M
Margarite
Guest
FrRJBoyd
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
- Status
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Thank you Father for articulately expressing what I have tried to express. You can add to that list that we sought dispensation from our local parish priest to attend a memorial service for my Protestant grandmother in 1967. Or the fact that my uncle (Catholic) whisked the three of us away when the minister came to the funeral parlor. I was 14 in 1965, an altar boy, when all of this started.
Just like you said, take Friday’s…My Catholic boy’s high school in New Orleans served meatless meals on Friday even when the ban against meat on Friday was lifted. But how many of us today remember that you are supposed to do an act of personal sacrifice to substitute for that ban.
But going without meat on Friday was never a sacrifice for us down here and we recognized it. Yes, it was pointed out, absitnence from meat is easily practiced down here. Shrimp Creole, I can assure you is no sacrifice. We were always encouraged to do something more.
But, I would submit to you, Father, that the NO was not introduced as gently as it could have been. I often look back over my wife’s 1966 St. Joseph’s Missal and marvel how so much was optional as oppossed to what we actually experienced. Nor can I forger that by 1968 we had already transitioned to the NO and out went Catholic liturgical music and in came the guitars with the happy, clappy, sappy, music. Didn’t like it then; don’t like it now.
We have driven 25 miles one way since 1983 to attend a reverent NO at our cathedral parish. I have seen far too reverently celebrated NO Masses on EWTN over the years.
J
jeanannemarie
Guest
Maybe people just don’t want to change what they are comfortable with. Maybe they don’t want to have a future without daughters serving mass, women reading and all the other things they can sign up to participate in. Maybe they can’t live without their choir and all the things they are used to. They just don’t want to give it up. But me, I would love to give it up and do not have that option in my rural community right now. It seems to me that people get their civic duties mixed up in their church life. Perspective on what the Mass really is, is skewed. There are other placed to volunteer and be in charge.
O
otjm
Guest
Or maybe it is the fact that the vernacular has way more influence than anyone wants to agree about.
Most people nowadays are not well catechized about the Mass; but is often a presumption that people were well catchized about the Mass prior to the changes. Prior to the changes, most people’s education about their faith was within the context of the Baltimore Catechism. When we lost that, we saw catechesis pretty much go down the drain. But even then, most people had nothing more than a grade school, or mid level high school understanding of their faith. People on these fora are generally better educated about their faith now than most people were prior to all the changes.
When the changes occured, there was no massive drop off in attendance at Mass; however, to keep everything in perspective, Mass attendance hit a peak in 1956-57, and had already been dropping off before the changes were made. With the exception of a couple of years since then, there has been a gradual steady decline.
But to make a point further, those who should have been the most likely to drop out - those in adulthood prior to the changes - are the group that has the largest attendance today, at something around 57%; the groups that have the lowest attendance - those 18- 25 and 25 - 32, are in the low 20’s. And if these fora are to be trusted to be reporting the general reactions to the EF, it is the younger crowd who is attracted to the EF. If one were to guess wether based on logic or intuition which group should be the strongest in attraction to the EF, one would automatically assume it would be the group that was most identified with it and would feel the greatest loss due to the changes. However, it is not.
It is simplistic to assume that people’s attraction is based on women reading or girls serving; most people do not have children in the age bracket that servers come from, and most parishes have a very small group of people who actually do the readings. And given that men do the readings also, that pool is even smaller cor the actual number of women participating.
I think you are right that people don’t want to change what they are comfortable with, but I don’t agree with your assumptions as to why they are comfortable.
P
ProVobis
Guest
As the writer posted to some extent, vernacular is within each one’s comfort zone. This has been true since the beginning of time. The Church has tried to find and establish some commonness among its members. Latin was accepted to be that common unite for a long time. And still should be. Nothing wrong with vernacular, though, so why can’t we have both in the Mass? Not enough time?
The Pope reportedly knows all the statistics involved and had, as Cardinal, tried to convince Pope JPII of the declining state of the Catholic Church. I’m sure daily updates are brought to him.
O
otjm
Guest
Good question. Vatican 2 seemed to indicate that Vernacular could be used along with Latin, without a whole lot of specificity; the results seem to be a whole lot of vernacular, with little or no Latin. Or, in most circumstances, no Latin.
But I don’t think it has anything to do with time; it is like all too many things that have happened since Vatican 2; too much taken to the extreme.
C
Conservative
Guest
Echoing your congratulations to Fr. Boyd.
The NO Mass is NOT the reason for the decline - but rather, while intended to enhance a better participation, we’ve sometimes seen the opposite. And while Churches were always - always hurting for a new roof, heating, plumbing, whatever expenses, take a look if your bulletins publish the previous week’s collections…It’s scarey. And sad to see schools/sometimes Churches having to close. — The NO Mass is not the reason for the decline - but it apparently did not succeed in bringing in the hoped-for numbers either.
O
otjm
Guest
While it is only anecdotal, in that it only represents one parish, ours has opened the first grade school in 40 years. The parish is growing; the school is growing. We are in the planning stages to add a gym and additional calssroom space.
I would agree that the OF did not increase numbers; but I don’t believe that the liturgy, or the format of the liturgy, is the source of greater numbers. It is up to people to determine that the lifestyle they are living isn’t making sense; that it doesn’t “cut it”, and to seek out what is wrong and how they change. Society tells them many things - morality being the prime target. Whether it is about money and possessions, sexuality, or what other topic we might bring up, people are being told what the correct lifestyle is. Education, or what passes for education, is more available today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The media has become all pervasive, and between the two, massive changes in lifestyle and beliefs have occured. Society has become more fragmented; we have gone from the extended family, to the nuclear family, to the disintegrating family, to a complete re-write of what family means. Without the support structure of the extended family, lifestyle changes from what was the norm become more and more easy. The Magisterium has remained true to its 2000 year history; but society took a massive turn of rejection, and the most explosive turn occured when Humanae Vitae was released.
But back to our parish - it is growing, and I attribute that more to a parish with 24 Hour Adoration than anything. Prayer still works, but one has to work at it. It may reach its summit at the Mass; but it most certainly doesn’t stop there.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
The good part about posting on these forums for a while is that you get to think. The late 1960s was a period of enormous societal change. Forty years since MLK’s assasination. Forty years since the riots in Chicago. Forty years since a lot of things.
Just as society was changing, we had the impact of Vatican II in HMC.
Most of us submitted to the magesterium of HMC. We went to the 7am Mass to avoid the happy, clappy “Sons of God Hear His Holy Word” Masses. When the 7am Mass was transformed, we drove 25 miles to a church which avoided it. And we have driven 25 miles for 25 years - along with a whole bunch of our fellow parishoners.
Just like we didn’t protest the Vietnam War, we didn’t protest what happened to our church. I hear more protest from folks who were born far after Vatican II about us. Hey! Excuse me! The church in which I grew up is not the church of today. We submitted to the magesterium and the HF recognized it and “restored” what was taken away unless you live in a diocese where the bishop merely “acknowledges” the MP. Bureaucratese for “we ain’t going to do a thing about it”. Got the priest. Got the choir. But neither I nor my fellow parishoners of my age want to cause a fuss. Nor do we want to get our pastor “in Dutch” with the bishop. One sung Solemn High Mass a month is all I’m asking. Is that too much?
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
The 1957-58 “decline” did not continue. It dropped, then upticked in 1960, then held steady from '61 to '65. Then the downard trend started in 1966 and continued unabated until 1975 and really even beyond that 'til 1997 with some fluctuations.
I’d certainly call the drop off in Mass attendance precipitous after 1966.
Here is the graph (see the second graph down):
cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I certainly would agree that the NO did not bring in the hoped for numbers, and that’s a good point. It was assumed that now that the Mass was simpler and in the vernacular and thus more “understandable” that of course more people would be attracted to the Mass.
However, I’d have to disagree that the NO had nothing to do with the decline in Mass attendance; after all if you radically alter the liturgy and impose it on the entire Church this just might affect attendance. Conversely, if Mass attendance had gone up I can imagine that much of the upward swing would have been attributed to the NO. Here is a quote from an article which addresses the decline in Mass attendance:
“The picture that emerges is distressing. Mass
attendance of U.S. Catholics fell precipitously in the
decade following the liturgical changes and has continued
to decline ever since. This decline moreover is not an
isolated phenomenon, confined solely to the Church in
America. In England and Wales, the time pattern of Mass
attendance has been just as bad, perhaps even worse.
Church attendance of Protestants, in contrast, has followed
a much different path.”
unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I think Cardinal Ottaviani was quite prescient in remarking on the practical connection between small t traditions and the doctrine of the Church. In other words, if you radically alter what previously had been considered the Church’s greatest treasure (the liturgy), it is not surprising that many Catholics will erroneously conclude that dogma is up for grabs as well (and can be changed or minimized). And this will affect how they live. Here is the quote:
- The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.
Regarding the format of the liturgy and numbers, I wish to repost this:
Here is a perspective offered by Fr. George William Rutler (I believe he appears at times on EWTN) in his book, “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is also a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes. The emphases in bold are mine:
A Liturgical Parable
The Hard Truth
…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into criticism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.
…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. **There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. **Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.
C
Conservative
Guest
I think that the NO did not cause the immediate change/decline in attendance. I’m wondering if there would have been the same decline without the changes to the Mass. My thought - an uneducated guess… - is that, as cited earlier, society itself was already in a downspiral, morally, etc.
I don’t mean to put a swerve on this post’s topic - but one has to wonder if the Third Fatima Secret said something relevant to this — if only because the deadline for the Third Letter’s opening / revelation was to have been 1960 or Lucia’s death, whichever came first…hence, just around the 1960’s societal changes, which came before finalizing the NO.
No offense to fellow posters here - but in recent months I’ve attended NO Mass a few times in a parish where women and/or deacons conduct/participate in so much of the service and prayers - the priest almost seems like an attendee. It’s not something which would make me return. And I’m blessed/grateful to have TLM available to me.
O
otjm
Guest
You and I have been over this more than once. I know you call it precipitous; I define the word differently than you do, it would appear. I would call a drop of 15% of the population a precipitous drop. Since we are looking at the same graph, I would point out to you that the drop actually was between 1964, which appears about 70%, and 1965 which is 67 %. and contrary to your reading of the graph, 1966 is actually an uptick, not a drop. 1967 drops (not precipitously) back to 1965 levels, and then proceeds through a drop off of about 1 to 2 percent per year through 1975; an uptick in 1976, two years up in 1979 and 1980; another drop off between 1985 and 1987 (with no reporting in 1986) which appears about 4 to 5%; no reporting in 1988 and 1989; another uptick of about 3% in 1990, a drop of about 4% in the next two years; another uptick of about 1%, no report for 1996; and by 1997 we are down to 41%; it then upticks about 3 to 4% for 1998 and 1999; then upticks agiaain for 2000 to 52%, with a drop in 2001 back to the 1999 level of about 47 %, down in 2002 and in 2003 down again to 40%.
In no year was there a loss of 10% let alone 15%. If you were to put 1957-1958 against 2003, yes, there was a “precipitous drop” of 34%. But that “precipitous drop” was actually a fairly steady drop. The most percipitous drop shown on the graph was in the three year period of 2000 to 2003, a drop of 12 percent over two years. The time right after Vatican 2 , and the drop after the change in the Rubrics following that, doesn’t drop that much either in a year or a two year period, and that would be the time to expect the greatest drop, if the change in the Mass was the cause of it.
Further, you completely ignore the changes in society caused by and reflected in the changes in the media, to wit: the over-sexualization of life depicted by the media, which I submit has had more impact on Mass attendance (coupled with the dumbing down of catechesis).
Anyone looking at the graph can see that it is fairly constant in a downward trend. It amounts to a loss of 34% over 46 years, which is less than 1% per year. In my book, that is not defined as precipitous. Bad, yes; tremendously sad, yes; fairly constant, yes. Not, however, precipitous. And again, between 1957 and 1965, which is 8 years, the loss is 7% - again, about a little less than 1% per year.
O
otjm
Guest
OK, It appears that you are taking the term “precipitous” from someone else. I would point out that Mass attendance also dropped off during the smae period the writer you refer to speaks of, not due to the changes in the rubrics, but due to what occured at approximately the same time - the release of Humanae Vitae. The drop in attendance in the period of time your writer mentions, from the graph appears to be about 11% in 10 years. Which amounts to about 1.1% per year. That is more than the drop between 1957/8 of 74% to 1965, of about 8%; but the time period is also shorter. We can say a drop of 10 or 11% in ten years is precipitous, but we can also say it is a trickle each year, and is reflective of a trend that started prior to vatican 2 ever being proposed. The fact is, before the ink was dry on the documents we had already experienced a drop; it continued after that.
All this amounts to is someone taking some statistics and attempting to lay the blame for the change of a specific activity - Mass attendance drop off - to a specific incident - either Vatican 2, or the change in the rubrics. I would submit that the secularization which started with a vengence post World War 2, more strongly in Europe than the US, but experienced in both, has way more to do with loss of Mass participants than changes in Rubrics.
Look, the short of it is that I don’t have a dog in the fight over the EF vs the OF. But trying to pin the loss of Mass attendance on the changes in the rubrics might get you a B in a high school research paper; it wouldn’t rate a C for a junior or senior in college, and you would be laughed out of the program if you tried to submit it in a graduate program, for the simple reason that you continue to ignore any and all other outside influences.
For example, if you need more, look at the change in the divorce rate post Vatican 2 (the two are not related other than by time). You think, just possibly, just maybe a smidgin, that this might be a driving incluence for people to stop attending Mass? Do you have even a though of an idea how many people who have gone through a divorce think they may not receive Communion afterward (and I am not referring to remarriage - just simply the divorce itself). We have something like 8 million divorced Catholics or more; and I am constantly running into people who say they thought that, after they went through a divorce.
And that is just one issue post Vatican 2 which has caused people to fall away. There is a whole raft of reasons, if you would just bother to look beyond your own prejudice about the matter.
And while I am at it, the CARA statistics show that Mass attendance is highest among those most logically to be candidates to drop out - those born pre Vatican 2.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
If you don’t want to define the drop as precipitous, fine with me. However, a continuous drop certainly adds up over the years, particularly with a new liturgy that was actually supposed to attract people to the Church.
I have never said in any of my posts that the new liturgy is the only factor in the drop in Mass attendance (I think it will have a more primary affect, however). I agree that poor catechesis does not help. And I also argue that with all the changes in society you mention, that would have been a really good time to not completely alter the liturgy which can lead to the effects Cardinal Ottaviani describes in my quote posted above.
What I do disagree with is any assertion that the changes to the liturgy had a negligible affect on Mass attendance. I would also note that the drop wasn’t just in Mass attendance but in vocations, baptisms, etc. Changes to the liturgy, art, architecture, and catechesis are going to have a more immediate and proximate affect on Catholics than changes to society.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think it’s fair to blame the decline in vocations on the change in the liturgy. It is more precise to say that society, especially in North America (including Canada) and Europe went into a moral decline.
If you look at South America and Africa, they have had the NO as long and Europe and North America and they’re not hurting for vocations, neither are the Philipines. Not only are they not hurting for vocations to the secular priesthood, but they are also giving birth to many new religious congregations and even sending missionaries abroad. In our diocese we have more than 30 missionaries from Latin America.
Also certain religioius orders are not suffering for vocations. I have worked along with the Capuchins in their parishes and missions for many years. They have many Brothers. They have less ordained Brothers, but that is an internal decision of the Superior General not to allow that many to the Sacrament of Holy Orders to protect the order from being overrun by priests as once happened. But they have novices and professions every year all over the world and are more than 13,000. The last I heard they were in 48 countries. The Franciscan Order has used the NO as long as anyone else.
In fact, they are not too comfortable with TLM, but it has not affected the numer of Brothers that they profess each year. They suffered a decline in the 70s and 80s like everyone else, but it was in the USA, Canada and Europe. Their novitiates in Africa and South America have many Brothers.
I’m sure they’re not the only order like this. Many of the new congregations are attracting many vocations. There is a young congregation, I believe it’s from Jamaica, The Little Brothers of the Poor. They have an abundance of vocations. Like the Franciscans, they are not ordaining many, because it would take away from their charism as a community of Brothers, but they have many young men entering. They have been around since the 1990s. They have recently become a Pontifical congregation. Very few young congregations reach that status in less than 20 years. You need to prove that you have the vocations and the stability to continue.
The same can be said of the Missionaries of Charity. Both the Sisters and the Brothers have full novitiates.
Observe that all these communities that are thriving are based outside of the USA and Europe and most of them place their focus on the fraternal life, prayer, asceticism, service to the poor and poverty. They seem to be responding to the spiritual needs of younger men and women. Interestingly enough, religious life seems to be attracting more vocations than the priesthood.
I’m just guessing here, but I believe that the younger generation is also much better informed than the over 40 generation about the difference between religious life and priesthood. They are looking for a way of life more than they are looking for a state of life (i.e. deaconate and priesthood). This may be why religious life is more attractive to younger people than the preistood. This is just a guess.
In the past, more young men preferred to be religious and priests. But as many religious communities began to reduce the number of priest that they ordain to preserve their charism, the vocations declined, especially in North America and Europe.
Like I said, in the southern hemisphere, this does not seem to be the case. There seems to be a clear understanding that the two are different and the vocations seem to be going in both directions, some to the priesthood and many to the religious life.
Another interesting observation that I made when I was in South America was that Chile has a very good economy and is very liberal, much like the Europeans. They have a shortage of vocations to both the priesthood and religious life.
I believe that much of the decline in vocations and the number of Catholics at mass has more to do with decline in values in our highly materialistic and relativistic cultures. I believe that family life has much more to do with it than the liturgy.
JR
If you look at South America and Africa, they have had the NO as long and Europe and North America and they’re not hurting for vocations, neither are the Philipines. Not only are they not hurting for vocations to the secular priesthood, but they are also giving birth to many new religious congregations and even sending missionaries abroad. In our diocese we have more than 30 missionaries from Latin America.
Also certain religioius orders are not suffering for vocations. I have worked along with the Capuchins in their parishes and missions for many years. They have many Brothers. They have less ordained Brothers, but that is an internal decision of the Superior General not to allow that many to the Sacrament of Holy Orders to protect the order from being overrun by priests as once happened. But they have novices and professions every year all over the world and are more than 13,000. The last I heard they were in 48 countries. The Franciscan Order has used the NO as long as anyone else.
In fact, they are not too comfortable with TLM, but it has not affected the numer of Brothers that they profess each year. They suffered a decline in the 70s and 80s like everyone else, but it was in the USA, Canada and Europe. Their novitiates in Africa and South America have many Brothers.
I’m sure they’re not the only order like this. Many of the new congregations are attracting many vocations. There is a young congregation, I believe it’s from Jamaica, The Little Brothers of the Poor. They have an abundance of vocations. Like the Franciscans, they are not ordaining many, because it would take away from their charism as a community of Brothers, but they have many young men entering. They have been around since the 1990s. They have recently become a Pontifical congregation. Very few young congregations reach that status in less than 20 years. You need to prove that you have the vocations and the stability to continue.
The same can be said of the Missionaries of Charity. Both the Sisters and the Brothers have full novitiates.
Observe that all these communities that are thriving are based outside of the USA and Europe and most of them place their focus on the fraternal life, prayer, asceticism, service to the poor and poverty. They seem to be responding to the spiritual needs of younger men and women. Interestingly enough, religious life seems to be attracting more vocations than the priesthood.
I’m just guessing here, but I believe that the younger generation is also much better informed than the over 40 generation about the difference between religious life and priesthood. They are looking for a way of life more than they are looking for a state of life (i.e. deaconate and priesthood). This may be why religious life is more attractive to younger people than the preistood. This is just a guess.
In the past, more young men preferred to be religious and priests. But as many religious communities began to reduce the number of priest that they ordain to preserve their charism, the vocations declined, especially in North America and Europe.
Like I said, in the southern hemisphere, this does not seem to be the case. There seems to be a clear understanding that the two are different and the vocations seem to be going in both directions, some to the priesthood and many to the religious life.
Another interesting observation that I made when I was in South America was that Chile has a very good economy and is very liberal, much like the Europeans. They have a shortage of vocations to both the priesthood and religious life.
I believe that much of the decline in vocations and the number of Catholics at mass has more to do with decline in values in our highly materialistic and relativistic cultures. I believe that family life has much more to do with it than the liturgy.
JR
O
otjm
Guest
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that studying history is a dry, unattached, uninvolved science. Living history isn’t. I am constantly amazed at people who grew up, say, in the 80’s and 90’s and have simply no clue whatsoever of how much, how radically, life and society changed in the post War years of the 50’s and through the utter chaos of the 60’s. One of my daughters took a history course on Viet Nam. I attended, wondering what I was walking into; and to my surprise it was a very even-handed discussion of what went on. Also dry, and totally removed from it.
I was there. I lived through the ruckus (and some of my friends didn’t), and I saw what it did to our society. I also grew up in an area that was pretty isolated; as liberal as Oregon is, in the 60’s it didn’t hold a candle to what was going on in San Francisco or other parts of the country.
Let me clue you in on something - the changes in the rubrics weren’t even a real big blip on the radar of what else was going on. People rolled with that punch and got on. A whole lot of people rejoiced in the vernacular; and I separate that off from the changes in the rubrics. Many were so overjoyed with the vernacular that they overlooked, or ignored, or tolerated the changes in the rubrics.
Did the chages cause some people to drop off? I have no doubt of it; was it the major cause?
Nope.
We didn’t have Planned Parenthood with an abortion clinic in your local neighborhood. We didn’t have Playboy front and center on the magazine rack. We didn’t have women’s magazines sitting next to the checkout counter, with models dressed more provocatively than your local street corner prostitute. We didn’t have a gay movement marching on Gay Pride Day. We didn’t have cloning, except in science fiction books. and in them, Dolly the Sheep could do strange and interesting things… Polyamory wasn’t even in the dictionary; now it is in your neighborhood. There was no crack; coke was a drink; and all the wonder drugs the lowlife manage in thier street corner pharmacy hand’t been invented. We didn’t have medical maijuana. Drug use was minimal compared to today’s standards. Kids didn’t get pregnant between 2 and 5 pm on school days (some did on the weekend after the football game, but the rates were way lower). Girls actually did make it to the altar as virgins - they weren’t rarities - and so did guys. Now we are not even sure that virginity is not a sign of a medical or psychological problem. We didn’t have sex education in schools; but we did have prayer.
You love the EF and that is good. The problem you have is that you are associating with people and articles that are narrow in terms of focus. The start of this thread was that pople are not flocking to the EF; the EF is not popping up everywhere and is not sweeping the populace by storm.
Part of that is simply that any change tends to take time. Part of that is that there simply has not been enough time for the MP to filter its way through the system (there is a process for appealing any denial of the EF, but what some don’t seem to realize is that Rome never has acted with alacrity). This whole thread is way too soon for any meaningful measurement of the popularity, or lack of popularity of the EF. That will take years to determine. Fewer years, if the groups of 50 and 100 don’t grow significantly; more years if it does continue to grow steadily.
O
otjm
Guest
Somewhat the same could be said of Poland. Poland took a more integrated approach to Vatican 2 and changes; the whole process was much more integrated and people were way more knowledgable about the documents and the changes than in the US or Europe.I believe that much of the decline in vocations and the number of Catholics at mass has more to do with decline in values in our highly materialistic and relativistic cultures. I believe that family life has much more to do with it than the liturgy.
JR
Mass attendance in Poland is off - but the fall off has been since they succeeded in getting out from under Communist domination. Since then, instead of a controlled economy, they now are experiencing a free market. Secualrism is now on the rise - in spite of the fact that secularism was the governement religion previously. Now it is being freely chosen - along with its attendant moral dissolution.
J
JReducation
Guest
It is obvious that the great saints had hit on something when they insisted on a life of prayer, asceticism, material poverty, detachment and life among the poor. In an ironic sort of way, it’s an environment that allows spiritual progress, while technological and economic progress moves more slowly.
I don’t think that the saint were against education and intellectual advancement, otherwise they would not have founded the great universities and schools that they have. Many of them were scholars and scientists in their own right. But they had a good sense of balance, which modern society lacks.
We confuse simplicity and detachment with hunger and deprivation. The saints taught us that there is a difference. The former is the check point that we need to stay on course with the Gospel. The latter is the fast track to losing oneself. The same goes with freedom, it’s abused.
I don’t think that the TLM is going to overcome those deficits in society over night. It may help some people, but I don’t believe that the answer is that simple. It may be a good beginning, only time will tell.
JR
- Status