Mass Attendance

[Brennan_Doherty]

I don’t think the exodus of the Catholics in the late 60s/early 70s had as much to do with the demise of the TLM as it did with the surge in outreach from the evangelical Protestant churches.

I don’t have any articles to post to support this, but in the 1960s, the evangelical Protestant churches, especially the Pentecostal denominations (e.g., Assemblies of God) began tremendous PR campaigns to grow their churches. These campaigns were often professionally designed and extremely alluring. Often, the evangelical churches held family-friendly festivals, carnivals, or conferences that were fun and exciting for the whole family. People came just to see what all the excitement was about, and ended up staying in the church.

Many of these churches appealed to the emotions of the visitors and members. People would leave everything they knew to join a church that made them “feel good.”

In the 1970s, we saw evangelical churches grow extremely large, swelling by thousands of members. Also, we saw thousands and thousands of new evangelical church plants.

…During the late 1970s, the church we attended in college grew from 100 to 500 people in one semester.

Based on my memories and personal experience, I personally believe that many Catholics left the Catholic Church during this time to begin attending evangelical Protestant churches because they were attracted by the PR campaigns and by the infectious enthusiasm of the members of these churches, who were very agressive in inviting friends to church.

I grew up in and spent over forty years in evangelical Protestant churches, and knew many members who were former Catholics.

I honestly don’t think it was the changes in the Catholic Church that drove people away as much as it was the fantastic PR campaigns of the evangelical Protestant churches.

**Although the theory that the loss of the TLM is what drove the people out, I would suggest the following theory also–many MORE people would have left the Catholic Church had the TLM been left intact and the only option. **

The lure of the new music, the theatrical audio-visual techniques, the entertaining “Biblical” preaching, the opportunities for children and teenagers, the open practice of the sign gifts (speaking in tongues, healings, miracles), and above all, the friendliness and fellowship in the evangelical Protestant churches would have drawn Catholics away from the 1600 year-old rituals.

Please remember that the 60s were a time of general rebellion in society, and Catholics were not immune from this spirit of revolution and rebellion.

…It is my personal opinion that the institution of the NO actually retained many Catholics who would have left the Church for “greener pastures” in the evangelical Protestant churches.

Cat,

I agree with much of what you said (except for the stuff you put in bold).

I also am from a Protestant background and am well aware that in Protestantism it is more of a competitive marketplace. In other words, you’d better have a way of keeping the people coming or they’re going to find another church. So, in certain churches the music is very catchy. In other churches, people like the pastor and his sermons.

I don’t think any of the stats bear out the assertion that the NO helped keep people in the Catholic Church. I do think the liturgical changes, right along with poor or non-existent catechesis, left Catholics much more vulnerable to evangelization from Protestants. In other words, what is going to happen when Catholics are challenged in their faith and don’t have any answers because they were improperly catechized.

Yet perhaps an even more immediate (though not the only) cause was the liturgical changes themselves (as poor catechesis[bd1] might take long to show its “fruits”, while liturgical changes are more immediate).

If the overall impression of the way much of the liturgy has been celebrated over the past forty years is that this is a nice social gathering, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, people might start looking elsewhere.

And I don’t think we can compete with the Protestants in regards to catchy music or good sermons.

So when we gave up things like Gregorian chant, and solid catechesis, and many of the things that helped identify us as distinctly Catholics, and that are aids to the spiritual life of the Church, it is no wonder people started turning to Protestantism, or Eastern religions.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have already posted about this topic at length in another thread, so I won’t repeat.

But I will say it again–No, No, NO, the NO does NOT have a “Protestant appearance.”

I speak as an ex-evangelical Protestant. The NO Mass would be extremely offensive to most evangelical Protestants.

Some say that the “old” Protestant churches (e.g., the Lutherans) would find the NO familiar. I grant that, but many of the “old” Protestant churches are now using a worship service format that contains no liturgy, and resembles the evangelical Protestant worship service. So I would say that the NO doesn’t have much resemblance to the majority of Protestant worship services.

If you don’t believe me, attend a Protestant worship service this weekend. You will see no resemblance.

And as one more note I would say that the overall ambience of the NO is closer to the ambience of a Protestant service. In other words, if a non-Catholic walked into a TLM there’s really no chance that he’d think he might have stepped into a Protestant church. If he walked into a typical NO celebration, particularly in a church that had been “renovated” it might take him a bit of time to realize what church he had wandered into. And I also would say he would probably feel more comfortable walking into a NO Mass; the TLM would seem more foreign (though I think ultimately it would grab his attention more since it is significantly different than what he is used to. And with the use of Gregorian chant and other spiritual aids he might even be drawn to its beauty).

God bless.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

It still seems odd that the sharpest decline on the graph begins in 1966 a full three years before the New Mass was implemented.

While we’re speculating, what caused the uptick in 1976, or the complete leveling off from 1978 - 1987?

Sorry, but there are just too many factors to consider here. The social upheaval was massive.

Yes, there was massive social upheaval. Which might have been a good reason to not completely rework the liturgy during a time of social instability.

However, I am primarily looking at an overall trend over decades, not a few ticks up and down here or there. If that’s all that had happened, I don’t think we would even be having this discussion.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

If the overall impression of the way much of the liturgy has been celebrated over the past forty years is that this is a nice social gathering, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, people might start looking elsewhere.

Whoops, I meant to say “and not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,…”

 

[MMLJ]

I am not arguing in anyway that Mass attendance has not declined. Of course it has!

I am glad you have acknowledged this very important point.

I am arguing that the implementation of the new Mass in and after 1969 was not the sole (or even substantial) cause of this decline. I support this by the fact that the decline CLEARLY starts well BEFORE the new Mass, so it must have been other things causing it.

The decline started well before the full implementation of the New Mass. This is the correct statement since changes were occurring long before the Novus Ordo Service was fully implemented.

I wonder if the preaching in the early 60’s began to get very watered down even though the Mass had not yet changed? After all, the same priests saying those TLM’s would have been the same priests who 10 years later started allowing liturgical abuses. Perhaps a not insignificant cause was the poor formation many of these men received in the seminary in the early 50’s.

Nice try, but however unlikely. Not a plausible argument in the least, unless of course you have something documented concerning this misleading statement. For example, it is good to wonder/imagine scenarios but why does your proposal occur at this so very important time in the Church History?

 

[MMLJ]

They bear no resemblance to the protestant worship services of my childhood (I WAS a protestant who attended ACTUAL protestant services).

I have also attended Protestant services and have found that some are very similar to the Novus Ordo Service. Likewise, my Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, and other colleagues also have stated the admire the Novus Ordo Service since it is very much the same as their services.

They have resemblances to the Lutheran and Anglican services because they have common roots in western liturgical history.

That is of course the Novus Ordo service you speak of, that is probably why so many have begun to attend the Old Rite.
Well, logically all Christian denominations have roots in the Catholic Church, since there is only one Universal Church i.e. the Catholic Church. But of course that does not mean that it is a Mass.

The Lutherans and Anglicans ARE, after all, liturgical churches, ie, churches with a formal style of worship and they didn’t throw out everything in the making of their liturgies.

Again, that does not say much, since these are not Catholic. Since they do not throw out everything, we can deduce by your statements and by what is fact, they have thrown out somethings making them non-Catholic. Again denominations./sects are not Catholic.

It would be good to research the changes Luther made and its results and compare that to the changes that made up the Novus Ordo Service and subsequently their results. It will be of no surprise that You will find something extremely similar.

 

[MMLJ]

I personally find it interesting that, among those who attend the TLM, you find few that are pathetically ignorant of the Catholic Faith. Just food for thought.

Although I would not have put in those words, you are correct. The TLM I attend are of individuals very knowledgeable of the Catholic Faith.

For Those who disagree with this, try a litmus test at a local Catholic Parish, or with friends/family of the Novus Ordo Service. Ask them simple questions about the Sacraments, or anything you desire concerning the Catholic Faith. If possible contrast with members of a TLM. Tell me how it fares, since I have done this test at Churches, I already know the outcome.

 

[Cat]

I still say that even if an NO “feels” like a Protestant service to a Catholic, the Catholic is making a big stretch if he/she thinks NO is “Protestantized.”

I think that some might be interested in the comparison between NO and Protestant that I posted in another thread in another section, so here is the cut and paste:​

Umm…ex-evangelical Protestant here.

I guarantee that many Protestants find the NO Mass terribly offensive. I know Protestants who refuse to attend an NO.

Watching the people genuflect will offend evangelicals, who believe that the people are bowing before an idol.

Evangelicals find the crucifix used in the Processional offensive, as Christ is no longer on the cross.

The Sign of the Cross is offensive to evangelicals. Not sure why, as Chuck Colson declared it “OK” in his wonderful book, Being the Body. But a lot of evangelicals find Chuck Colson “too liberal” because of his role in co-founding the organization, Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

The Confiteor is offensive because evangelicals don’t believe in corporate confession or that a priest can absolve sins. Also, the prayer is addressed to Mary and all the saints is an “abomination” because the Bible forbids praying to the dead.

Evangelicals find ALL the prayers said during NO offensive because they come from a “book,” not from the priest’s heart and mind.

Evangelicals find the readings offensive because the Bible used has the “apocryphal” books, and this makes it a false translation. If a reading happens to be from one of these books, the evangelical doesn’t consider it the Word of God.

Add to that the fact that the readings come out of a “book,” not the real Bible. Evangelicals are very offended that Catholics do not bring their own Bibles, well-marked and obviously used on a daily basis.

The homilies are incredibly offensive to evangelicals because of their shortness and because often (not always) they are delivered rather poorly. Evangelicals expect a sermon of at least 45 minutes, with constant reference to the Scripture.

The homily will also be offensive if the priest chooses to teach about Catholic doctrines.

And the main reason the homily will be offensive is because it doesn’t “present the Gospel” and “offer an opportunity for the people to pray the Sinner’s Prayer and get saved.” Evangelicals believe that every church meeting should be used as an opportunity to lead people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Personal Savior.

The creed is vaguely familiar, but evangelicals do not believe in a creedal religion. They believe that creeds are “rituals” or “works of man.”

The prayers will again be offensive to the evangelical because of praying FOR the dead. Also, many Catholic prayers mention “justice,” a concept that evangelicals often find “liberal.”

When it comes time for the Our Father (the Lord’s Prayer), evangelicals will be offended because the priest interrupts the prayer to add a “prayer of man.” Also, evangelicals will wonder why the congregation omits the “His is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory” until the end of the prayer.

And finally, the Eucharist. It is at this point that many evangelicals will get up and walk out because they believe that the priest is “re-sacrificing” Jesus. They believe that the doctrine of transubstantiantion is utter falsehood, and they believe that our worship of a “wafer” is idolatry.

IF the NO includes Holy Water or incense or another sacramental, the evangelical will be offended over the use of meaningless ritual and attaching spiritual meaning to material objects.

I haven’t mentioned that the evangelical is offended just by walking in the door of the Catholic sanctuary. Even the most contemporary Catholic Churches include lots of items that the evangelical is suspicious of, especially the crucifix, any other images, and the votive candles.

And finally, the music. Many evangelicals will be horribly offended by the fact that the Catholics don’t SING OUT! To an evangelical, someone who is truly a Christian will have a song in their hearts and on their lips, and there will be joy in music, not the “deadness” that they see in Catholic congregational singing.

If the evangelical is also a Pentecostal, he will be offended because the people don’t raise their hands.

If Latin is used, the evangelical will probably think it’s cool, but then think, “Dead language means dead church.”

Some evangelicals will often be offended by crying children, too. They will wonder why the parents don’t leave those distracting children in the nursery.

I speak from expert experience. I was 47 years an evangelical, and most of my friends and relatives are still evangelical Protestants. I still read quite a few evangelical print media. I speak the truth.

You have nothing to fear. The NO Mass is very very far away from the evangelical Protestant worship service.

---

 

[YADA]

Could we assume that some of those polled - who did [or did not] attend mass in the last week [gallup] or regularly attend [or not attend] mass [CCP] did or would have attended a TLM?

I did not see any questions in the polls that would seperate NO mass goers from TLM goers…nor any conclusions that TLM attendees are more knowledgeable or more spiritual than their NO brethren…that is purely anecdotal [unless someone has hard facts in support - willing to look at them]. Do we have statistics that illustrate the total number of catholics [in the US], those who self identify as NO and TLM and the mass attendance overall [US Total] and broken down by mass preference [TLM v NO]?

So the idea of triumphalism or a specific connection between the loss of a TLM is anecdotal and as many posters here poin out subject to many variables [of which arguably the TLM conversion to the NO could be substantial].

“Statistics don’t lie but liers use statistics” can be very true…it is also true that a person can read [innocently] what they want to see in statistics.

 

[Cat]

Cat,

I agree with much of what you said (except for the stuff you put in bold).

I also am from a Protestant background and am well aware that in Protestantism it is more of a competitive marketplace. In other words, you’d better have a way of keeping the people coming or they’re going to find another church. So, in certain churches the music is very catchy. In other churches, people like the pastor and his sermons.

I don’t think any of the stats bear out the assertion that the NO helped keep people in the Catholic Church. I do think the liturgical changes, right along with poor or non-existent catechesis, left Catholics much more vulnerable to evangelization from Protestants. In other words, what is going to happen when Catholics are challenged in their faith and don’t have any answers because they were improperly catechized.

Yet perhaps an even more immediate (though not the only) cause was the liturgical changes themselves (as poor catechesis[bd1] might take long to show its “fruits”, while liturgical changes are more immediate).

If the overall impression of the way much of the liturgy has been celebrated over the past forty years is that this is a nice social gathering, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, people might start looking elsewhere.

And I don’t think we can compete with the Protestants in regards to catchy music or good sermons.

So when we gave up things like Gregorian chant, and solid catechesis, and many of the things that helped identify us as distinctly Catholics, and that are aids to the spiritual life of the Church, it is no wonder people started turning to Protestantism, or Eastern religions.

Good comments. Lots to think about. Like I said, my opinions are just my opinions, not based on any facts or stats.

And I DO think that Catholics can compete with Protestants in regards to music!

I realize that many people here hate Haugen and Haas music, but my, oh, my, how beautiful it sounded to me after listening to a decade of “Praise and Worship choruses,” many of which are so non-melodic that they almost sound like recitations rather than songs. And many P&W choruses have simplistic, repetitive lyrics.

To me, the Haugen/Haas Catholic songs were one of the things I loved about Mass! Beautiful songs! Beautiful poetry in the words. Many times I was in tears. Before we became Catholic, I asked the music minister of the parish if I could please take the hymnal home so that I could play through these songs.

I know, the rest of you hate this music. But again, I suggest that you attend a Protestant P and W service just once, and then perhaps you, too, will come away saying, “Haugen, bless you! Your music is sublime!”

Remember, to a person who is starving, even scraps look good. Some of you have been very well-fed in your lives, and so you turn up your nose at music that you consider “junk food.” But for Protestants starved for something more than, “Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, Lord” (an actual P and W chorus), this “St. Louis Jesuit” music is like a banquet!

As for Gregorian chant, etc.–well, God bless you for liking it!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I have also attended Protestant services and have found that some are very similar to the Novus Ordo Service. Likewise, my Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, and other colleagues also have stated the admire the Novus Ordo Service since it is very much the same as their services. **

Which ones? What denominations? The Baptists don’t have services like the NO Mass (nor does any sect of the Anabaptist line, ie, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, etc.), nor do the Presbyterians (Calvinist) nor do any of the Pentecostal/Holiness movements. There were three-four main threads/families of the Reformation: Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, and Anabaptist (at the time, extremely small). All of the other sects come from these (Methodism may have certain elements in common with a Mass of EITHER form, since it’s of the Anglican line and the Anglican liturgy has much in common with the antecedents of the Catholic liturgy. Indeed, it’s not unusual to find Methodist clergy who’ve taken to wearing chasubles). NONE of these have any service similar to the NO Mass, with the exception of the Lutherans and the Anglicans, for reasons already cited. There is, however, a growing tendency among all manner of Protestants to lean more toward liturgical worship. Who then would they copy? Us, of course. That does not make the NO Mass Protestant.
**

That is of course the Novus Ordo service you speak of, that is probably why so many have begun to attend the Old Rite. **Not so in the least! The Anglican Rite One Eucharist service bears some small resemblance to the TRIDENTINE:

TRIDENTINE: “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life.”

Rite I Anglican (1928 Prayer Book): “The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”

And, BTW, there aren’t that many attending the TLM.

**Well, logically all Christian denominations have roots in the Catholic Church, since there is only one Universal Church i.e. the Catholic Church. But of course that does not mean that it is a Mass. I never said it was the Mass nor do I believe that it is. I simply said that resemblances between the NO and Lutheran/ Anglican services are the result of antecedents that both services have, common sources that they draw on. The Mass is not Protestant, because the Church cannot protest against herself, nor promulgate any discipline that can lead the faithful to impiety.

Again, that does not say much, since these are not Catholic. Since they do not throw out everything, we can deduce by your statements and by what is fact, they have thrown out somethings making them non-Catholic. Again denominations./sects are not Catholic. **That has nothing to do with anything. **

It would be good to research the changes Luther made and its results and compare that to the changes that made up the Novus Ordo Service and subsequently their results. It will be of no surprise that You will find something extremely similar.

**This is simplistic! How would you propose that we go about such a study? Do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, Mass attendance dropped off, just a little bit, in Northern Germany after the Lutheran princes outlawed the Roman Church? Do you think Mass attendance in England might have dipped a tad during the Edwardian reform?

The Mass of Paul VI hasn’t been tried and found wanting, the Mass of Paul VI has hardly been tried! At the hands of abusers, progressivists, feminists, “liturgists,” and yes, even some modernists, in the silly season of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, the Mass has been horribly deformed in some places (I’ve been fortunate for the most part), but that’s the result of abuse, not the onotological failing of the Mass itself.
**

 

[Sure]

Nice try, but however unlikely. Not a plausible argument in the least, unless of course you have something documented concerning this misleading statement. For example, it is good to wonder/imagine scenarios but why does your proposal occur at this so very important time in the Church History?

So according to you, priests were just going along saying the TLM and giving great sermons and then one day the Mass changed and the very same priests just suddenly started giving watered down sermons and committing liturgical abuse. And you call my scenario unlikely??? Sorry that doesn’t make sense.

It is far more reasonable to assume that priests who chose to abuse the liturgy and gave weak sermons were not magically corrupted by a liturgy, but rather had POOR formation. It really seems obvious that there was some very bad formation of priests well before Vatican II.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Good comments. Lots to think about. Like I said, my opinions are just my opinions, not based on any facts or stats.

And I DO think that Catholics can compete with Protestants in regards to music!

I realize that many people here hate Haugen and Haas music, but my, oh, my, how beautiful it sounded to me after listening to a decade of “Praise and Worship choruses,” many of which are so non-melodic that they almost sound like recitations rather than songs. And many P&W choruses have simplistic, repetitive lyrics.

To me, the Haugen/Haas Catholic songs were one of the things I loved about Mass! Beautiful songs! Beautiful poetry in the words. Many times I was in tears. Before we became Catholic, I asked the music minister of the parish if I could please take the hymnal home so that I could play through these songs.

I know, the rest of you hate this music. But again, I suggest that you attend a Protestant P and W service just once, and then perhaps you, too, will come away saying, “Haugen, bless you! Your music is sublime!”

Remember, to a person who is starving, even scraps look good. Some of you have been very well-fed in your lives, and so you turn up your nose at music that you consider “junk food.” But for Protestants starved for something more than, “Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, Lord” (an actual P and W chorus), this “St. Louis Jesuit” music is like a banquet!

As for Gregorian chant, etc.–well, God bless you for liking it!

Quite frankly, I am not familiar enough with Haugen and Haas music to know whether or not I like it. I do agree with you that some modern church music is better than others. I used to attend a Vineyard church and they were very big on music.

I do think Gregorian chant is the ultimate in worship music, and I haven’t run across much modern music in the Catholic Church that can compete with the likes of Vineyard music (of course I don’t necessarily think they should try as I don’t think that particular style is appropriate for the Mass).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

So according to you, priests were just going along saying the TLM and giving great sermons and then one day the Mass changed and the very same priests just suddenly started giving watered down sermons and committing liturgical abuse. And you call my scenario unlikely??? Sorry that doesn’t make sense.

It is far more reasonable to assume that priests who chose to abuse the liturgy and gave weak sermons were not magically corrupted by a liturgy, but rather had POOR formation. It really seems obvious that there was some very bad formation of priests well before Vatican II.

I am not completely familiar with seminary formation pior to Vatican II, however I do think it was much more solid in general than what came to be after Vatican II.

I also don’t think there were no abuses of the TLM, but that they were of a different sort (such as rushing the Latin). And I think the TLM allows less room for any freelancing.

Further, I think that Priests today who commit liturgical abuse may not even realize they are doing so. Nor do I necessarily think they are being malicious. It’s just that for a Priest to say “Good morning!” at the beginning of Mass, while an abuse, somehow seems to fit the proceedings.

As far as watered down homilies go, another poster has pointed out that it was decided as a result of Vatican II that Priests ought to base their homilies on the scriptures. This was a different tack than prior to Vatican II when Priests were expected to preach sermons which expounded the Catholic faith. So it is not surprising that when Priests are instructed to just preach on the scriptures themselves that preaching on Catholic doctrine quite often will be neglected (to say the least).

Thus I don’t think that has anything to do with poor formation in the 1950’s, but a different tack the Vatican took in regards to preaching.

 

[distracted]

I don’t think the exodus of the Catholics in the late 60s/early 70s had as much to do with the demise of the TLM as it did with the surge in outreach from the evangelical Protestant churches.

.

I believe you are correct but i also believe that many Catholics are unhappy w/ the loss of the traditional form of the Mass… I am one of them. I was just a child when the switch was made… and i didn’t like it… just felt something wasn’t right…

Also, i believe that Catholics who leave the Church don’t know Her teachings well… If they did, they would never leave for any other church (so-called). I never knew the exact teachings of the Church until i investigated them on my own years ago… BIG eye-opener.:hypno: :coffeeread: :hypno: I was never told, 4 instnace, that Purgatory can be
found in the Bible… or that it is painful, etc… I was never even taught to believe there are serious consequences to sin (which is another way of saying Purgatory, i guess)…
Another Poster somewhere else said that Martin Luther and Protestantism is from the devil… Someone chewed him or her out for it, but i agree… He/it has led many people out of the only Church that has the powers over the very gates of Hell…(St. Matthew 16:18)

 

[latinmasslover]

They bear no resemblance to the protestant worship services of my childhood (I WAS a protestant who attended ACTUAL protestant services). They have resemblances to the Lutheran and Anglican services because they have common roots in western liturgical history. The Lutherans and Anglicans ARE, after all, liturgical churches, ie, churches with a formal style of worship and they didn’t throw out everything in the making of their liturgies.

Again, Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant. Why do people keep overlooking that? Therefore, the NO does in fact resemble a Protestant service. Prayers were diminished and changed to make the nonCatholics happy, genuflections limited, Communion in the hand, Communion standing, Eucharistic ministers, etc. The changes Luther made to teach his false doctrine, and people believed. The changes have happened been made in the Mass, and the result is the same, UNLESS you educate yourself in Catholicism.

 

[Sure]

I am not completely familiar with seminary formation pior to Vatican II, however I do think it was much more solid in general than what came to be after Vatican II.

I also don’t think there were no abuses of the TLM, but that they were of a different sort (such as rushing the Latin). And I think the TLM allows less room for any freelancing.

Further, I think that Priests today who commit liturgical abuse may not even realize they are doing so. Nor do I necessarily think they are being malicious. It’s just that for a Priest to say “Good morning!” at the beginning of Mass, while an abuse, somehow seems to fit the proceedings.

As far as watered down homilies go, another poster has pointed out that it was decided as a result of Vatican II that Priests ought to base their homilies on the scriptures. This was a different tack than prior to Vatican II when Priests were expected to preach sermons which expounded the Catholic faith. So it is not surprising that when Priests are instructed to just preach on the scriptures themselves that preaching on Catholic doctrine quite often will be neglected (to say the least).

Thus I don’t think that has anything to do with poor formation in the 1950’s, but a different tack the Vatican took in regards to preaching.

At least in my experience, the wackiest-kumbaya-felt-chasuble-touchy-feely priests were all men who came out of the seminary in the late 50’s and became pastors in the mid-70’s and early 80’s. So, at least here in the midwest there was some pretty poor formation going on well before Vatican II.

 

[distracted]

Prayers were diminished and changed to make the nonCatholics happy, genuflections limited, Communion in the hand, Communion standing, Eucharistic ministers, etc. The changes Luther made to teach his false doctrine, and people believed. The changes have happened been made in the Mass, and the result is the same, UNLESS you educate yourself in Catholicism.

Nice to find someone who thinks like i do.

 

[lak611]

Again, Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant. Why do people keep overlooking that? Therefore, the NO does in fact resemble a Protestant service. Prayers were diminished and changed to make the nonCatholics happy, genuflections limited, Communion in the hand, Communion standing, Eucharistic ministers, etc. The changes Luther made to teach his false doctrine, and people believed. The changes have happened been made in the Mass, and the result is the same, UNLESS you educate yourself in Catholicism.

Yes, Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestants. However, these churches are declining, not growing. From this site:

Huge membership declines in the Presbyterian Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church from declining birth rates and weaker denominational ties have sapped their collective strength.

The evangelical/non-denominational Protestant churches are the ones that are growing; and their services do not have any similarities to Catholic Mass.

 

[distracted]

Further, I think that Priests today who commit liturgical abuse may not even realize they are doing so. It’s just that for a Priest to say “Good morning!” at the beginning of Mass, while an abuse, somehow seems to fit the proceedings.

So enjoyable reading this Post… I thought something seemed wrong when i heard priests do that.
Our Pope (i heard) wants to go back to the Latin Mass… So why aren’t we doing that??

As far as watered down homilies go, another poster has pointed out that it was decided as a result of Vatican II that Priests ought to base their homilies on the scriptures. This was a different tack than prior to Vatican II when Priests were expected to preach sermons which expounded the Catholic faith.

this is Another thing i didn’t know (just knew something wasn’t right). I told this one priest about how few people really know the faith and the consequences that come from that not knowing… He about hit the roof… started arguing loud and long… can’t even remember what he said i was so focused on his body language, rise in voice, etc… Weird… :hypno:
Anyway, would it do any good to complain to the bishop about all this unorthodoxy?? Or are you going to say it depends on the bishop??? . Thanks…