Tridentine Mass in the Vernacular?

[palmas85]

No one has proposed that the vernacular should be imposed on those wanting to retain the Tridentine in Latin. Not once has that suggestion been made. All that has been proposed is that the Tridentine ALSO be offered in the vernacular. That’s all.

Actually Kirk if I recall correctly you had a list of changes that would make the Traditional Mass more palatable did you not? It isn’t just the vernacular that you and others want, It is a wholescale change in the structure of the Traditional Mass itself.

Its not going to happen Kirk. As more and more people become exposed to it, it is going to grow and there is nothing that you or any of the others who want to change the Traditional Mass can do about it. Sorry. Its is already happening Kirk, slowly but surely. Already Traditional Masses are showing up in places where they never have been before. More and more seminarian are expressing an interest in learning it and the only ones who are really opposed seem to be those still trapped in the old Kumbaya mentality of accept everything and everybody as long as they say they are Catholic.

Why does it scare you so much Kirk? What are you really afraid of? Do you think that the Priests are going to start charging for Masses and saying 50 or 60 a day to make pocket change? Or maybe you think the sale of indulgences is coming back? Or do you have so little faith in the priests that you doubt they will correctly say the prayers of consecration?

Or is it as I am starting to suspect, you really don’t want the Mass or the Catholic faith the way it was traditionally practiced? Maybe you feel that a return to the Traditional Mass would lead the way to a wholescale return to traditional Catholic thought and devotion. I personally think thats a good thing and I’m sure the Holy Father feels that could happen and that is one of the reasons why he issued the Motu Proprio in the first place…He saw what happened after Vatican II Kirk and he sees the need for a change.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually Kirk if I recall correctly you had a list of changes that would make the Traditional Mass more palatable did you not? It isn’t just the vernacular that you and others want, It is a wholescale change in the structure of the Traditional Mass itself.

**No, it isn’t, Palmas. I’ve said I would simplfy some things and I would put it in the vernacular. **

Its not going to happen Kirk. As more and more people become exposed to it, it is going to grow and there is nothing that you or any of the others who want to change the Traditional Mass can do about it. Sorry. Its is already happening Kirk, slowly but surely. Already Traditional Masses are showing up in places where they never have been before. More and more seminarian are expressing an interest in learning it and the only ones who are really opposed seem to be those still trapped in the old Kumbaya mentality of accept everything and everybody as long as they say they are Catholic. **C’mon, Palmas, you KNOW I’m not one of the Kumbaya types. And we’ll see. I think some proponents are secretly afraid that it WON’T catch on the way that they hope it will. We’ll have to see. Any rate, I don’t WANT the Traditional Mass hindered. I simply want to see it in the vernacular. **

Why does it scare you so much Kirk? What are you really afraid of? Do you think that the Priests are going to start charging for Masses and saying 50 or 60 a day to make pocket change? Or maybe you think the sale of indulgences is coming back? Or do you have so little faith in the priests that you doubt they will correctly say the prayers of consecration? **No, if I’m afraid of anything, it’s simply this: we won’t have Mass in the vernacular anymore. I’m not terribly afraid that’s going to happen, but my major premise is this: we are probably going to eventually have one rite. If we are, it could be offered in both Latin and the vernacular. **

Or is it as I am starting to suspect, you really don’t want the Mass or the Catholic faith the way it was traditionally practiced? Maybe you feel that a return to the Traditional Mass would lead the way to a wholescale return to traditional Catholic thought and devotion. I personally think thats a good thing and I’m sure the Holy Father feels that could happen and that is one of the reasons why he issued the Motu Proprio in the first place…He saw what happened after Vatican II Kirk and he sees the need for a change.

**I think it unwise to project too much on any pope. He seems to have hope for the NO Mass, he doesn’t seem to reject a lot of the things “traditionalists” seem to think he should (and maybe he should, some of them). AND he has himself suggested that the Tridentine could be offered in the vernacular. But if you think I fear a return to Catholic thought, sorry, Palmas, the Church has never LEFT Catholic thought. Unfortunately for some, however, Catholic thought didn’t stop in 1958 with the death of the Servant of God Pope Pius XII. **

 

[palmas85]

**I think it unwise to project too much on any pope. He seems to have hope for the NO Mass, he doesn’t seem to reject a lot of the things “traditionalists” seem to think he should (and maybe he should, some of them). AND he has himself suggested that the Tridentine could be offered in the vernacular. But if you think I fear a return to Catholic thought, sorry, Palmas, the Church has never LEFT Catholic thought. Unfortunately for some, however, Catholic thought didn’t stop in 1958 with the death of the Servant of God Pope Pius XII. **

Why in the world would you be terribly afraid that the Mass would no longer be in the vernacular Kirk? I’ll repeat my question, why does that scare you and others so much?

No Catholic thought did not end Kirk, but it does appear that many other things Catholic did.

He suggested it could, perhaps. He NEVER even intimated that it should be so offered.

 

[BobP123]

how’s about the phrasing, “let’s replace the NO with a Vernacular
tridentine Mass.
we could mandate that onlyone Vernacular Tridentine be said, with the rest being Latin Tridentine Masses, while insisting that the Latin Tridentine HighMass and one low mass be retained, if not more.)With only English (vernacular for non-englishers”_)
High mass,with the canon, in Latin mandated, but audible. That’s it.

This is really not a negotiatiable issue. The genereal intent is to make the TLM more UNIVERSAL, not less. Allowing “just one” will lead to many unintended consequences. History bears this out.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Why in the world would you be terribly afraid that the Mass would no longer be in the vernacular Kirk? I’ll repeat my question, why does that scare you and others so much?

No Catholic thought did not end Kirk, but it does appear that many other things Catholic did.

He suggested it could, perhaps. He NEVER even intimated that it should be so offered.

Because we love the Mass in the vernacular. Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

“The Roman rite of the future ought to be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the language of the country, but completely based on the tradition of the [old] handed-down rite.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is really not a negotiatiable issue. The genereal intent is to make the TLM more UNIVERSAL, not less. Allowing “just one” will lead to many unintended consequences. History bears this out.

It’s only a non-negotiable in that any future decision will be made without reference to negotiations with US. If the Holy Father premits it, then it’s permitted and people then have a decision to make: submit or not submit.

 

[otjm]

,

What are you talking about? What option did they have? Wasn’t the New Mass in the vernacular pretty much thrust upon the laity whether they wanted it or not?

“Thrust” has an emotive tone to it. Those who use the word “thrust” generally are those who prefer the EF. The majority of people readily accepted the vernacular. Not all, but definitely the majority. For them it was not “thrust” on them. And yes, I will agree that it came rapidly; in some areas it was accompanied by instruction and explanation; in others it simply occured. In large part that was due to leadership or lack of it.

Again, you talk about widespread acceptance. And I hate to beat a dead horse but the statistics on Mass attendance don’t bear this out. The New Mass in the vernacular certainly did not lead to greater Mass attendance, to say the least. I advocate it was much of the reason for the decline (along with other changes to the liturgy and church architecture as well).

Advocate away. It has been the subject of other threads. I don’t recall the Pope saying that it was designed specifically to get Catholics back, to begin with. Further, the Statistics went down significantly before it was released, so anyone who says Mass decline is caused by the OF is playing a significant post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. The sexual revolution and the tremendous loss of respect for authority which had started before that had more to do with the loss of attendance, I submit, than did the OF. Did it cause some loss? Yes. A significant part? Well, then please explain to me why someone who was so “into” the EF, so Catholic, so thoroughly taken up by the EF would leave the Eucharist? I suggest that the ones who left did so because they were more focused on form - the EF instead of the OF - rather than substance - he Eucharist.

And I would suggest that the massive loss of priests during that time to go get married had more to do with a slowdown in vocations than the EF.

I agree.

Again, there are multiple reasons that someone goes to the seminary. One of them is the draft board. Excuse me, there was a war going on that stretched from the tail end of the Eisenhower Administration, through Kennedy, through Johnson to Nixon. It was not a popular war, and a seminary student was not going to be drafted. And if you want to challenge that, I was in the seminary from 64 to 66 - I am not saying that everyone there was avoiding the draft, but it wasn’t an unknown in mine; I have to presume if occured in others.

Oh, And I served in Nam - I was enlisted, not drafted.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

We don’t have the Tridentine Mass in vernacular because (1)vernacular only in the Mass was prohibited by Trent and (2) Vatican II expressed specifically that Latin stays in the liturgy.

No, Trent condemned the notion that the Mass must be said in the vernacular only (which was the issue at the time - Protestants were saying that the Mass (and other worship) didn’t count unless it was in the language the people could understand). It didn’t condemn the Mass being said in the vernacular.

 

[palmas85]

Because we love the Mass in the vernacular. Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

“The Roman rite of the future ought to be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the language of the country, but completely based on the tradition of the [old] handed-down rite.”

Well Kirk, we loved and still love the Mass the Traditional Mass. ** BUT** we had it stripped away, relegated to out of the way places and were generally laughed at, scorned and belittled for holding fast to the the traditional ways. Yet now that the tide appears to be turning and traditional ways making a comeback, you’re scared and and don’t want to lose what you have? Thats cute Kirk, real cute. We didn’t have that option. You need to understand that. No option at all. take it or leave and good riddance. Thats the reality of what happened.

No we had to fight for years to get it back. But in the meantime the overwhelming majority of us put up with the desecrations, with the outright contempt that was heaped on the traditional rite by progressive thinkers and all manner of nonsense trumpeted as being ecumenical and salvific in nature and we stayed true to the Church and tried, boy did we ever try to find anything in the Pauline Rite that even remotely resembled the Traditional Rite. We suffered and prayed and finally by the grace of God it appears that things may change. I’m sorry for you Kirk, I really am because I truly believe that the Traditional Rite is going to sweep in and become once again THE single rite of the Church. And in all honesty old man, I wonder if your faith is strong enough to handle that eventuality. I love you as a brother Kirk and respect you, but I’m not at all sure if the Traditional Mass again was the Mass of the Church, if you could accept the change.

Could you accept that Kirk? Could you remain true to the faith when and if the Pauline Rite is dismantled and relegated to the trash heap as they tried to do to the Traditional? I truly wonder if you and the other progressive modern thinkers could accomplish that goal that so many of us were able to do back in the day…

Oh, you will note that in your attempt to show that the Holy Father supports the vernacular totally, what was actually said was that the single rite must be completely based on the traditions of the old handed down rite, not the Pauline Rite Kirk. The old rite.

The Traditional Rite, which I believe means in Latin and all.

 

[BobP123]

No, Trent condemned the notion that the Mass must be said in the vernacular only (which was the issue at the time - Protestants were saying that the Mass (and other worship) didn’t count unless it was in the language the people could understand). It didn’t condemn the Mass being said in the vernacular.

No it didn’t condemn it (like it did setting up any new rites.) Nor did it mention Latin. So why wasn’t the vernacular used more widely then? Or at all for that matter? Vatican II seemed to use stronger language to retain Latin in the liturgy. But Vatican II dealt mostly with the Western Rite whereas Trent dealt with the entire Church.

CHAPTER VIII
THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR. ITS MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE

Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or <the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them,>[19] the holy council commands pastors and all who have the that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on Sundays and festival days.[20]

By the way, there were existing rites of over 200 years (prior to 1570) that were in vernacular. These of course were ok’d by the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m sorry for you Kirk, I really am because I truly believe that the Traditional Rite is going to sweep in and become once again THE single rite of the Church. And in all honesty old man, I wonder if your faith is strong enough to handle that eventuality. I love you as a brother Kirk and respect you, but I’m not at all sure if the Traditional Mass again was the Mass of the Church, if you could accept the change.

Could you accept that Kirk? Could you remain true to the faith when and if the Pauline Rite is dismantled and relegated to the trash heap as they tried to do to the Traditional? I truly wonder if you and the other progressive modern thinkers could accomplish that goal that so many of us were able to do back in the day…

Sorry, Palmas, I’ve been gone since Wednesday PM. My godson had a birthday and we’ve been to Disneyland (ample proof, in my opinion, of the existence of Purgatory, for those who may doubt).

What do you mean by “accept the change?” Do you mean “will JKirk remain Catholic?” Yes, I will remain Catholic. I’m reminded of the response of His disciples when He asked if they would leave Him, too, and they replied,“To whom should we go? You have the words of everlasting life.” I’ll die a Catholic. The Catholic Church is the fullness of Truth and it is my firm hope that, by God’s Grace, I’ll die in Her Communion, even if She got rid of the vernacular Mass tomorrow.

If you mean would I accept it in the sense of giving up, did YOU give up? Did Michael Davies et al give up? No, I wouldn’t give up the effort to maintain the Mass in the vernacular. I wouldn’t go into schism, but I would join a group like Una Voce (probably would be Multi Voce, I imagine) that advocated for the maintenance of the vernacular. I can’t prove it of course, but I rather imagine that the bulk of the faithful will want to continue to hear Mass in their own language and the Church usually doesn’t militate against the aspirations of the faithful that aren’t heterodox. She won’t force the consciences of the faithful over a non-essential (and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the Mass in Latin is NOT an essential), because that’s precisely what a wise Mother and wise shepherds do NOT do.

I’m sorry you and others had to endure the “take it or leave and good riddance” attitude. I had no part of that (and I forgive you for the implication behind calling me a “modern” and a “progressive,” I assume you did not mean it in the sense of the modernism condemned by the Church. I plead guilty to being a contemporary of myself, because frankly, so are you and everyone else born in this age) and I’ve repeatedly explained, apparently to no avail, that I never wished ill to those who wanted the Tridentine, much less ill to the Tridentine itself, thinking it a matter of simple justice that they should have it.

As for the Tridentine sweeping in, I think I’ve already stipulated that I think the Holy Father, as good and gracious and conciliatory as he is, is going to be cheated of his hope that the two forms can continue side by side. It’s my own opinion that if one must go and the other remain, it should be the Tridentine. I’ve simply suggested that it could be simplified SOMEWHAT (the Council seemed to have thought the same when it spoke of “noble simplicity,” though you disagree with that) and offered, in ADDITION to the Latin, in the vernacular. No one has spoken of dismantling the Tridentine. But I would caution you in your apparent hope that the Pauline Rite will be “dismantled and relegated to the trash heap.” Among the lessons that we’ve learned over the past forty years, there is certainly this one: nothing galvanizes people like a perceived threat to something that they love and whether you or anyone else here can wrap your brains around it, the Pauline Rite is loved by many. You may not be able to fathom it, but there are very, very many, again I’d bet the bulk of the Church (and I suspect this is what YOU fear) who simply want to hear the Mass as they’ve always heard it: in their own tongue. If you persecute the vernacular Mass, there WILL be those who will defend it, perfectly orthodox people (hard to believe, but true) who will say,“Hang on a second!” And the Church will hear their voice as well.

.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

All I’ve proposed is a middle way. I may not get “my” way, but I very much doubt that you will, either (and in the end, it will be as God wills, either actively or permissively). When we start to use Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict’s phrase “orgainic development,” that opens up a host of possibilities, doesn’t it? “Development” means just that. Oh, I doubt we’ll see much in our lifetime (I’m forty-five and I think you’re either my age or slightly older), because Holy Mother Church tends to move very slowly indeed. This may be cause for comfort to us both, you’ll be allowed to be buried by the TLM and I’ll be allowed to be buried by the Mass in the vernacular (I shall assume you’ve as much hope for my attaining Heaven despite my stubborn fondness for the English Mass as I have hope for you). But I very much doubt the Mass will remain precisely the same (even the sinister can latch onto the phrase “orgainic development”). People here are already talking about a hybrid (which I don’t think would be good for the Tridentine).

And come on, "based entirely upon the traditional rites,"yes, I never said otherwise or claimed it would be the Pauline, BUT: in the vernacular is what the pope SAID

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

“Thrust” has an emotive tone to it. Those who use the word “thrust” generally are those who prefer the EF. The majority of people readily accepted the vernacular. Not all, but definitely the majority. For them it was not “thrust” on them. And yes, I will agree that it came rapidly; in some areas it was accompanied by instruction and explanation; in others it simply occured. In large part that was due to leadership or lack of it.

Advocate away. It has been the subject of other threads. I don’t recall the Pope saying that it was designed specifically to get Catholics back, to begin with. Further, the Statistics went down significantly before it was released, so anyone who says Mass decline is caused by the OF is playing a significant post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. The sexual revolution and the tremendous loss of respect for authority which had started before that had more to do with the loss of attendance, I submit, than did the OF. Did it cause some loss? Yes. A significant part? Well, then please explain to me why someone who was so “into” the EF, so Catholic, so thoroughly taken up by the EF would leave the Eucharist? I suggest that the ones who left did so because they were more focused on form - the EF instead of the OF - rather than substance - he Eucharist.

And I would suggest that the massive loss of priests during that time to go get married had more to do with a slowdown in vocations than the EF.

I agree.

Again, there are multiple reasons that someone goes to the seminary. One of them is the draft board. Excuse me, there was a war going on that stretched from the tail end of the Eisenhower Administration, through Kennedy, through Johnson to Nixon. It was not a popular war, and a seminary student was not going to be drafted. And if you want to challenge that, I was in the seminary from 64 to 66 - I am not saying that everyone there was avoiding the draft, but it wasn’t an unknown in mine; I have to presume if occured in others.

Oh, And I served in Nam - I was enlisted, not drafted.

I use the word “thrust” because there was no choice as to whether people wanted the New Mass or not. When something is forced on you and you have no choice in the matter that is not a matter of “acceptance” as if the New Mass was introduced into parishes and people had a choice as to whether they would go to the New Mass or keep going to the TLM.

Also, due to the drop in Mass attendance, I wouldn’t say the majority “accepted it.” Rather, it seems as if a significant portion stopped going to Mass.

No, the statistics did not go down significantly before it was released. They went down a bit, then up some, then held steady from about 1961 to 1965. If that was the pattern that held after Vatican II this discussion would not even be happening. The statistics started plummeting steadily and more significantly after the end of Vatican II. It plummeted far more than any downturn before the Council. And, as I mentioned, Dietrich von Hildebrand was already noting how tough it was to find a Latin Mass even in 1966.

The fact that so many stopped attending Mass after Vatican II and the abandonment of the TLM does attest to the importance of form. I don’t think they should have, but it happened. In fact, I think that Mass attendance might have plummeted even further if the pre-Vatican II Church hadn’t ingrained the importance of attending Mass to most Catholics. Unfortunately not every pre-Vatican II Catholic was wiling just to “gut it out” when the Mass they grew up with was abruptly taken from them. Or they got the impression under the new form that Mass wasn’t really that important anyway. It’s more of a community meal that’s fine to miss.

God bless.

 

[Sure]

I use the word “thrust” because there was no choice as to whether people wanted the New Mass or not. When something is forced on you and you have no choice in the matter that is not a matter of “acceptance” as if the New Mass was introduced into parishes and people had a choice as to whether they would go to the New Mass or keep going to the TLM.

Also, due to the drop in Mass attendance, I wouldn’t say the majority “accepted it.” Rather, it seems as if a significant portion stopped going to Mass.

No, the statistics did not go down significantly before it was released. They went down a bit, then up some, then held steady from about 1961 to 1965. If that was the pattern that held after Vatican II this discussion would not even be happening. The statistics started plummeting steadily and more significantly after the end of Vatican II. It plummeted far more than any downturn before the Council. And, as I mentioned, Dietrich von Hildebrand was already noting how tough it was to find a Latin Mass even in 1966.

The fact that so many stopped attending Mass after Vatican II and the abandonment of the TLM does attest to the importance of form. I don’t think they should have, but it happened. In fact, I think that Mass attendance might have plummeted even further if the pre-Vatican II Church hadn’t ingrained the importance of attending Mass to most Catholics. Unfortunately not every pre-Vatican II Catholic was wiling just to “gut it out” when the Mass they grew up with was abruptly taken from them. Or they got the impression under the new form that Mass wasn’t really that important anyway. It’s more of a community meal that’s fine to miss.

God bless.

Brennan,

I know we’ve gone back and forth on the attendance drop many times, so I don’t want to restart that. But I do have one question, we know (from CARA studies) that the significant drop in Mass attendance was from the baby-boomers. Most of the depression and pre WWII generation continued to attend Mass. Now we also know that the baby boomers were a very liberal bunch. After all, they brought us drug use, free love, and the sixties mentality. Why is it reasonable to think that the disappearance of the traditional Latin Mass drove these types away from the Church? I mean, do we really think that the liberal baby-boomer generation was so upset at the loss of the Latin Mass that they stopped attending? To me, that just doesn’t make sense at all.

 

[otjm]

I use the word “thrust” because there was no choice as to whether people wanted the New Mass or not. When something is forced on you and you have no choice in the matter that is not a matter of “acceptance” as if the New Mass was introduced into parishes and people had a choice as to whether they would go to the New Mass or keep going to the TLM.

Also, due to the drop in Mass attendance, I wouldn’t say the majority “accepted it.” Rather, it seems as if a significant portion stopped going to Mass.

In various threads, this has been batted around. Actually, the decrease in Mass attendance started well before the OF came out. In addition, there was a tremendous amount of chaos going in the secular worl, causing a massive loss of trust in leadership - civil rights against the entrenched “dual society” based on skin color; Viet Nam; the hippy movoement starting out of San Francisco, the craziness coming out of pop psychology, and the outright rejection of authority in the Church per the backlash to Humanae Vitae.

No, the statistics did not go down significantly before it was released. They went down a bit, then up some, then held steady from about 1961 to 1965. If that was the pattern that held after Vatican II this discussion would not even be happening. The statistics started plummeting steadily and more significantly after the end of Vatican II. It plummeted far more than any downturn before the Council. And, as I mentioned, Dietrich von Hildebrand was already noting how tough it was to find a Latin Mass even in 1966.

The fact that so many stopped attending Mass after Vatican II and the abandonment of the TLM does attest to the importance of form. I don’t think they should have, but it happened. In fact, I think that Mass attendance might have plummeted even further if the pre-Vatican II Church hadn’t ingrained the importance of attending Mass to most Catholics. Unfortunately not every pre-Vatican II Catholic was wiling just to “gut it out” when the Mass they grew up with was abruptly taken from them. Or they got the impression under the new form that Mass wasn’t really that important anyway. It’s more of a community meal that’s fine to miss.

God bless.

Again, I disagree strongly with your assessment. It is too much post hoc ergo propter hoc, and fails to take anythikg else into account, as if all Catholics were in a vacuum.

Let’s get to the meat of the matter; in the US, the SSPX have an extremely small following. If in fact so many people quit the Church because of the OF, then where are they? Is it a fact that catechesis was so terrible before V 2 that they did not know they were abandoning the Eucharist? That, in essence is what you are telling me - that these folks quit because they - what, beleived all that the Church taught and because of the cahnge in the form of the Mass they up and quit? Or are you telling me that they were so poorly educated about the Mass and the Eucharist that they quit only over form? and once the SSPX started and the Indults alter started, why haven’t they come back in droes to those formats?

The essence of what you are telling me is either they were barely educated about the Mass, at a time when catechesis was by all standards much more thorough; or they went elsewhere (and the statistics simply don’t support that). I don’t buy that. I do believe that people lost respect for the Church, but not over the issue of the Mass, but rather over the rejection of HV. I also by that people left in a steady stream over the results of the massive shift in sexual morality, leading to sex outside of marriage, increases in adultery (sex was now “safe” in all sorts of circumstances), the rapid increase of divorce because of no-fault divorce, the increase in second marriages without an annulment, and the general drift of society towards secularism and materialism which made the Church seem more and more irrelevant to so many.

I work with returning Catholics, and I talk to others in other parishes who do so also. The change from the EF to the OF ismply isn’t coming up. But changes in sexual mores and divorce and remarriage are right up there at the top.

Did some leave? I have no doubt that some left because of the change in the form; but is it the source of so many leaving? Show me something more than just your opinion. Simply reading the statistics over a time period does not account for the multitude of reasons, and as I have said, is nothing more that post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

[DustinsDad]

…After all, they brought us drug use, free love, and the sixties mentality. Why is it reasonable to think that the disappearance of the traditional Latin Mass drove these types away from the Church? I mean, do we really think that the liberal baby-boomer generation was so upset at the loss of the Latin Mass that they stopped attending? To me, that just doesn’t make sense at all.

Lex Orendi, Lex Credeni.

“Free love” wasn’t invented in the sixties, nor was drug use. Why is is so hard to fathom that changing radically the “law of prayer” might actually have an effect on the “law of belief”.

At the very least, the radical changes within the Church further shook an already shaking culture - including the catholic folks living in it. It let the “guard down” so to speak. In short, when you open the windows in the middle of a hurricane - there’s bound to be some storm damage. Some unfortunate folks might even get sucked out the window.

Couple that with the fact that anyone who dared suggest we might need to close the windows was labeled a schismatic (and silenced for the most part) - and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Sure]

Lex Orendi, Lex Credeni.

“Free love” wasn’t invented in the sixties, nor was drug use. Why is is so hard to fathom that changing radically the “law of prayer” might actually have an effect on the “law of belief”.

At the very least, the radical changes within the Church further shook an already shaking culture - including the catholic folks living in it. It let the “guard down” so to speak. In short, when you open the windows in the middle of a hurricane - there’s bound to be some storm damage. Some unfortunate folks might even get sucked out the window.

Couple that with the fact that anyone who dared suggest we might need to close the windows was labeled a schismatic (and silenced for the most part) - and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Thanks. That’s a good point. Although, I don’t think it was the liturgical change itself so much as the tidal wave of abuse that seemed to come with it. After all, if the novus ordo had been said say in the manner of St. John Cantius in Chicago, I think the losses due to “Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi” would have been slight.

 

[otjm]

Lex Orendi, Lex Credeni.

“Free love” wasn’t invented in the sixties, nor was drug use. Why is is so hard to fathom that changing radically the “law of prayer” might actually have an effect on the “law of belief”.

It is not an issue of “hard to fathom”. It is an issue that drug use was a very minor and small culture prior to the early 60’s. Marijuana was primarily within the “beat” scene, which was very narrow. It was a combination of the hippies, and returning vets from Southeast Asia which lead to the widespread youth among college students; prior to that it was simply not an issue on campuses. And you are right, free love was soemthing going back, in a very underground way, to the 30’s; however, again, it became a “youth” issue with the movement of the hippies. Prior to that it was not waidespread; however, both came together in the 60’s along with the introduction of the Pill. And I submit, the introduction of the Pill was the stat of widespread sexual activity outside the confines of marriage.

Why is it that you consider that none of this had any effect on those in the Church? I would suggest it is probably because you did not live through that era, and only know what you have read.

At the very least, the radical changes within the Church further shook an already shaking culture - including the catholic folks living in it. It let the “guard down” so to speak. In short, when you open the windows in the middle of a hurricane - there’s bound to be some storm damage. Some unfortunate folks might even get sucked out the window.

Couple that with the fact that anyone who dared suggest we might need to close the windows was labeled a schismatic (and silenced for the most part) - and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I do not, and never have said that changes that occured after Vatican 2 did not affect anyone. I simply maitain, that, unlike those who want to blame all the problems in the Church on either Vatican 2, or the change in the Mass, or both, that neither Vatican 2 with what it proposed as needing updating in the Church, nor the OF which was in major part a return to earlier Church practices (along with other sacremental changes, and RCIA) caused the troubles we have now. Within the Church there was not a whole lot of dissention until Humanae Vitae came along, and then everything seemed to go nulcear. I was a young adult at that time, an my recollection of the forces that were unleashed with Charles Currin, et alia’ rejection of HV are not that dim, nor are they distorted.

You have your pet peeve. I am suggesting that your pet peeve doesn’t jibe with reality. I do not suggest that no one was affected by the changes in the Mass, but your charge that the loss of members of the Church was due to the introduction of the OF is simplistic in the extreme. I saw and knew the preists leaving the Church; they didn’t leave because of the Mass change, they left to get married. I have family members that have left the Church; not one of them over the Mass change. I grew up in a parish, and was a member of it well past the introduction of the OF; people weren’t leaving over the OF. They left over divorces. They left because of sexual issues. They left because they got po’ed over something Father said to them. Very few left over the Mass.

Since the change to the OF, people have left for the evangelical and fundamental churches; not over the OF but because they had not found what the other churches gave them - some sense of “why”; and that wasn’t because of the Mass, it was because of catechesis.

And you still have to tell me where all these people that so loved the Church and so loved the Eucharist went; they didn’t go to the Orthodox, as the Orthodox are still a very small minority. They didn’t go to the Anglican/Epsicopalian as they, too, changed their service. They didn’t go to the SSPX, because they too are miniscule.
Some people left over the change in the Mass, I have no doubt. They were also people who either didn’t believe what the Church taught - that Mass was an obligation under pain of mortal sin, or didn’t care; and they had no real love for the Eucharist as they could not get that anywhere else. For someone to give up the Eucharist because the prayers were in English instead of Latin I simply find incredible. Altar girls didn’t come until much later. Your explanation simply doesn’t wash.

 

[DustinsDad]

I’m not going to get into another argument with you, I just don’t have the energy right now and it’s getting old. I’ll leave you with just one response and then I’m done…

…And you still have to tell me where all these people that so loved the Church and so loved the Eucharist went…

Don’t be so cocky with your faith - or so ridiculing of other’s who have lost there’s.

There but for the grace of God go I. Or you. We are all human and we are all weak.

Bad examples or ridiculous prudential decisons on the human side of the Church don’t justify anyone leaving Her - and I never said it did.

But that doesn’t mean the human side won’t have to answer for those examples set and those decisions made. To those given much much is expected…that sort of thing.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad