Mass Attendance

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Thank you, I’m quite educated in Catholicism. And I am aware that Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestants. And as has been repeatedly stated, they are similar BECAUSE they have the same roots. They have the same order.

You must really be appalled that we use the same baptismal formula.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Our Pope (i heard) wants to go back to the Latin Mass… So why aren’t we doing that?? …

If you’ve read the cover letter to the world’s bishops accompanying the motu proprio, you’ll not find that he said anything of the kind. According to this, at least, he intends that the two forms should exist together in peace (and I think we can only assume that the Holy Father doesn’t read these threads ). He seems to think that there is “spiritual richness and the theological depth” in the Mass of Paul VI.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Well, I wouldn’t doubt that they came out of seminary in the 1950’s, yet I don’t think their seminary training in the 50’s taught them to be wacky kumbaya Priests. Now, perhaps these traits were inherent in them. However, if the liturgy had not changed the way it did, they would not have been able to impose their wacky kumbayaness on the liturgy and the laity. They would have had to stick to the already existing forms for the most part.

However, with the new liturgy, and the dropping of so many traditions such as in music, they had the option to go with the fads of the time, and many of them did so, perhaps out of a desire to be “relevant” and “up-to-date.” But I wouldn’t say their seminary formation taught them that or could have prevented it.

 

[AJV]

Again, Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant.

Actually, I’m not fully sure of that. They are fully Catholic but they aren’t exactly Protestant either. If you open the PECUSA/BCP Prayerbook, you’ll see that one of the changes in 1979 to their Catechism was the statement “Why do we pray for the dead?” Well, even if they don’t exactly espouse the Catholic view, to admit to praying for the dead is not exactly Protestant.

An example of another change in the collect: if you look under “Various occasions The Holy Eucharist” you’ll find the *same *oration as was used in the Votive Mass of the Blessed Sacrament in the *Traditional *Missal. Ditto for the Holy Cross, angels, Kingship of OLJC, some of the collects for the dead etc.

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.

Who says it was to make the non-Catholics happy?

The majority practice among Anglicans and Lutherans at the time fo the NO was kneeling not standing. And 3 genuflections or 20, it implies adoration. I’m fail to see if someone is dissatisfied by the idea of genuflecting that lessening them will make such a difference. Mind you, I think that 3 is a “simplicity gone wonky” but if someone is objecting to a genuflection (and thereby an adoration) I think they’d still object.

 

[MMLJ]

Originally Posted by MMLJ

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.

Reply by JKirkLVNV:

Which ones?..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.

These Ones:

I think this has already been addressed to the point of ad nauseum, but here it is one more time for the sake of the thread: ANGLICANS AND LUTHERANS ARE PROTESTANT. As you have so rightfully stated above (my highlights).:
Originally posted by MMLJ:

That is of course the Novus Ordo service you speak of, that is probably why so many have begun to attend the Old Rite.

Reply by JKirkLVNV:

Not so in the least! The Anglican Rite One Eucharist service bears some small resemblance to the TRIDENTINE:…
And, BTW, there aren’t that many attending the TLM.

Actually it is the Novus Ordo Service that greatly, and let us not take away how great, that resembles the Novus Ordo Service. You have already concurred on this in your words above.
And, FYI, the TLM is on the rise in many churches. I am not saying all, and possibly not where you may be attending mass, but definitely in other Archdioceses (and of course in my Archdiocese of approaching 7 million). Logically speaking, and I am sure we can agree, if it were on the decline there would be no need for the daily TLM. For example, parishes in my Archdiocese have offered the TLM daily. This was unthinkable just only in recent times. The churches have cited it is because of the increasing numbers attending the TLM on Sundays and from churchgoers requests.

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.

Reply by JKirkLVNV:

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 Novus Ordo service is more like the Anglican Service (PROTESTANT) and less like the TLM. Since both the Novus Ordo and Anglican Services are so much in common (almost exact) why is one a mass and the other not? Either both are masses or both are not would be a correct statement. But we can both agree easily that the TLM is most definitely a Mass. :

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.

Actually it has much ado about something (i.e. Novus Ordo and its similarity to Protestant services e.g. ANGLICAN)
Therefore:

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.

Reply by JKirkLVNV:

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.

I definitely agree that the Novus Ordo service is deformed in many respects and the TLM is not deformed.

 

[Sure]

Well, I wouldn’t doubt that they came out of seminary in the 1950’s, yet I don’t think their seminary training in the 50’s taught them to be wacky kumbaya Priests. Now, perhaps these traits were inherent in them. However, if the liturgy had not changed the way it did, they would not have been able to impose their wacky kumbayaness on the liturgy and the laity. They would have had to stick to the already existing forms for the most part.

However, with the new liturgy, and the dropping of so many traditions such as in music, they had the option to go with the fads of the time, and many of them did so, perhaps out of a desire to be “relevant” and “up-to-date.” But I wouldn’t say their seminary formation taught them that or could have prevented it.

I understand and agree with what you are saying as far as the “perceived” liberty to make changes at will. What they would have learned in a good seminary education is that the rubrics and words (whether the old Mass or the new) ought to be followed exactly. My grandfather was in the seminary in the mid 40’s and he spoke of a lot of wishy washy things being taught at that time. His classmates had some pretty crazy parishes in the late 70’s and early 80’s. It seems that these guys didn’t need much of a spine or “formation” when it came to the TLM because, no one had really ever heard of innovation. Once the new Mass began to be abused only a priest with strong formation would have known enough to say “No, sorry, we are not going to strum guitars in the sanctuary and drape a “peace” banner across the altar.” It was definitely a formation problem and perhaps was more regionalized based on where they attended seminary.

 

[Sure]

Originally Posted by MMLJ
Reply by JKirkLVNV:

These Ones:

I think this has already been addressed to the point of ad nauseum, but here it is one more time for the sake of the thread: ANGLICANS AND LUTHERANS ARE PROTESTANT. As you have so rightfully stated above (my highlights).:
Originally posted by MMLJ:

Reply by JKirkLVNV:

Actually it is the Novus Ordo Service that greatly, and let us not take away how great, that resembles the Novus Ordo Service. You have already concurred on this in your words above.
And, FYI, the TLM is on the rise in many churches. I am not saying all, and possibly not where you may be attending mass, but definitely in other Archdioceses (and of course in my Archdiocese of approaching 7 million). Logically speaking, and I am sure we can agree, if it were on the decline there would be no need for the daily TLM. For example, parishes in my Archdiocese have offered the TLM daily. This was unthinkable just only in recent times. The churches have cited it is because of the increasing numbers attending the TLM on Sundays and from churchgoers requests.

Reply by JKirkLVNV:
The Novus Ordo service is more like the Anglican Service (PROTESTANT) and less like the TLM. :

Actually it has much ado about something (i.e. Novus Ordo and its similarity to Protestant services e.g. ANGLICAN)
Therefore:

Reply by JKirkLVNV:

I definitely agree that the Novus Ordo service is deformed in many respects and the TLM is not deformed.

1. As has been stated the Lutheran, Anglican and Ordinary Form are all derived from the same Catholic Mass. They ALL have their roots in the Extraordinary Form so it’s not exactly shocking to discover that they are similar.
2. There are MANY anglican services that MUCH more similar to the Extraordinary Form in English. Even their vestments are similar.
3. Do you live in Mexico? Where are there 7 million in an archdiocese???

 

[MMLJ]

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.

I never said this but by your words you obviously know about watered down sermons and liturgical abuse. This is a good thing to notice what is occurring in the Novus Ordo service. Your scenario is unlikely, but not because I say so but because that is what the facts show. If you have the time check the link in the Original post. Cara is a catholic research group based in the Georgetown University. If you have a problem with statistics not making sense take it up with them. In the meantime read their thorough study and look at the figures, charts, and text. It maybe nonsensical to you but Georgetown University has put a great deal work into this study, which of course does not coincide with your assumptions.

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.

Again, what is reasonable to you and your assumptions (and it is your assumptions), does not parallel the Study conducted by the Catholic wing in Georgetown University. But you are free to assume, so assume away.

See about CARA (Center for the Applied Research into the Apostolate) here:cara.georgetown.edu/aboutcara.htm

 

[Sure]

I never said this but by your words you obviously know about watered down sermons and liturgical abuse. This is a good thing to notice what is occurring in the Novus Ordo service. Your scenario is unlikely, but not because I say so but because that is what the facts show. If you have the time check the link in the Original post. Cara is a catholic research group based in the Georgetown University. If you have a problem with statistics not making sense take it up with them. In the meantime read their thorough study and look at the figures, charts, and text. It maybe nonsensical to you but Georgetown University has put a great deal work into this study, which of course does not coincide with your assumptions.

Again, what is reasonable to you and your assumptions (and it is your assumptions), does not parallel the Study conducted by the Catholic wing in Georgetown University. But you are free to assume, so assume away.

See about CARA (Center for the Applied Research into the Apostolate) here:cara.georgetown.edu/aboutcara.htm

Perhaps you missed it, but I was the one who originally posted the CARA study link so I am pretty familiar with it. I find it interesting that the sharp decline in Mass attendance started well before the Novus Ordo. Also as I noted earlier, mass attendance declined more from 1958-1969 than it did between 1969-1980.

I also find it interesting that the worst liturgical abuses were perpetrated by men who went to the seminary BEFORE Vatican II. Now, either they just couldn’t control themselves and started abusing the liturgy OR they were not properly educated and formed as priests. It might also be useful to note that the vast majority of men who were accused of sexual abuse of minors were ordained PRIOR to Vatican II and well before the new Mass. My point in all this is that something rotten was going on in our seminaries WAY before Vatican II and WAY before the new Mass and it is precisely that lack of formation that has been a contributing factor to many of our current problems.

 

[latinmasslover]

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…

I did the same thing with the head pastor at my church, using the specific example of missing Mass on Sunday as being a mortal sin (when thru. your own fault) and he totally flipped. He also barked out the associate pastor (yelling) for saying this I told the bishop about this, among other abuses going on, and he said I should talk to the pastor about it. When the bishop comes here again I’m going to make a big deal about it to his face…I think he needs to see the emotion behind the very valid complaints. If not, there’s always the newspaper

 

[latinmasslover]

Perhaps you missed it, but I was the one who originally posted the CARA study link so I am pretty familiar with it. I find it interesting that the sharp decline in Mass attendance started well before the Novus Ordo. Also as I noted earlier, mass attendance declined more from 1958-1969 than it did between 1969-1980.

I also find it interesting that the worst liturgical abuses were perpetrated by men who went to the seminary BEFORE Vatican II. Now, either they just couldn’t control themselves and started abusing the liturgy OR they were not properly educated and formed as priests. It might also be useful to note that the vast majority of men who were accused of sexual abuse of minors were ordained PRIOR to Vatican II and well before the new Mass. My point in all this is that something rotten was going on in our seminaries WAY before Vatican II and WAY before the new Mass and it is precisely that lack of formation that has been a contributing factor to many of our current problems.

A very good point; this is why we have an ambiguous Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, because of corrupt priests in the Church. This just goes to show that the “conspiracy jabber” has validity. The Blessed Virgin warned that this would happen, Popes warned as well (which is why they issued such strong encyclicals, which are pretty much ignored). *This *being Freemasons and Communists entering the Church to corrupt it from within. They know that the only way to bring the Church down (though it will never fall) is to discredit Her. How is this done? Ambiguous language and a Mass that doesn’t exactly promote Catholic piety.

 

[Sure]

[Edited by Moderator]

But I do agree that a lack of formation is one of the biggest problem we face today. Priests don’t talk about “no mortal sin” or “no hell” because of the Mass, they say these things because of bad education and bad formation [edited by Moderator]. The most pressing thing (and thank God this is being done in many places) is to make our seminaries STRONG and faithful so that we have good young well-formed priests.

 

[AJV]

The Novus Ordo service is more like the Anglican Service (PROTESTANT) and less like the TLM. Since both the Novus Ordo and Anglican Services are so much in common (almost exact) why is one a mass and the other not? Either both are masses or both are not would be a correct statement. But we can both agree easily that the TLM is most definitely a Mass.

Ok, why don’t you demonstrate how the changes conformed the Mass to the Anglican service at that time (1960’s)?

It is not as if they are using the Mass verbatim ,no edits, nothing. And the changes that they make and where they differ form the NO do matter. Otherwise it would be like me advocating the junking of major parts of the TLM and the Canon because a Lutheran liturgy in Sweden happened to use the same with modifications.

 

[latinmasslover]

[Edited by Moderator]But I do agree that a lack of formation is one of the biggest problem we face today. Priests don’t talk about “no mortal sin” or “no hell” because of the Mass, they say these things because of bad education and bad formation [Edited by Moderator]. The most pressing thing (and thank God this is being done in many places) is to make our seminaries STRONG and faithful so that we have good young well-formed priests.

Well, as far as the Mass goes, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m not saying that the Pope Paul had bad intentions regarding the Mass, and I don’t believe that Pope John’s intentions were bad when he began VII, God rest their souls. It was, however, the wrong way to go at, at least at this time. Since Pope Leo XIII, and likely before, the popes warned about these days, and how the Church was going to be (and was beginning to be) infiltrated by the enemies of the Church, that these are dark times, etc. Pope John was an optimist, and made known the the people who took the warnings seriously were over-zealous doomsdayers, and that we needed to take another approach. While in better, holier times, Vatican II (ambiguous as it is) might have done some good, it was poor judgment to do it now. The problems of the day were overlooked as trivial, and thus have only grown. Anyway, contrary to what some have implied on other threads, I don’t hate the pope and I’m not a sedevacantist. I simply disagree with a lot of the things that have been done, or not done, that have caused scandal,[Edited by Moderator] That’s my opinion, anyway.

 

[Sure]

Well, as far as the Mass goes, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m not saying that the Pope Paul had bad intentions regarding the Mass, and I don’t believe that Pope John’s intentions were bad when he began VII, God rest their souls. It was, however, the wrong way to go at, at least at this time. Since Pope Leo XIII, and likely before, the popes warned about these days, and how the Church was going to be (and was beginning to be) infiltrated by the enemies of the Church, that these are dark times, etc. Pope John was an optimist, and made known the the people who took the warnings seriously were over-zealous doomsdayers, and that we needed to take another approach. While in better, holier times, Vatican II (ambiguous as it is) might have done some good, it was poor judgment to do it now. The problems of the day were overlooked as trivial, and thus have only grown. Anyway, contrary to what some have implied on other threads, I don’t hate the pope and I’m not a sedevacantist. I simply disagree with a lot of the things that have been done, or not done, that have caused scandal, [Edited by Moderator] That’s my opinion, anyway.

Thanks for clarifying that!

I am sure that at the time Vatican II was concluded no one thought that it would be abused and misinterpreted so horridly. Who knows though, perhaps this is all part of the Holy Spirit’s plan. Perhaps things would have been worse without Vatican II…who can know?

One thing I think we should all agree on is that there is MUCH reason to be hopeful. New GOOD young priests are being ordained. Seminary classes are expanding. Masses (at least around here) are profoundly better than 20 years ago. There is definitely a “reform of the reform” in the works. There even is a growing interest in chant among many mucial directors. And think of the fine young bishops we now have! It seems every new bishop who is appointed is very good. Things are much much better now than they were in 1985.

 

[latinmasslover]

Thanks for clarifying that!

I am sure that at the time Vatican II was concluded no one thought that it would be abused and misinterpreted so horridly. Who knows though, perhaps this is all part of the Holy Spirit’s plan. Perhaps things would have been worse without Vatican II…who can know?

One thing I think we should all agree on is that there is MUCH reason to be hopeful. New GOOD young priests are being ordained. Seminary classes are expanding. Masses (at least around here) are profoundly better than 20 years ago. There is definitely a “reform of the reform” in the works. There even is a growing interest in chant among many mucial directors. And think of the fine young bishops we now have! It seems every new bishop who is appointed is very good. Things are much much better now than they were in 1985.

Amen to that. The Blessed Virgin is gathering her army for the final battle.

I heard this talk by Fr. Dan Cooper, wonderful priest, who said that God allowed this (Vatican II and the Novus Ordo) because abuses were beginning, getting worse, and so the Holy Mass (TLM, I know you won’t agree with this totally) was taken away, like a parent takes a treasure away from their child as punishment, discipline if you prefer. He wanted us to have an appreciation for what He’s given us, and He did that by taking away (in a sense) our treasures. 40 years, like in the exodus, of penance, and things are finally being restored. Amen again!

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.