Poll: adding Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Leonine Prayers to OF

[ProVobis]

The scriptures are not the point of Mass? No, you are partially correct, they are not the sum total of the Mass. However, they are an integral part of the Mass - one of the two points, if you will - since the Mass began.

And they are said twice in the EF.

 

[Timothysis]

Apparently you weren’t around in the 60’s and 70’s when there was an exodus of young and old following the effective suppression of the old Mass.

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was not promulgated until 3 April 1969 and it wasn’t published until 1970. Do you mean to tell me that the social problems of the 1960’s (which were really rooted in the post WWII society) did not start until April 3, 1969? Was Woodstock, which was held August 15 - 18 1969 a direct response to the April 3 promulgation of Pope Paul’s missal? Do you mean to say that Elvis, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando and the Beatles had no effect on society until April 3, 1969???

 

[otjm]

Don’t you think the fact that the TLM is ancient and was never abrogated anyway (according to the MP) is of some importance?

Don’t you think the fact (of evil fruits) creates a doubt at least in the legion of novelties that followed Vatican II.

You are making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement. There has yet to be a showing that the rebellion of priests, theologians and laity were caused by the documents of Vatican 2. There have been showings that the rebellion is much more related to the reaction to Humanae Vitae, which was immediate and widespread, and specvifically directed to rejecting Rome.

 

[ProVobis]

It amazes me to find parishes in which people act as if they were total strangers, bent on leaving those “others” as quickly as possible.

So is the Mass only for extroverts and socialites?

 

[ProVobis]

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was not promulgated until 3 April 1969 and it wasn’t published until 1970. Do you mean to tell me that the social problems of the 1960’s (which were really rooted in the post WWII society) did not start until April 3, 1969? Was Woodstock, which was held August 15 - 18 1969 a direct response to the April 3 promulgation of Pope Paul’s missal? Do you mean to say that Elvis, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando and the Beatles had no effect on society until April 3, 1969???

When the Novus Ordo was “promulgated” is irrelevant. The Old Rite was already becoming undermined after 1962. It may have been because of the Beatles but I doubt it.

 

[DixitDominus]

I think the best addition to the OF would be to exchange the current pryaers of offering of the Host and Chalice (Benedictus es…) for those from the EF (Suscipe, sancte Pater… and Offerimus tibi), as well as to add the Suscipe, sancta Trinitas… after the Lavabo.

 

[otjm]

Bigger than the exodus after Vatican II?

So the Catholics of today have been so protestantized that a return to Catholicism would be unacceptable. They would then be forced to join the post-Vatican II Catholics who had already left for the protestant churches years ago; is that your point?

The exodus after Vatican 2 was not that fast; it actually was gradual. And interestingly, the group that is most likely to not attend Mass is the group between the ages of 18 to 30 (because of lack of catechesis, among other things, not the form of the Mass - attendances weekly is 21%); then the next most likely not to attend is the 31-43 group (22% weekly); then the Vatican 2 group (38%), then the pre-Vatican 2 group (52%).

The group who were most affected by the changes in the Mass - those who actually participated in the EF as teens and young adults - are the most likely to attend regularly.

The exodus has been gradual over time, and has actually had several periods where attendance increased for a short while. But further, the exodus didn’t start with Vatican 2; it started about 8 years earlier, as the peak in attendance was in 1957. And that was the peak; in 1951 attendance was about 12% lower than in 1957, and it was not until 1969 that attendance was again down to the level of 1951.

So implying - or even stating - that there was an exodus after Vatican 2 is neither correct (it started before), nor reasonably accurate as the term exodus implies a large group leaving all as one. It was more of a trickle than any exodus.

And along with the cahnge in the Mass, we also had chages in sexual mores - the “free love” bit of the 60’s that spread like wildfire, right along with and paralleling the introduction and acceptyance of the Pill; and the introduction of Situational Ethics.

Blaming the reduction in attendance at Mass on the chnages in the Mass neither acknowledges the other social, moral, ethical and psychological issues at play at the time nor accounts for how devestating they were to the most basic unit in society - the family. No fault divorce spread rapidly at that time, part and parcel of the changes that were spreading like wildfire. Blaming a reduction in Mass attendance on the changes in the Mass is just making the changes one’s whipping post.

 

[Timothysis]

When the Novus Ordo was “promulgated” is irrelevant. The Old Rite was already becoming undermined after 1962. It may have been because of the Beatles but I doubt it.

Fine. I think it safe to say that the excess of the 60s was much less about liturgical changes and more about social radicalization.

 

[otjm]

Was there a need in 1969?

Yes, the Church perceived a need. That the results were not as necessarily intended is not a point that needs to be argued; but the Church did perceive a need to re-look at the form of the Mass. And one of the things that it wanted to do with the chages - and accomplished - was to increase the amount of Scripture used during the Mass.

Isn’t that stage always set?

No. One only has to look at the last 500 years to see that. The stage was not set for changes during most of that time.

But yet the flock was forced into the new Mass while the Traditional Mass was not really ever abrogated. Priests who sought to hold on to the Mass that was not ever abrogated were persecuted for it.

No, the flock was not forced; the great majority took to it like ducks to water. The greatest cause for joy was the use of the vernacular. Some of the flock did not want to go there. But as per my previous post - the group in greatest attendance at the OF is that group who grew up under the EF. and one only has to wander through threads herein to repeatedly come across the comments that it is the youngest group who seems most in favor of attendance at the EF; that is, at an EF, one is most likely to find a significant grouping towards the younger crowd.

One would think - if one were to use the logic of the flock not wanting to have the OF, that Masses in the EF form would be overwhelmingly tilted to the elderly. But it just isn’t so.

 

[otjm]

He didn’t think it was an injustice, and by virtue of the fact he granted an indult to celebrate a Mass that was never abrogated, that indicates he viewed the EF as requiring an indult. You don’t need an indult to say a Mass that has not been abrogated, do you?

You seem to miss the point altogether of what was going on.

JP2 granted an indult because he felt there was an injustice. Read his comments; he wanted the EF to be available to those who wished it.

As to the issue of indult, it was widely accepted that the Mass had been abrogated if for no other reason than that no one in Rome took the time to thoroughly research the matter - it was just accepted as a given. It was not until our current Pope that the issue was squarely researched from that standpoint. The issue of abrogation is a bit more technical than most people presume; they act as if the issue were obvious when in fact it was not obvious. Further, they seem to presume that JP2 had nothing better to do, no other issues to deal with, than this. He dealt with it in a forthright manner given the fact that Rome by and large considered that the EF had been abrogated. People reacted as if it was “asked and answered” when in fact it had not been, but because they presumed it had been, they proceeded in good faith. That is why he issued an indult.

 

[RJames]

Well, since there is no record of the old Holy Father denying that the EF had not been abrogated, no record that he discouraged people from requesting it, no record that he discouraged bishops from granting it, etc., I assumed we had gotten to motive, ie, what was the Holy Father’s motive. You put it that if he had not thought it abrogated, he wouldn’t have granted an indult. I put another possible face on the same action of the Holy Father. I apologize if I misunderstood.

He was wrong. No indult was required.

 

[otjm]

And they are said twice in the EF.

And the Church has said that bringing in the Old Testament, which foreshadows the New, is important. So now there are four.

 

[otjm]

So is the Mass only for extroverts and socialites?

Whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do for Me. I don’t know - do you think that Christ only accepts extroverts and socialites? Or do you think that caring for one another is something we are called to do?

Do you really want to propose that ignoring your fellow Catholics is following Christ?

 

[RJames]

You seem to miss the point altogether of what was going on.

JP2 granted an indult because he felt there was an injustice. Read his comments; he wanted the EF to be available to those who wished it.

As to the issue of indult, it was widely accepted that the Mass had been abrogated if for no other reason than that no one in Rome took the time to thoroughly research the matter - it was just accepted as a given. It was not until our current Pope that the issue was squarely researched from that standpoint. The issue of abrogation is a bit more technical than most people presume; they act as if the issue were obvious when in fact it was not obvious. Further, they seem to presume that JP2 had nothing better to do, no other issues to deal with, than this. He dealt with it in a forthright manner given the fact that Rome by and large considered that the EF had been abrogated. People reacted as if it was “asked and answered” when in fact it had not been, but because they presumed it had been, they proceeded in good faith. That is why he issued an indult.

You treat Rome as if it is some political organization. No one researched the most important form of worship in the Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Given the general infallibility of the Church and the guidence of the Holy Ghost granted the Pontiff with the charism of papal infallibility; he just neglected to study the issue?

 

[otjm]

He was wrong. No indult was required.

So now it is wrong to operate on what is widely perceived to be the case, and working to remedy it in what is perceived to be the best way to right the wrong?

He wasn’t wrong. He simply did not answer a question that was not being asked.

 

[RJames]

So now it is wrong to operate on what is widely perceived to be the case, and working to remedy it in what is perceived to be the best way to right the wrong?

He wasn’t wrong. He simply did not answer a question that was not being asked.

So he was not aware of what was going on?

 

[otjm]

You treat Rome as if it is some political organization. No one researched the most important form of worship in the Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Given the general infallibility of the Church and the guidence of the Holy Ghost granted the Pontiff with the charism of papal infallibility; he just neglected to study the issue?

It was not a matter of research. It was a matter of responding to a need. You presume that when a question is not asked, that an answer will be given.

People wanted the EF. It was presumed that it had been abrogated. Granting an indult was a legitimate means of satisfying the request; why did the question have to be researched when it was presumed to have already been answered?

That the presumption was incorrect is now apparent; it wasn’t so at the time. To say the presumption was wrong is to border on implying some moral evil. There was no moral evil afoot. A decision was made on the best information available at the time, and the best information was that the Mass had been abrogated (an issue that is more finely parsed than some seem to presume). The appearance was that the Mass was abrogated, so JP2 did what seemed best at the time - he granted an indult. He was not at fault for bishops ignoring it.

In fact, there seem to be bishops who may still be ignoring the fact that it wasn’t abroagted. And that is not the fault of B16.

 

[RJames]

It was not a matter of research. It was a matter of responding to a need. You presume that when a question is not asked, that an answer will be given.

People wanted the EF. It was presumed that it had been abrogated. Granting an indult was a legitimate means of satisfying the request; why did the question have to be researched when it was presumed to have already been answered?

That the presumption was incorrect is now apparent; it wasn’t so at the time. To say the presumption was wrong is to border on implying some moral evil. There was no moral evil afoot. A decision was made on the best information available at the time, and the best information was that the Mass had been abrogated (an issue that is more finely parsed than some seem to presume). The appearance was that the Mass was abrogated, so JP2 did what seemed best at the time - he granted an indult. He was not at fault for bishops ignoring it.

In fact, there seem to be bishops who may still be ignoring the fact that it wasn’t abroagted. And that is not the fault of B16.

I believe the qustion was asked when priests were threatened when they refused to say the new Mass. People cited Quo Primum (wrongly, I think, but they asked the question by asserting that the TLM could not have been abrogated).

The seminary in Econe was set up precisely to train priests to say the TLM and to avoid the modernist seminaries.

How can you say nobody questioned the apparent abrogation of the TLM?

 

[otjm]

So he was not aware of what was going on?

Of course he was aware of what was going on; that is why he granted the indult.

Don’t get caught up in thinking the Pope is aware of every little thing that goes on in the Church; none of them do. They are not micromanagers. They are leaders. There is a massive difference.

 

[RJames]

Of course he was aware of what was going on; that is why he granted the indult.

Don’t get caught up in thinking the Pope is aware of every little thing that goes on in the Church; none of them do. They are not micromanagers. They are leaders. There is a massive difference.

I can no longer take you seriously. So you do think the Church is a political organization.