Synod of Bishops

[stmaria]

There is currently a post stating that there is no interest in the Traditional Mass and a claim that seminaries for the Ordinary Form are full and Churches are overflowing every Sunday.The following is why we need the Traditional Mass and why Pope Benedict believes the Church also needs it.

SYNOD OF BISHOPS
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY October 2005
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

, from 1978 to 2003, in the number of Catholics in relation to the number of priests, that is, one priest for every 1,797 Catholics in 1978 to one priest for every 2,677 Catholics in 2003…, in Europe, there is one priest for every 1,386 Catholics; in Africa, one for every 4,723 Catholics; in America, one for every 4,453; in Asia, one for every 2,407; and in Oceania, one for every 1,746.7 In the same period, the permanent deaconate also witnessed a strong development with the overall number of deacons multiplying over 15 times or having a relative increase of 466.7%.
6. … In some cases, the percentage of those who participate at Sunday Mass is as low as 5%. Generally speaking, the faithful who neglect to attend Mass on Sundays do not consider participating at Mass important in their life.
7. Certain particular Churches are witnessing a significant decline in the practice of the faith and participation at Mass, prevalently among the young.
….In many countries, persons have lost, or are gradually losing, an awareness that conversion is necessary for receiving the Eucharist. Its connection with the Sacrament of Penance is not always understood, e.g., the necessity of being in the state of grace before receiving Holy Communion. As a result, the obligation of confessing mortal sins is forgotten…Certainly, thought needs to be given to the great disproportion between the many who receive Holy Communion and the few who go to confession. The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion, without even thinking that they might be in the state of mortal sin…Neglect of prayer, contemplation and adoration of the Eucharistic mystery has weakened the sense of the sacred in relation to this great Sacrament.
This situation can lead to compromising the truth of Catholic teaching concerning the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, traditionally called transubstantiation. It can also threaten faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
34. No one doubts the great effects resulting from the liturgical renewal prompted by the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the post-conciliar liturgy has greatly fostered the active, conscious and fruitful participation of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. Nevertheless, responses coming from various countries note some deficiencies and shadows in the celebration of the Eucharist on the part of both the clergy and the faithful, which seem to have their origin in a weakened sense of the sacred in the SacramentCertain actions which challenge a sense of the sacred, often mentioned in the Lineamenta responses, can be of assistance in treating the subject, for example, a neglect by the celebrant and the ministers to use proper liturgical vestments and the participants’ lack of befitting dress for Mass; the use of profane music in Church; the tacit consent to eliminate certain liturgical gestures thought to be** too traditional**, such as genuflexion before the Blessed Sacrament; an inadequate catechesis for Communion in the hand and its improper distribution; a lack of reverence before, during and after the celebration of Holy Mass, not only by the laity but also the celebrant; the scant architectural and artistic quality of sacred buildings and sacred vessels.
40. Some Lineamenta responses, however, mention that, at times, a certain way of acting indicates that transubstantiation and the Real Presence are understood in a symbolic sense only. Many responses noted that some celebrants at the liturgy seem more like showmen, who must draw people’s attention to themselves, instead of servants of Christ, called to conduct the faithful to union with him.
It is worth considering whether the removal of the tabernacle from the centre of the sanctuary to an obscure, undignified corner or to a separate chapel, or whether to have placed the celebrant’s chair in the centre of the sanctuary or in front of the tabernacle—as was done in many renovations of older churches and in new constructions—has contributed in some way to a decrease in faith in the Real Presence

 

[pnewton]

Okay, I see the point of the document, including increased catechisis for receiving communion in the hand, but where in this does it mention these issues, the TLM and the relationship between the two?

 

[pnewton]

I found this statement interesting:

Nevertheless, difficulties abound when attempts are made to put these principles into action. Two major risks are falling into archaism or seeking modernity at all costs. What is necessary in the process is never to forget the goal of the Church’s mission, namely, the evangelization of all peoples in their cultural settings. Inculturation, then, is not simply adaptation but a dynamic encounter between the culture of a certain place and the culture which comes from the Gospel.

I noticed both extremes are given due consideration. I think it is essential for the sake of unity in the Church that we acknowledge our differences and attempt to be a little more gracious with each other where these differences exist. For example, I know why I am not attracted to the TLM and can quantify it. My culture and background is not Catholic, but hard core bible-thumping Baptist. Before I converted, in an attempt to avoid conversion, I made it a strong point not to be swayed by liturgy. I read apologist on both sides and I found that some people really did convert out of a nostalgic yearning for a Middle Ages type liturgy. Not to put any one down, but that is simply not me. My reasons where a logical sense of what is right and wrong and an attempt to embrace the truth at all cost. Therefore, I made it a point not to be swayed by liturgical trappings. Once I made the decision to become Catholic, obviously I embraced the liturgical traditions, but I am still a product of my culture and prefer the liturgy in my parish.

Likewise, I am overjoyed that the Holy Father has reached out with a broadening of the TLM. For the same reason I do not find an attraction there, I know that many do. I want all Catholics to be as pleased with their liturgy as I am with mine. I just hope the priest and bishops follow in line.

 

[stmaria]

Okay, I see the point of the document, including increased catechisis for receiving communion in the hand, but where in this does it mention these issues, the TLM and the relationship between the two?

The relationship between this survey and the TLM is the obvious fact that every Bishop that would have responded is one where his parishes are those that celebrate the New Mass and not the Traditional Mass.
I can guarantee you that if a survey was done by a Bishop that was associated with the TLM environment he would find just the opposite.
The traditional seminaries are growing, 100% would say they believe in the Real Presence, Eucharistic adoration is high, reverence for the Mass,no profane music,weekly confession,in other words all the things that make a Catholic a Catholic. There must be a relationship between the survey and the way one worships.

 

[SFD]

The relationship between this survey and the TLM is the obvious fact that every Bishop that would have responded is one where his parishes are those that celebrate the New Mass and not the Traditional Mass.
I can guarantee you that if a survey was done by a Bishop that was associated with the TLM environment he would find just the opposite.
The traditional seminaries are growing, 100% would say they believe in the Real Presence, Eucharistic adoration is high, reverence for the Mass,no profane music,weekly confession,in other words all the things that make a Catholic a Catholic. There must be a relationship between the survey and the way one worships.

stmaria,

This is an interesting observation.

Also, I find this statement a bit curious:

Two major risks are falling into archaism or seeking modernity at all costs.

Except archaism is what was appealed to bring in the modernity in the first place! This was specifically addressed by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

Rejecting modernism to return to the pre-V2 liturgy and sacraments in hardly archaism! It is deceptive to make this claim.

SFD

 

[SFD]

stmaria:

I can guarantee you that if a survey was done by a Bishop that was associated with the TLM environment he would find just the opposite.

Where could one find such a Bishop? Just curious.

 

[pnewton]

The relationship between this survey and the TLM is the obvious fact that every Bishop that would have responded is one where his parishes are those that celebrate the New Mass and not the Traditional Mass…

Now that’s not fair. If the document doesn’t address the relationship with the TLM then it can not be used to imply anything at all in regards to the TLM. This is nothing more than one big begging of the question. Also, it extremely unfair to count every nominal fallen away Catholic in a survey against one group and only active attendees in another group, then compare them.

 

[stmaria]

Now that’s not fair. If the document doesn’t address the relationship with the TLM then it can not be used to imply anything at all in regards to the TLM. This is nothing more than one big begging of the question. Also, it extremely unfair to count every nominal fallen away Catholic in a survey against one group and only active attendees in another group, then compare them.

Why isn’t it fair? The number of diocese that allow the TLM compared to those that have the Ordinary Form is miniscule. This survey reflects what is happening at the Masses of the Ordinary Form.
Nominal fallen away Catholics aren’t going to Church so they are not part of this survey.
If it weren’t for those who are fortunate enough to attend reverent, respectiful Masses of the Ordinary Form this survey would have been even worse.
I beg the Bishops to survey the congregatons that have weekly Traditional Masses. Let’s see what their beliefs are compared to those who attend the Ordinary Form.

 

[pnewton]

Nominal fallen away Catholics aren’t going to Church so they are not part of this survey.

I don’t know where you get that idea from. The survey reported Mass attendence in some parts was as low as 5%. Yet you say, without eveidence, that Catholics that aren’t going to Church are not included. How can this be? In any case, there is no reference to the TLM in the document. The idea that the negative numbers are a result of not having the TLM is simply unsubstantiated. Again, you are only beggin the question. The numbers are only significant in regards to the TLM if you already presuppose that the TLM is an issue.

 

[Arnobius]

That does not follow that only TLM dioceses have positive responses however. I have certainly seen Ordinary Form parishes that do encourage the proper understanding.

The logical structure of the argument is::

1. *]There are few faithful parishes
   *]There are few TLM parishes
   *]Therefore the few faithful parishes are TLM parishes
   
   The problem is there is nothing to allow you to assume that faithful is synonymous with TLM. If a TLM is focussing on externals or if a Ordinary Form parish is faithful these would be exclusions to your reasoning.
   
   All one can conclude by this report is the attitude of the priest and the atmosphere can be helpful or harmful to the understanding of the faithful, and cannot be used to justify a specific form of rite.

 

[SFD]

That does not follow that only TLM dioceses have positive responses however. I have certainly seen Ordinary Form parishes that do encourage the proper understanding.

The logical structure of the argument is::

1. *]There are few faithful parishes
   *]There are few TLM parishes
   *]Therefore the few faithful parishes are TLM parishes
   
   The problem is there is nothing to allow you to assume that faithful is synonymous with TLM. If a TLM is focussing on externals or if a Ordinary Form parish is faithful these would be exclusions to your reasoning.
   
   All one can conclude by this report is the attitude of the priest and the atmosphere can be helpful or harmful to the understanding of the faithful, and cannot be used to justify a specific form of rite.

1. 
   The new Mass and sacraments reflect a new ecclesiology. This was stated very clearly by the innovators who gave us the NOM and updated sacraments.
   
   The TLM reflects the old (or constant) ecclesiology…and it is well known that as we pray, we believe. The prayers were changed to reflect this “new way of thinking” and it created a “new way of believing”. The protestant reformers did the very same thing.
   
   To deny this is to deny fact. It is a fact that the removal of the so-called “negative theology” from the prayers of the propers of the Mass changed the way the “man in the pew” believes…that is of course, the ones who did not flee it altogether.
   
   The destruction that V2 wrought is really unknown to the younger Catholics…they have no idea what has been lost.
   
   SFD

 

[pnewton]

The new Mass and sacraments reflect a new ecclesiology. This was stated very clearly by the innovators who gave us the NOM and updated sacraments.

I did not get that from this document. Would you mind showing where if says or infers this?

 

[SFD]

I did not get that from this document. Would you mind showing where if says or infers this?

Why would you think it was in that document? This all happened in the few years after V2…have you ever read any of the comments of those who gave us the NOM? The comments of members of the consilium?

I’ll find them for you if you need help.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Why would you think it was in that document? This all happened in the few years after V2…have you ever read any of the comments of those who gave us the NOM? The comments of members of the consilium?

I’ll find them for you if you need help.

SFD

Because that is what we are discussing in this thread. I do not need any old comments or rhetoric. We were discussing *this official *Church document. The claim was made that it was reflective of problems with the current of Mass. If you are going off with other thoughts and trying to tie into this Church document, then again you point out that only those who already believe the TLM is better for the Church than the current Mass will see this document as significant in relation to the TLM.

Begging the question once again.

 

[SFD]

pnewton:

I do not need any old comments or rhetoric. We were discussing this official Church document.

Of course you don’t, pnewton…because you’ve already made up your mind. I was not discussing that document…I brought up some implications of what was said in the document.

No, there’s no “begging the question”…you’re just dodging the question. What are you afraid of?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Okay, I see the point of the document, including increased catechisis for receiving communion in the hand, but where in this does it mention these issues, the TLM and the relationship between the two?

pnewton,

Again, why do you insist that the document must address the TLM specifically and dismiss those who make some observations about the document. These inferences and observations are logical…why can’t you just address them?

SFD

 

[pnewton]

These inferences and observations are logical…why can’t you just address them?

I was posting only because of the lack of logic. For example:

“To deny this is to deny fact. It is a fact that the removal of the so-called “negative theology” from the prayers of the propers of the Mass changed the way the “man in the pew” believes…that is of course, the ones who did not flee it altogether.”

What kind of “fact” is this? Mathmatical, logical syllogism, empirical observatin? There is no proof of logical causality. This is not a fact but rhetoric. Now I have addressed it and shown why I consider it sloppy logic. I can give other examples of jumping to wrong conclusions if you want.

For example:
“Of course you don’t, pnewton…because you’ve already made up your mind.”

“What are you afraid of?”

I am not afraid of anythng here or anyone here. I do not post here out of any sense of fear and I have frequently had opinions formed here. My motivation on this particular thread is because it was started from another thread. The document was used as if it was pro-TLM evidence, when in fact I find nothing in it to indicate that, unless one is already convinced of the evil of Vatican II.

 

[Arnobius]

Actually SFD, you are indeed begging the question as pnewton says. You are assuming as proof, what needs to be proven. Your allegations of a new ecclesiology, your allegations of protestantism. These things you cite as proving your point we do not accept. The burden of proof to show TLM as the implied intent is your burden to prove, not ours to disprove.

You fling around the word Protestantism as an epithet against what you do not like in the Church. Do you even understand what Protestantism was or what it did? Protestantism was a rejection of the Councils, Sacred Tradition (not Tridentine traditions) and placing the personal interpretation of the Bible as above these things.

So far, you’ve been merely making statements, not proving your point.

 

[pnewton]

Actually I found a lot of hope in this document also. Thanks to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Church is enriched and growing.

The pontificate of Pope John Paul II enriched the Catholic Church with important documents on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, such as* The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia* and the Apostolic Letter* Mane nobiscum Domine*. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has also shown his intention to continue the implementation of the Second Vatican Council and to follow faithfully the two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Church by stating in his first discourse, addressed through the College of Cardinals to the whole Church, that the Eucharist is the lasting centre and source of the Petrine service entrusted to him.

In 2003, the number of Catholics was 1,086,000,000,3 an increase of 15,000,000 from the preceding year

. If anyone feels compelled to add their opinion to the Church;s there are a lot of footnotes to explore.

 

[SFD]

pnewton:

SFD:

These inferences and observations are logical…why can’t you just address them?

I was posting only because of the lack of logic. For example:

“To deny this is to deny fact. It is a fact that the removal of the so-called “negative theology” from the prayers of the propers of the Mass changed the way the “man in the pew” believes…that is of course, the ones who did not flee it altogether.”

What kind of “fact” is this? Mathmatical, logical syllogism, empirical observatin? There is no proof of logical causality. This is not a fact but rhetoric. Now I have addressed it and shown why I consider it sloppy logic. I can give other examples of jumping to wrong conclusions if you want.

Well, pnewton, you’ve used, misused and misspelled a lot of big words here. Let me explain:

The innovators wanted to change what the “man in the pew believed”. They said this very clearly. They knew full well that prayer and belief are closely related.
Consilium Fathers:

Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This revision is called for in the light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods. The Council clearly proposes this new view and it was kept in mind when the Temporal Cycle was revised. It could not have been ignored in the Sanctoral Cycle. In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions of struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the texts, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives. – Consilium’s Father Carlo Braga, 1966.

The statistics reveal this; that of the 1182 orations in the Traditional Missal, 760 were dropped entirely. The remaining were altered in more that half of the cases. Only 17 % of the old orations made it into the new missal. The Temporal Cycle contained prayers that were ancient, in some cases 1600 years old.

The Consilium incorporated into the new missal only those older texts “which could have a pastoral worth for contemporary man”. To have introduced the unaltered ancient prayers which alluded to doctrinal controversies or fasting, or which disparaged the things of the world, would have created “difficulty for the psychology of the man who experiences other problems, who has a different way of thinking, and who lives in a different material and disciplinary situation.”

pnewton:

For example:
“Of course you don’t, pnewton…because you’ve already made up your mind.”

“What are you afraid of?”

I am not afraid of anythng here or anyone here. I do not post here out of any sense of fear and I have frequently had opinions formed here. My motivation on this particular thread is because it was started from another thread. The document was used as if it was pro-TLM evidence, when in fact I find nothing in it to indicate that, unless one is already convinced of the evil of Vatican II.

No, an inference was drawn from the document…and it was valid. You never addressed it…just dismissed it. Stmaria did not claim the document cited said these things directly, and I think you know that. And why the defense of this Catholic Youth Conference leader? It’s like a knee-jerk reaction…only after being prodded along does anyone like you admit that what he did was terribly far from Catholic teaching…but it does falls in line with belief of “modern man”…and I think you know that as well.

SFD