Statistics on Latin Mass?

[Kevin12]

Another case of the ever-present false dichotomy.

I’m not going to even try arguing with you, since you are obviously convinced of your position and nothing I say will change that. I can only express that my personal impression of Christ’s message in the Gospels and my impression of the degree of traditionalists’ concern with the supposed abuses in the liturgy, and the fact that the two don’t seem to at all match up. I may simply be biased, either by my own culture or because the traditionalists I have observed are not representative of the overall community, but this is nevertheless my impression.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m not going to even try arguing with you, since you are obviously convinced of your position and nothing I say will change that. I can only express that my personal impression of Christ’s message in the Gospels and my impression of the degree of traditionalists’ concern with the supposed abuses in the liturgy, and the fact that the two don’t seem to at all match up. I may simply be biased, either by my own culture or because the traditionalists I have observed are not representative of the overall community, but this is nevertheless my impression.

Fair enough.

 

[sw85]

I think that we, including myself, need to be careful about using statistics. They can prove or disprove anything! We need to remember that and not create animosity between each other over stats.

Yes, we do need to be careful. I know this better than some since I work in the field. It’s not so much that stats can prove/disprove anything, but that they can be used wrongly very easily to that effect. A good example of this is Simpson’s paradox, as a result of which a contingency table can give two entirely different impressions about, for example, the racial distribution of capital punishment: for both black and white victims, black murderers are more likely to be executed than white murderers; but when you look at the data in aggregate without respect to the race of the victim, white murderers are more likely to be executed than black murderers.

All the stats that I have seen cite small but steady GROWTH in Catholic churches over the last few decades.

It depends in large part what metrics you look at and what qualifications you make of them. Suppose the Catholic population in Country X grows by 10% over a 50-year period. Well, that’s a good thing, right? But what if the overall population in Country X has grown by 30% over the same time period? Then what we have is a net loss.

It’s also possible to make trends look less bad by leaving out crucial context. For instance, the number of Catholic weddings is down slightly in the UK compared to a few decades ago, which looks worrisome but not necessarily bad. When you factor in that the Catholic population of the UK has grown substantially over that timeframe, well, it looks much worse: then the rate of Catholic weddings can be seen as pretty much collapsing.

And what’s even more important and exciting, many of those who join the Catholic Church are converts to Catholicism from other Christian sects, or are converts to Christianity from nothing or from a non-Christian religion! That’s really cool, and it demonstrates that Catholics are evangelizing! (Many of the Protestant denominations can cite growth, but it’s all “transfer” growth–Christians quit other Christian churches to join a new denomination.)

Sure, I don’t deny some are converting. Last I saw (no stats handy at the moment), though, the outflow is still greater than the inflow: more people are leaving Catholicism for other faiths than are entering it.

On the plus side, it seems like the people coming in are generally higher quality, e.g., for every Anne Rice we lose, we gain a Francis Beckwith. So even the outflow/inflow is greater than 1 (i.e., bad), there may be positive knock-on effects later on down the road.

You are just obfuscating the issue with a bad metaphor. Everything Christ ever said gives me the impression that he would have looked at traditionalists who are so obsessed with rituals and external appearances as going against the way he told people to live.

Again, I’m not really a traditionalist. My interest in this topic is more sociological than anything.

But let’s deal for a second with what Christ said re: the Pharisees. The Pharisees’ problem was not legalism. The law was given them to by Moses, after all, and Moses was beloved of God, and was a logical working-out of the Ten Commandments which were given directly by God. And there is a law built into the hearts of man (the natural law), and of course there’s civil law which Christ himself obeyed and which he and his apostles both enjoined us to obey, and there’s ecclesiastical law which enjoys higher priority than civil law. The Pharisees’ problem was loveless legalism. Their problem was that they elevated the law to an end in itself, rather than a means to the ultimate end of man, which is God. Hence they killed Jesus, who was God, in deference to the law which God gave them through Moses.

One of my favorite psalms is psalm 50 (in the Douay-Rheims, so I think 51 in the NABRE). There are two seemingly contradictory statements in it: “For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (verses 18-19), then immediately, “Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up. Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar” (verses 20-21). The best thing we can give to God is love and humility: only in that context are the other sacrifices we give him pleasing. But love and humility do not excuse us from the obligation to make those sacrifices.

All of this is to say that Christ did not abolish the law or the prophets, he fulfilled and perfected them. Catholics aren’t antinomians. Obedience to law and ritual matters, even if it isn’t sufficient (which I’m not arguing, so your attribution that that’s what motivates me is pretty baseless).

 

[sw85]

I linked an article that shows that the decline in the Church happened in other mainline Protestant sects, and that the supposed stability is due to the rise of Evangelicals.

Yes, I made that argument earlier, as well. I don’t know why you think it supports your point. If the argument on offer here is that the decline in Catholicism is due to generic “secularism,” then we have to ask (a) why it took so long to take effect, since secularism has been around for nearly two centuries now, (b) why it took effect so suddenly, and (c) why it affected Catholics uniquely the way that it did.

The reason it’s meaningful to look at Protestants in aggregate and not by denomination is that “secularism” doesn’t explain why a person would quit being Episcopalian to become a Baptist. It doesn’t make sense. Protestants didn’t stop being Protestants, they just stopped being mainline Protestants and became a different (more muscular) kind of Protestant. Catholics, on the other hand, in disproportionately large numbers, either (a) stopped being Catholics or (b) stopped acting like Catholics. The timing is a little weirdly precise.

Furthermore, I have never been in a Church without a confessional, and I strongly doubt there were any alters smashed with sledgehammers - for someone who claims not to be a traditionalist, you certainly have their flair for hyperbole.

You’ve literally never been in a church that didn’t have confessional booths? I’ve been in maybe three that did.

You really doubt high altars were destroyed? You know wall altars were the norm before the Council, right? How many have you seen lately? How many altar rails have you seen lately? Etc.?

But as I said, I think this is pointless. I’ve trads (they use this term themselves) want to believe that Mass attendance is down because people perceive the Church as being too liberal, they can go ahead and do so. But since the Church has many other and I think more pressing crises on its hands than people shaking hands with non-family members after the consecration (for example), I hope they won’t begrudge the Church taking care of those first.

Are you addressing me with this? I ask this because you’re quoting me while writing it but it has no obvious correlation to anything I’ve said.

 

[YoungTradCath]

All of this is to say that Christ did not abolish the law or the prophets, he fulfilled and perfected them. Catholics aren’t antinomians. Obedience to law and ritual matters, even if it isn’t sufficient (which I’m not arguing, so your attribution that that’s what motivates me is pretty baseless).

This is the crux of the matter and sums up things quite well. I think you might be interested in a talk given by HE Cardinal Burke at a priests’ retreat. One of the given topics is, “[The] misconception that the discipline in Canon Law is somehow antithetical to pastoral considerations.”

youtube.com/watch?v=LJTEyNGkbsM

Furthermore, about ritual and obeying the law not being sufficient for a Christian life. Here you have essentially said what many of us have been saying all along, “Don’t make a false dichotomy,” in a different way. Ritual, law and living a Christian life in spirit are all essential.

 

[Kevin12]

Again, I’m not really a traditionalist. My interest in this topic is more sociological than anything.

But let’s deal for a second with what Christ said re: the Pharisees. The Pharisees’ problem was not legalism. The law was given them to by Moses, after all, and Moses was beloved of God, and was a logical working-out of the Ten Commandments which were given directly by God. And there is a law built into the hearts of man (the natural law), and of course there’s civil law which Christ himself obeyed and which he and his apostles both enjoined us to obey, and there’s ecclesiastical law which enjoys higher priority than civil law. The Pharisees’ problem was loveless legalism. Their problem was that they elevated the law to an end in itself, rather than a means to the ultimate end of man, which is God. Hence they killed Jesus, who was God, in deference to the law which God gave them through Moses.

One of my favorite psalms is psalm 50 (in the Douay-Rheims, so I think 51 in the NABRE). There are two seemingly contradictory statements in it: “For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (verses 18-19), then immediately, “Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up. Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar” (verses 20-21). The best thing we can give to God is love and humility: only in that context are the other sacrifices we give him pleasing. But love and humility do not excuse us from the obligation to make those sacrifices.

All of this is to say that Christ did not abolish the law or the prophets, he fulfilled and perfected them. Catholics aren’t antinomians. Obedience to law and ritual matters, even if it isn’t sufficient (which I’m not arguing, so your attribution that that’s what motivates me is pretty baseless).

Surely you must have anticipated that I would mention this, indeed I’m surprised you haven’t dealt with it preemptively. Matthew 15:7-15

Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

8d ‘This people honors me with their lips,*

but their hearts are far from me;

9e in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”

10f He summoned the crowd and said to them, “Hear and understand. 11It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.” 12Then his disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” 13 He said in reply,* “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit.” 15Then Peter* said to him in reply, “Explain [this] parable to us.” 16 He said to them, “Are even you still without understanding? 17Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine? 18h But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile. 19* For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.

So here he is indeed saying, “The obligations of the law in this case are not important as people think, and indeed to many they are a stumbling block to faith.” It’s not about “loveless legalism” its just about legalism. Following the rubrics is all well and good, but in the end, rubrics are just a concession to human weakness that desires such things. Christ fulfilled a lot of the law by pointing out that it had been given to the Israelites not by God but by Moses, to appease the hardness of their hearts.

As to your own position, when you spoke of how you would have joined an SSPX-like organization had you converted in a different age gave me plenty of reason to believe that the letter of the law, if it isn’t the only thing you value, is what you prioritize, since that is what that organization values, even above the living Magisterium.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Surely you must have anticipated that I would mention this, indeed I’m surprised you haven’t dealt with it preemptively. Matthew 15:7-15

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The fidelity of Jesus to the authentic Mosaic Law is an article of faith. IOW, it must be believed (says the Church, not I) to identify as Catholic. Dietary and Sabbath supplements to that Law were appended near the time of Jesus by Pharisees in a religious and political battle with the Levites for recognition as authority figures. It was those inauthentic addenda which Jesus opposed. As members of a group which lacked the authoirty of the priestly caste (the Levites), the Pharisees sought to establish their own authority by demonstrating vigorous fidelity, which included additions to the original Mosaic code.

You have no basis for insinuating, let alone stating, that the poster sw85 has sought a Pharisaical (in this context) approach to Catholicism, which somehow replaces inauthentic law with authentic moral and spiritual fidelity.

 

[sw85]

Surely you must have anticipated that I would mention this, indeed I’m surprised you haven’t dealt with it preemptively. Matthew 15:7-15

Unless your intent is to argue that this is a bad translation, it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says. He is not objecting to adherence to the law but that they do so while their “hearts are far from” him. This is why he calls them “hypocrites” and not “lawyers” – it’s not what they’re doing that’s bad, it’s what’s lacking in what they’re doing.

As to your own position, when you spoke of how you would have joined an SSPX-like organization had you converted in a different age gave me plenty of reason to believe that the letter of the law, if it isn’t the only thing you value, is what you prioritize, since that is what that organization values, even above the living Magisterium.

I didn’t say I “would have.” Go back and read what I actually wrote, giving careful consideration to the words of others instead of trying to cram them into categories you can easily dismiss. I said it’s easy for us to judge people who lived through what we didn’t have to live through, and that I can’t say (in their position, with their experiences, with their level of understanding, in their circumstances) that I might not have done the same thing. Hence why I said “If I had lived in that time, I don’t know what I would’ve done.” Because as easy as it is for us to look down from the high road of history and shower scorn on those who came before us, we do so at our peril – who knows how our own children will judge us?

At any rate, why do you feel the need to shift the topic of conversation from the subject at hand to the faults (real or imagined) of its participants? If you have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion, why not simply stop contributing? Why do you feel the need to react with this kind of gratuitously personal sniping? It is a strange species of “charity,” indeed, that obliges us to refrain from dry sociological analyses of recent Church history while enabling us to indulge in unseemly speculations about the hearts and intentions of strangers.

 

[ProVobis]

In England the Mass started to be celebrated in the vernacular on the first Sunday of Advent in the year of Our Lord 1964 .

About the time the work of the ICEL was underway to “fix” the language, which is still being fixed.

 

[otjm]

If you think the Gallup data is inaccurate, why cite it at me? The paper I cited earlier uses Gallup data as a base and makes adjustments for its innate inaccuracies.

For starters, the Gallup poll is the only one that appears to have the length of data.

And as noted, I have not been able to find your revision (although I have read CARA’s critique of the Gallup poll).

And if you want to cite your revision, you should know enough statistics to know that it is at best an estimate of what Gallup should look like if Gallup had formulated better questions.

I am reasonably comfortable that CARA has used good techniques in polling, and they don’t try to say their polls mean anything more than what the data shows.

What it shows is a slight decline in the 50s (essentially regression to the mean after the local maximum of Mass attendance in the mid-to-late 50s), then a sharper decline beginning right around 1970. The effect is really quite profound: for U.S. Catholics, approximately 53% Mass attendance rate in 1969; by 1979, down to maybe 33% (and a very similar rate for English/Welsh Catholics).

somebody is playing games with numbers. If they are taking the Gallup poll and modifying it to correct inherent over-reporting, then they need to correct your 1969 number of 59% (which is about what the Gallup poll shows); either that or they cannot correct a later number to some 33% (as Gallup shows about 51 or 52% in 1979. Correct both, or don’t correct either.

And as noted, I still cannot find your article and poll.

Your argument is interesting, though. If things started getting bad immediately after the imposition of the OF, the hypothesis “the imposition of the OF is at least partly responsible” would seem to imply that things would continue to get bad or at least stay bad afterward, since the problems caused by the circumstances of the imposition of the OF (i.e., poor oversight, crummy translations, liturgical abuse) were not corrected for several decades after. Your argument seems to be that the imposition of the OF can’t be responsible because things continued to get bad at a pretty steady pace afterward, which is… odd. You realize that even an average yearly loss of 1% sustained over 40 years is pretty appalling, right? That if you project that trend forward indefinitely the proportion of Mass-going Catholics will necessarily converge with 0?

Of course I realize it is appalling. What amazes me is there is no evidence presented of a clear drop off.

There any numnber of issues at play with the drop off. Among others is the breakdown of the extended family, which started in earnest after WW2, when movements of family units gained far more traction than it had prior to the war. Little mentioned, but as secularism spread further and further (and where did part of that impetus come from? - The GI Bill sent untold numbers to school beyond the high school level and into the world of the secularist colleges and universities) and the extended family lost its members to the nuclear family physically far away. The extended family was no longer there to keep people in line.

I am a baby boomer, and so are my cousins. I have seen the difference there as opposed to the prior generation. Cousins moved out of the small, Catholic communities their parents grew up in, and the farther they went, the more they tended to drift.

I ahve seen the loss of solid catechesis, and what surprises me is not the continued losses, but that the losses have not been greater.

However, if you look at CARA’s statistics to Mass attendance by generational groups, it is clear that the statistics will continue to go down. Benedict was right; we will become a remnant Church.

And all the hooey bout how the change in the Mass caused such a massive exodus - who was it who was leaving? Those who truly believed their faith? Sorry, I am not going to buy that - first because of its patent illogic; and second, because of my life experiences. People who left were weak in their faith, and it was not the number of bows and genuflections no longer made in Mass; it was not about the loss of Latin; it was not CITH; it was not the music. It was the sexual revolution; the introduction of the Pill, it was the massive disobedience of the 80+ theologians and priests who signed the ad arguing against Humanae Vitae; and it was a raft of other issues that gradually picked off Catholics from attending Mass. Whether they actually believed that the rules had changed, or they used that excuse to salve their conscience, they left because their lifestyle did not fit with what the Church has always taught.

Traditionalists like to posit that people were so disturbed by the changes in the Mass that they left in large groups. So where did they go, if they were so attached to the EF? To the Episcopalians? The high Lutherans? No, not likely. And if they were such committed Catholics, why would they leave the Eucharist? These are questions that fly in the face of the urban myth.

I was there. I am still in the Church. I have seen how the losses occurred. And for every one of the baby boomers who dropped out, as secularism became stronger and stronger in the public forum, more of their children dropped out; and more of their children dropped out. For those who are dismissive of the OF, it would emotionally support their feelings for the EF to say that the OF is the cause of such a drop off of attendance. But as much as certain groups beat the drum against the OF, it does not fit with the reality.

 

[Cat]

(part of post deleted due to space limitations)
And all the hooey bout how the change in the Mass caused such a massive exodus - who was it who was leaving? Those who truly believed their faith? Sorry, I am not going to buy that - first because of its patent illogic; and second, because of my life experiences. People who left were weak in their faith, and it was not the number of bows and genuflections no longer made in Mass; it was not about the loss of Latin; it was not CITH; it was not the music. It was the sexual revolution; the introduction of the Pill, it was the massive disobedience of the 80+ theologians and priests who signed the ad arguing against Humanae Vitae; and it was a raft of other issues that gradually picked off Catholics from attending Mass. Whether they actually believed that the rules had changed, or they used that excuse to salve their conscience, they left because their lifestyle did not fit with what the Church has always taught.

Traditionalists like to posit that people were so disturbed by the changes in the Mass that they left in large groups. So where did they go, if they were so attached to the EF? To the Episcopalians? The high Lutherans? No, not likely. And if they were such committed Catholics, why would they leave the Eucharist? These are questions that fly in the face of the urban myth.

I was there. I am still in the Church. I have seen how the losses occurred. And for every one of the baby boomers who dropped out, as secularism became stronger and stronger in the public forum, more of their children dropped out; and more of their children dropped out. For those who are dismissive of the OF, it would emotionally support their feelings for the EF to say that the OF is the cause of such a drop off of attendance. But as much as certain groups beat the drum against the OF, it does not fit with the reality.

Amen to this post.

Many of the people who were key to helping my husband and I decide to convert to Catholicism were the OLD FOLKS. These people had stuck with the Church through all post-Vatican II upheavals, music snafus, political conflicts, and all the rest. THAT impressed us. We knew that this Church must be the Real Deal if people didn’t just walk away when things didn’t go their way.

BTW, we’ve asked many of these people if they would like to see the Church return to the Latin Mass. Almost all say no, although they would be happy to see a few things returned; mainly traditions like singing the Lord’s Prayer and kneeling at a rail to receive Holy Communion. Many of these people are neutral when it comes to Mass music; in fact, many of them sing in the choir at our parish, and contemporary music (not rock) is done frequently, and they all like it. But they also like Latin pieces.

Most of these people are the ones who have regular Holy Hours, who attend the parish missions, who regularly prayed at the abortion clinic (until it closed!), who attend the conferences when they are held near our city, who are involved with a parish Bible study or prayer group, and who do at least one ministry during the Mass (usher, sacristan, lector, cantor, etc.). In other words, they live out their Christianity joyously and infectiously!

It seems to me that there is only so much time, and that means we have to choose our “battles.” It seems to me that these Christians have chosen well.

These are the kind of Christians I want to be. Loving, open-minded (but not so open-minded that their brains leak out), evangelism-minded, well-informed, and actively involved in ministries inside and outside of the parish. They know which battles are important, and to them, the battles for and against the two Mass forms are not important.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Many of these people are neutral when it comes to Mass music;

I doubt that they’re “neutral,” because

in fact, many of them sing in the choir at our parish, and contemporary music (not rock) is done frequently, and they all like it. But they also like Latin pieces.

The fact that they
~sing in the choir
~sing contemporary (religious) music which is probably reverent & appropriate (not rock)
~like the Latin pieces too

is evidence that they are not “neutral” when it comes to music. They see the relationship of music to Mass, and seem to be discriminating. Just because they are flexible and not opinionated does not mean that they are “neutral.”

Most of these people are the ones who have regular Holy Hours, who attend the parish missions, who regularly prayed at the abortion clinic (until it closed!), who attend the conferences when they are held near our city, who are involved with a parish Bible study or prayer group, and who do at least one ministry during the Mass (usher, sacristan, lector, cantor, etc.). In other words, they live out their Christianity joyously and infectiously!

IOW, they are atypical of modern Catholics. Because none of that computes with the trends within parishes since V2, including today.

It seems to me that there is only so much time, and that means we have to choose our “battles.” It seems to me that these Christians have chosen well.

(1) I certainly agree that it’s important to choose battles (and also in secular life, particularly when it comes to elections, but also when it comes to our jobs, friendships, and family life).

(2) Be careful of assuming (unless you’ve asked them, maybe you have) that they are delighted with all the changes in emphases within the Church, since V2. Their accommodation to those changes is essentially the only option for any Catholic who observes many of the changes in emphases & application to be in some respects, gutting what distinguishes Catholicism from other Christian sects. Catholicism is not merely the difference between a Protestant communion ritual and the actual Eucharist. It is 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition, all of which has a context and effect.

Yes, the Gospel is good news. Yes, it is said that personal, infectious joy is an outward sign of the effects of grace. But the false dichotomy which is too often the subtext, since V2, is that reverence = sadness, that prayer = a rejection of the world, and that a desire for tradition = escape. (That does touch on the Latin Mass theme.) Neither Latin nor tradition excludes any of the “infectious joy” and visible commitment which you describe.

These are the kind of Christians I want to be. Loving, open-minded (but not so open-minded that their brains leak out), evangelism-minded, well-informed, and actively involved in ministries inside and outside of the parish. They know which battles are important, and to them, the battles for and against the two Mass forms are not important.

Again, be careful of assuming a mutual exclusivity. Some will continue to “battle for Latin” for reasons which are directly related to “the kind of Christians [you want others and you] to be.” For them, the Latin Mass promoted and promotes the journey toward personal sanctity, without which all the activism in the world is merely socal work.

 

[Ghislieri]

“The liturgical renewal in its concrete application is straying ever further away from its origin. The result is not renewal, but devastation.”
[Cardinal Ratzinger in his Foreword to Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book ‘‘La Reforme’’ (1992)]

"In this way, in fact, the impression has arisen that the liturgy is made, that it is not something that exists before us, something given, but that it depends on our decisions. It follows as a consequence that this decision-making capacity is not recognized only in specialists or in a central authority, but that, in the final analysis, each community wants to give itself its own liturgy. But when the liturgy is something each one makes by himself, then it no longer gives us what is its true quality: encounter with the mystery which is not our product but our origin and the wellspring of our life …

I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?" [Cardinal Ratzinger: “From My Life: Remembrances1927-1977” (1997)]

 

[Elizabeth502]

“The liturgical renewal in its concrete application is straying ever further away from its origin. The result is not renewal, but devastation.”
[Cardinal Ratzinger in his Foreword to Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book ‘‘La Reforme’’ (1992)]

In that respect, I think this part is particularly relevant to today:

each community wants to give itself its own liturgy. But when the liturgy is something each one makes by himself, then it no longer gives us what is its true quality: encounter with the mystery which is not our product …
But if in the liturgy **the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?" **[Cardinal Ratzinger: “From My Life: Remembrances1927-1977” (1997)]

[My own bolding in [COLOR=“Blue”]blue]

One thing which used to distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism was this universality – vs. ‘the church on the corner.’ It may have been on a corner, indeed (usually was). However, the shift in emphasis, to “my parish community and gee, look how differently we do things from the parish 10 blocks away” is not a core feature of Catholicism. A single common ecclesial language, regularly included in every parish, both supports and symbolizes universality. There is a mutuality between liturgical form and belief, between practice and understanding. Human beings are symbol-dependent in many respects, even when we are not aware of that.

 

[Ghislieri]

“In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, **leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine **concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, **it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. **Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this?
…
It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction **against ‘formalism’ has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the ‘forms’ chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.” **[Pope John-Paul II: Encyclical letter “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, 2003]

 

[Cat]

I doubt that they’re “neutral,” because

The fact that they
~sing in the choir
~sing contemporary (religious) music which is probably reverent & appropriate (not rock)
~like the Latin pieces too

is evidence that they are not “neutral” when it comes to music. They see the relationship of music to Mass, and seem to be discriminating. Just because they are flexible and not opinionated does not mean that they are “neutral.”

IOW, they are atypical of modern Catholics. Because none of that computes with the trends within parishes since V2, including today.

(1) I certainly agree that it’s important to choose battles (and also in secular life, particularly when it comes to elections, but also when it comes to our jobs, friendships, and family life).

(2) Be careful of assuming (unless you’ve asked them, maybe you have) that they are delighted with all the changes in emphases within the Church, since V2. Their accommodation to those changes is essentially the only option for any Catholic who observes many of the changes in emphases & application to be in some respects, gutting what distinguishes Catholicism from other Christian sects. Catholicism is not merely the difference between a Protestant communion ritual and the actual Eucharist. It is 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition, all of which has a context and effect.

Yes, the Gospel is good news. Yes, it is said that personal, infectious joy is an outward sign of the effects of grace. But the false dichotomy which is too often the subtext, since V2, is that reverence = sadness, that prayer = a rejection of the world, and that a desire for tradition = escape. (That does touch on the Latin Mass theme.) Neither Latin nor tradition excludes any of the “infectious joy” and visible commitment which you describe.

Again, be careful of assuming a mutual exclusivity. Some will continue to “battle for Latin” for reasons which are directly related to “the kind of Christians [you want others and you] to be.” For them, the Latin Mass promoted and promotes the journey toward personal sanctity, without which all the activism in the world is merely socal work.

I can agree with many statements in your post except for one: When it comes to the devotional practices that I described my fellow Catholics doing (Adoration, Bible study, etc), you say “they are atypical of modern Catholics. Because none of that computes with the trends within parishes since V2, including today.”

I think that’s quite an audacious statement to make, unless you are in a position that has given you access to thousands of different parishes across the U.S. (and world, too).

I have several good friends who attend the Latin Mass parish in our city, and I agree with you that they are definitely not joyless. They’re great examples of “infectious Catholicism.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

you say “they are atypical of modern Catholics. Because none of that computes with the trends within parishes since V2, including today.”

I think that’s quite an audacious statement to make, unless you are in a position that has given you access to thousands of different parishes across the U.S. (and world, too).

I guess I could throw that same challenge to you . Do you have evidence that most parishes have devotions, Adoration, adult Scripture Study, rosaries, and even (traditional) prayer opportunities & groups? Exactly one does have everything of that (in my region). A second has much, but not all, of that. All the others have none of it. And I’m talking about my huge metropolitan region, most parishes in which, yes, I have visited.

I will add to that the comments of the majority of CAF posters who report similar trends in their different regions, and similar comments on various websites representing various regions. Traditionalist parishes (in that sense, and which are not schismatic parishes also) are the exception, not the rule. I doubt very much that a statistical study, either in the U.S. or worldwide, would contradict that conclusion.

 

[crazzeto]

Hello there everyone,

I just saw that Cardinal Lehmann of Germany is against having more Masses in the Extraordinary Form. At the “Eucharistic Congress” in Cologne, he told the local news “I have the feeling that all the enthusiasm, including for Latin, has much to do with prestige and the false pretending of a certain cultural elite”. He believes “an increased side-by-side existence of the two liturgical forms does not make sense, partly because it didn’t grow from the ground up” (I assume he means there was no big demand among the laity) and that “development is leading towards the renewed Mass”.

That prompted me to find some information on how the use of the Extraordinary Form has developed around the world, especially in the Western world. Does anyone know whether there are statistics on this? For example, what’s Mass attendance like, how many parishes are offering this Form, is it growing, etc.?

I’d be very grateful for any help you can provide. God bless.

Pope Benedict XVI directed all priests and Bishops to offer the EF when there was demand. In his letter stating this, he cited the reasoning for taking the initial work of John Paul II further as being great demand for the EF, not among older believers pining for a bygone era, but rather from young Christians who never would have experienced EF to begin with.

I can’t comment on the situation confronting the Bishop, though I do disagree sharply with his assessment of the EF and those who desire it. But the Holy Father was looking at the situation world wide, and it would seem that when one takes the view from the universal church, not the local church, then the situation is 180 degrees from what this German Bishop suggested.

 

[october_baby]

Indianapolis has one Latin Mass church that I plan on attending.

 

[Cat]

I guess I could throw that same challenge to you . Do you have evidence that most parishes have devotions, Adoration, adult Scripture Study, rosaries, and even (traditional) prayer opportunities & groups? Exactly one does have everything of that (in my region). A second has much, but not all, of that. All the others have none of it. And I’m talking about my huge metropolitan region, most parishes in which, yes, I have visited.

I will add to that the comments of the majority of CAF posters who report similar trends in their different regions, and similar comments on various websites representing various regions. Traditionalist parishes (in that sense, and which are not schismatic parishes also) are the exception, not the rule. I doubt very much that a statistical study, either in the U.S. or worldwide, would contradict that conclusion.

No, of course I don’t have evidence. I am not in a position to monitor many different parishes around the U.S… I know only the parishes in my city (pop 150,000), and they are vibrant and active.

We can’t take anecdotal information as evidence of a nationwide or world-wide trend. CAF has a large number of members, but it is still a very tiny segment of the total Catholic population. And many of the members never post, and never read any of the forums, so we have no idea what is happening in their neck of the woods.

Frankly, I’m guessing that those Catholics who are most active in their parish and in their communities don’t spend a lot of time posting on an internet forum. I know I spend way too much time here. (I’ve been here a lot today because I had an allergic reaction yesterday and was kind of lazy and sleepy today due to the meds.)

My suggestion to those who live in a floundering area is to pray hard and work even harder to change things! Easier said than done, I know.