"Tridentine Mass--Will Anyone Come?" Catholic Press doing a smear job on the TLM

[otjm]

Yes, which is why Mass attendance dropped from about 2/3 to 1/3 after the Coucil.

Considering that Mass attendance did not drop off that much “after the Council”, but has done so over a long period of time, and given what has gone on in society in general during that same period of time, linking it (the Mass attendance drop off) is not much more than a simplistic psot hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement.

A good deal of drop off in attendance has been due to the changes in sexual morality in society in general, which has impacted those who were sitting in the pews; thei change is also coupled with the increase in divorce rates, and that is impacted by changes in civil law granting “no-fault” divorces.

Add to that the move by some moral theologians to an almost (as in, hadrd to distinguish from) siotuational ethics approach to sin, and the general lack of catechesis of both dogma and morality, and the general slide of society into secualrism, and you might begin to actually get at the roots of the fall-off in Mass attendance.

But to simplisticly posit that Mass attendance fell off because Mass is not said in Latin is to ignore what was actually happening during the last 40 years.

I would submit that if we still had the 1962 Missal and the current Mass had never been written, that we would be in about the same place anyway. Latin has nothing to do with why people have left the Church in droves.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I can’t understand why so many Priests and Bishops are hostile towards the Latin Mass. It is the Mass that was celebrated by hundreds if not thousands of Saints. It has stood the test of time and is unique to the Catholic Church.

I’ve never been to a Latin Mass because I was born well after Vatican II. However, I watched a Latin Mass on youtube and I was amazed and moved at the sacredness and reverence; it was truly holy and majestic. I couldn’t understand a word, but I felt as though this was the most sacred and holy thing in the world. I liked the fact that the Priest gave communion on the tongue with the metal plate underneath and I liked the fact that people kneeled when receiving. Even though I couldn’t understand what the Priest was saying, this didn’t matter to me. The whole experience was inspiring.

It is for this reason that I can’t understand why people have a problem with TLM. I wish traditional Catholics would fight back and write their own articles praising the Latin Mass. They should speak up and defend the Latin Mass; this might encourage more people to attend.

As a young person, I hope that there will be like-minded people who attend the Latin Mass. I will be attending one as soon as I can find one.

 

[KathleenElsie]

There is only one slight problem with that. The current Mass can be said in Latin, and the demand for that is so underwhelming as to be about non-existent. If it were so powerfully a means of uniting all of different languages in worship, it would be demanded without end.

It simply isn’t demanded at all. In fact, those who are in favor of the Missal of 1962 have almost nothing to say either about the current Mass in Latin.

The power of the vernacular is much greater than many people give credit for.

I am glad for you if you have ever found a “current Mass said in Latin”. In the last 40 years I have not found even one in any of the cities we have lived in. So, unless it is being said in private and no person knows of it, it is not available in Western Pennsylvania.

Thus, how is any living person in the part of the world I live in to know if the vernacular is or is not more powerful. I just have seen the results of the vernacular and it has been lower attendance, fewer vocations and smaller or closed parishes.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Considering that Mass attendance did not drop off that much “after the Council”, but has done so over a long period of time, and given what has gone on in society in general during that same period of time, linking it (the Mass attendance drop off) is not much more than a simplistic psot hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement.

A good deal of drop off in attendance has been due to the changes in sexual morality in society in general, which has impacted those who were sitting in the pews; thei change is also coupled with the increase in divorce rates, and that is impacted by changes in civil law granting “no-fault” divorces.

Add to that the move by some moral theologians to an almost (as in, hadrd to distinguish from) siotuational ethics approach to sin, and the general lack of catechesis of both dogma and morality, and the general slide of society into secualrism, and you might begin to actually get at the roots of the fall-off in Mass attendance.

But to simplisticly posit that Mass attendance fell off because Mass is not said in Latin is to ignore what was actually happening during the last 40 years.

I would submit that if we still had the 1962 Missal and the current Mass had never been written, that we would be in about the same place anyway. Latin has nothing to do with why people have left the Church in droves.

Thanks for your response. First off, I don’t believe moving to the vernacular is the only cause for the drop. And personally, my concern is over what was done substantively to the liturgy rather than that it was moved to the vernacular. In other words, I’d rather have the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular than the Novus Ordo in Latin.

I do believe, however, when talking about the plummet in Mass attendance, one does have to give proper weight to the liturgical changes. After all, the New Mass in the vernacular was actually supposed to bring more people into the Church since (supposedly) they could now finally understand what was being said and it was simpler.

Here is an article from Homiletic and Pastoral Review that examines the record of the Novus Ordo and Mass attendance and posits that while Mass attendance for Catholics was plummeting, it remained steady or even rose for Protestants. Which would not be the case if the causes for the drop in Mass attendance were purely societal:

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

 

[otjm]

I am glad for you if you have ever found a “current Mass said in Latin”. In the last 40 years I have not found even one in any of the cities we have lived in. So, unless it is being said in private and no person knows of it, it is not available in Western Pennsylvania.

Thus, how is any living person in the part of the world I live in to know if the vernacular is or is not more powerful. I just have seen the results of the vernacular and it has been lower attendance, fewer vocations and smaller or closed parishes.

We had the current Mass available in Latin, along with a choir that won acclaim throughout its tour in Europe - Gregorian Chant, and Palistrina in precise 4 part harmony at St. Patricks in Portland. Although Portland is divided by a river and this was in the industrial district, it was safe and quite accessible. Attendance varied, but was never packed; the Mass was on Saturday night.

I agree that Mass attendance has over the years decreased; but I seriously disagree that it has been due to the Mass not being in Latin. Any sociological read of society over the last 40 years, coupled with the dumbing down of catechesis would show the forces that have been at work.

 

[Cranch]

A good deal of drop off in attendance has been due to the changes in sexual morality in society in general, which has impacted those who were sitting in the pews; thei change is also coupled with the increase in divorce rates, and that is impacted by changes in civil law granting “no-fault” divorces.

Can you elaborate on this? I don’t understand what societal changes in sexual and marital mores have to do with one’s obligation to attend Mass and worship God. Do you mean that the Mass became thought of as outdated along with “old” ideas on sex and marriage?

 

[otjm]

Can you elaborate on this? I don’t understand what societal changes in sexual and marital mores have to do with one’s obligation to attend Mass and worship God. Do you mean that the Mass became thought of as outdated along with “old” ideas on sex and marriage?

The sexual revolution (which actually started in the 1930’s) first started to separate sex from procreation, making sex a recreational activity. From there it went, in the 1960’s, to the “Free Love Movement”, sex outside of marriage.

For all the talk about lack of guilt, and for all the BS about the Church just trying to control people, the reality is that people have an innate sense of right and wrong - it is called conscience - and when there is strong dissonance in the conscience, a person has two choices - change behaviors, or continue with the behaviors and avoid that which calls the behaviors into question (the Church). /that rapidly leads to no longer attending Mass.

Further, sex outside of marriage is only part of the equation; divorce law is a full time practice for some attorneys as everyone seems to feel they need one (and a good portion of future work comes from those who had one and didn’t learn, and return for their second…); this results in all-too-many remarriges without an annulment - and guess how often they go to Mass — not! So now they are not going to Mass, and now their children are not going to Mass, who turn into adults with little more than a cultural connection to the Church.

Neither the Mass in Latin nor the 1962 Missal would have prevented either of these things from happening; as a point of fact they were well on their way long before the vernacular was much more than a discussion among sacramentaql theologians. And anyone who would posit that Vatican 2 or the changes to the Mass were caused by the sexual revolution or no-fault divorce would gain more traction talking about the Illuminati or Area 54 (or whatever number it had in Nevada) and little green men abducting whomever.

The obligation hasn’t changed. The reasons that people don’t keep that obligation have nothing to do with whether it is the current Mass or the Mass of 1962, or whether it is in Latin or Swahili or English, or whether the priest is ad orientem or not. It has to do with catechesis (or the lack thereof), the secularization of society, and sexual mores, along with a lot of other things that have happened.

 

[Cranch]

otjm- Thank you for your elaboration. I thought this came a little out of left field though:

And anyone who would posit that Vatican 2 or the changes to the Mass were caused by the sexual revolution or no-fault divorce would gain more traction talking about the Illuminati or Area 54 (or whatever number it had in Nevada) and little green men abducting whomever.

Did you think I was hinting at that? Believe me, I wasn’t!

 

[otjm]

otjm- Thank you for your elaboration. I thought this came a little out of left field thoughid you think I was hinting at that? Believe me, I wasn’t!

No, that was not directed to you. I am sometimes flabbergasted by those who know so little about either the Church or society, and have such narrow vision and simplisitic attitudes.

It is a phenomenon of all too many people that they want very simple, concise answers to complex questions. Such answers can be concocted, but they are almost always misleading, if not flat wrong. Coupled with that is tht too many of those same people don’t really want to know the real answers.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Neither the Mass in Latin nor the 1962 Missal would have prevented either of these things from happening; …

The obligation hasn’t changed. The reasons that people don’t keep that obligation have nothing to do with whether it is the current Mass or the Mass of 1962, or whether it is in Latin or Swahili or English, or whether the priest is ad orientem or not. It has to do with catechesis (or the lack thereof), the secularization of society, and sexual mores, along with a lot of other things that have happened.

Of course, you really don’t know this to be the case, do you?

I don’t disregard societal factors completely, however, allow me to quote from the article I referenced above:

The Protestant series is, so to speak, the “control group.” The contrast between its behavior and those of the two Catholic series is stark indeed. In the Protestant data, we see no downward trend at all. Church attendance is lower than that for Catholics during most of the period but is certainly not declining. In fact it may even have begun to trend up. If the temper of the times had been the cause of the decline in Catholic Mass attendance however, there is no reason that similar forces should not have operated within Protestantism too. Church attendance should have declined there also.

Statistical tests applied to the three series reinforce these conclusions. They showed a less than one in ten-thousandth of a percent chance of the estimated trend rates of change for the two Catholic series and for the Protestant series being equal. The bottom line then is that the downward trends in the two Catholic series and the lack of a similar trend in the Protestant series appear to be behavioral phenomena, and not fluke occurrences.
This is a powerful finding, and quite at odds with the conventional view. If the post-conciliar changes had been the overwhelming success they very often are described as being, we would expect to see increases in Mass attendance. We would certainly not expect to see the substantial declines that have taken place in both the United States and England and Wales over the past 30 years. That Protestant church attendance during this period behaved so differently makes the data even more difficult to reconcile with the conventional view. Had Protestant church attendance declined too, it might have been possible to argue that the situation in Catholicism would have been even worse if the liturgical changes had not been implemented. Given the near constancy and then rise in Protestant attendance, however, that argument becomes quite tenuous, if not out and out untenable.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

God bless.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic and is now closed.