed.) I chose the quote from the 1984 article because it is the most straight forward statement, but you can find similar concerns in his more recent books and in the interview with Raymond Arroyo that he gave a few years ago. All of these are a couple of clicks away if you want to confirm that .

As far as the Church being self correcting, please look at Ken Jones book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, which is current through 2003. I’m not aware of anything more current with these kinds of objective measures, but perhaps someone else will know of something. If your parish has “self corrected,” count yourself lucky. I know there are places like that (and they may become more prevalent as some of the younger priests take the reins as pastors), but they are not yet the norm. I’m looking forward to the day when that will be the case, but based on the current tevidence on important issues like beliefs, mass attendance, frequenting the sacraments, and vocations, we are not there yet.

I just meant that he wasn’t the Pope when he wrote it. Probably picky of me.
My old parish self-corrected me right out of a job playing guitar for Mass every other week.
My new parish was already self-corrected when I got there, but they still have a Mass with guitars, drums and piano - so apparently I am lucky.

 

[dljl]

Joe Gloor:

The Mass is better because the congregation is more directly involved in Worship.

After spending 10 years in an evangelical church, I understand what you are saying. But the mass isn’t a worship service, it is a sacrifice, centered on God, not the congregation. It’s been my experience that being involved does not necessarily mean “doing” something. I believe that participants at a Tridentine mass praying silently along with the Priest are at least as involved as those participating in an NO mass.

 

[MrS]

dljl:

After spending 10 years in an evangelical church, I understand what you are saying. But the mass isn’t a worship service, it is a sacrifice, centered on God, not the congregation. It’s been my experience that being involved does not necessarily mean “doing” something. I believe that participants at a Tridentine mass praying silently along with the Priest are at least as involved as those participating in an NO mass.

you are correct

the goal is : less of me…more of Him

Anything that changes that is suspect to me…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

msproule:

I do not have the statistics, but I thought the percentage was down “these days” than in days past. Assuming more people are going to Mass now, it could have as much to do with more effective modes of transportation as it does the vernacular.

We do have statistics that demonstrate a reduced belief in the Real Presence. Does that offset the supposed increase in warm bodies in the pews? Which is better?

In Father McCloskey’s recent ‘state of the Church’ in the U.S. he said Mass attendance used to be 75% while those who attend every week now number only 32%. However, since weekly attendance includes those who come occasionally, he figured about 40% are in the pews on any given Sunday. Since the Catholic population here has grown by half again, I think that would represent a slight increase in bodies while still being a drastic drop in percent attendance.

catholicity.com/mccloske…hurch_2006.html