Universal Indult

[theMutant]

Irish Melkite:

While a bit younger than George, and not yet quite 60, I have vivid and fond memories of the Tridentine Mass in Latin and would agree that the bi-lingual missals of the day allowed the people to follow - but I would note that people concentrated on reading, not participating in the Mass.

I realize that I’m a bit late to this forum and I admit that I have not yet read everything posted. You seem to put forth the idea that the changes to the Mass foster greater participation because people no longer concentrate on reading along in the Missal. This is erroneous. You are arguing against the wisdom of many popes who declared that the best way to get the people to participate in the Mass is to put missals in their hands.

I am not an old-timer seeking to hold on to the traditions of my youth. I did not experience the traditional Latin rite until my late twenties. With missal in hand, I was able to pray the Mass along with the priest in a way that I simply cannot in the current rite. There are so many options that it is impractcal and virtually impossible to follow the Mass with a Missal. I once did a calculation comparing the possible variations of the Latin rite Mass for a given Sunday in ordinary time. Zero options in the 1962 Missal. 88 options allowing for over 10,000,000 LEGITIMATE variations of the current rite. These endless options have also made it much easier for the abuses that have become the staple of so many parishes.

You also argue that the fact that people used to go to ethnic parishes before the Mass changed indicated that offering the Mass completely in the vernacular did not increase the division of Catholics of different ethnic backgrounds. I maintain that this is completely illogical. GeorgeCooney’s point in bringing this up is that, with the 1962 Missal, you could attend and participate in the Mass at a parish anywhere in the Latin rite in a way that you simply cannot with the Mass offered completely in the vernacular. If you attend a mass according to the 1962 Missal in a parish that speaks a language you do not understand, the only part of the Mass you would not be able to understand is the sermon. Other than that, you could offer the exact same prayers as the priest and everyone else in that parrish because you it was all done in ONE language and there were no options.

I once tried to attend Mass in a parish where I did not speak the language. What opening prayer did the priest offer? What readings were used? I have no idea on these and many other points including what form of the Creed they used. I was not participating in that Mass because I could not. I had been rendered unable to do so by the fact that the entire Mass was offered in a language I don’t understand and there are so many options that I had no way of knowing what was going on.

Sincerely,

David W. Cooney o)

 

[theMutant]

dcs:

I believe Iohannes is referring to the revocation of the Indult at St. Mary’s By-the-Sea in the Diocese of Orange County, California, whose ordinary is +Todd Brown.

The Norbertines offered to continue to celebrate the Mass after Fr. Johnson retired.

This makes me truly sad. This was the parish where I first experienced the traditional Latin Mass and where I fell in love with it. I thought it was very telling that in the years that I was there, that little parish go so many more people entering the Church than the huge parishes that were near by (like Saints Simon and Jude and St. Boneventure). All of the Masses were packed and people came over 80 miles to attend the Latin EVERY SUNDAY.

I had the unfortunate experience of returning to the Church at Sts. Simon and Jude. The DRE at the time was a blatant dissenter and the pastor was no better (he led classes on the Ennegram!!!). I was also a sponsor in their RCIA program. After 9 months of instruction, one candidate did not know the correct answer to the question, “Is Jesus God?” After I found St. Mary’s by the Sea, I stayed!!!

David W. Cooney o(

 

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

Considering that about half of all Americans cannot program their VCR, I am not suprised that many do not know about the faith they claim to profess.

In brief… people are generally slothful when it comes to learning and many other things. I believe a general slothfulness is evident at an ever increasing rate across many disciplines since the first half of the 20th century.

God bless,

Dave

I’m afraid that I don’t quite follow your logic here. People don’t sit down in front of their VCR every week and receive instructions on how to program it. Catholics are supposed to go to Mass at least once every week and receive instruction about the Faith. In implying that people not knowing how to program their VCR is somehow the same as not knowing their faith, you are comparing apples to rocks!

It is true that dissenters existed prior to the changes to the Mass and that many of those who grew up with the traditional rite are among the greatest dissenters. But remember, that in order to be a dissenter, you must know what the faith is! The sad fact is that most younger Catholics do no know the faith even if they have attended Mass every Sunday. They are receiving Communion every week without realize who it is that they are receiving.

Now, I don’t believe that the new rite CAUSED this problem, but it certainly made it much more possible by becoming so complicated and having so many options that Catholics in the pews no longer had any idea what was SUPPOSED to be going on and therefore had no idea when abuses and false ideas were creeping in. Those that suspected this was the case were forcefully told that the abuses were part of the “spirit of Vatican II.” (I was told by a priest that Vatican II taught that we should no longer use missals. When I asked him to tell me in what document this was stated because I apparently missed in in my own reading, he quickly changed the subject.)

If you disagree with this, then explain why an instruction was just issued to END THE ABUSES that have been incorporated into the Mass all around the world. Explain why Rome has had so much trouble getting the English speaking bishops to reign in the ICEL and eventually had to do the job itself.

I am glad that you agree that bishops who refuse to allow the indult have some explaining to do. When my own archbishop was installed a few years ago, he made a speach about how wonderful it was that the Mass was offered in so many different languates in the archdiocese. I wrote to him saying that it was ironic that he would say this when the official language of the Latin rite of the Church is not used and asking if he would remove his predecessor’s ban on the traditional Latin Mass. He responded that he was too busy to attend to this matter. How much time does it take to give approval for this?

David W. Cooney o)

 

[theMutant]

theMutant:

I once did a calculation comparing the possible variations of the Latin rite Mass for a given Sunday in ordinary time. Zero options in the 1962 Missal. 88 options allowing for over 10,000,000 LEGITIMATE variations of the current rite. These endless options have also made it much easier for the abuses that have become the staple of so many parishes.

Just for clarification…

I did the calculation on Sunday, 7 November, 1998
32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

INTRODUCTORY RITES
*Entrance Antiphon Ps 87:3 or a song may be sung instead (2 options)
Greeting (3 options)
If a song was sung in place of the Entrance Antiphon, it is said now.
Rite of Blessing or Penitential Rite (30 options not counting the Rite of Blessing)
Rite of Blessing has 3 options.
Penitential Rite has 3 optional preparations and 3 optional forms (A, B, and C). Form C has 8 options.
Kyrie (not said if Rite of Blessing was used or if the petitions were part of the Penitential Rite used.
Gloria

• Opening Prayer (2 options)

LITURGY OF THE WORD 1998 is reading cycle C (of A, B, and C)

• First Reading 2 Macc 7:1-2, 9-14
• Responsorial Psalm Ps 17:1, 5-6, 8, 15
• Second Reading 2 Thess 2:16-3:5
• Alleluia Acclamation Lk 21:36 or one of 17+ other options. (I’ll count this as 18 options)
• Gospel Lk 20:27-38 or Lk 20:27, 34-38 (2 options)
  Homily (sermon)
  Profession of Faith (has 2 options, but only during Lent and Easter so I’m not counting this)
  General Intercessions

LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
Preparation of the Altar and Gifts

• Prayer over the Gifts
  Preface to Eucharistic Prayer (8 options)
  Acclamation (Sanctus)
  Eucharistic Prayer 4 options not counting “children’s masses”. Each option has the same 4 optional Memorial Acclamations for a total of 16 options
  COMMUNION RITE
  Lord’s Prayer (4 optional introductions)
  Doxology
  Sign of Peace (option of congregation offering to each other) (2 options)
  Breaking of the Bread
  Agnus Dei
  Preparation of the Priest
  Communion
  • Communion Antiphon Ps 22:1-2 or Lk 24:35) or a Song may be sung. (I’ll count this as 3 options)
• Prayer after Communion
  CONCLUDING RITE
  Announcements
  Blessing 2 options of which the 2nd has 24 optional prayers for a total of 25 options.
• indicates Proper.

2x3x30x2x18x2x8x16x4x2x3 = 39,813,120 legitimate options not counting the possibility of including the blessings at the beginning and end of Mass.

 

[Ham1]

Soooooooo…

Options create abuse?

 

[theMutant]

Ham1:

Soooooooo…

Options create abuse?

If you read my posts, you will find that I did not say this. However, the abundance of options means that the faithful are less likely to know when an abuse is being introduced. Options do not CREATE abuses, they make it EASIER for abuses to occur.

David W. Cooney o)

 

[lyoncoeur]

theMutant:

Just for clarification…

2x3x30x2x18x2x8x16x4x2x3 = 39,813,120 legitimate options not counting the possibility of including the blessings at the beginning and end of Mass.

Staggering! …I had never given this any thought…I mean…I knew that it was difficult to follow the missal…but…WOW!

 

[theMutant]

2x3x30x2x18x2x8x16x4x2x3 = 39,813,120 legitimate options not counting the possibility of including the blessings at the beginning and end of Mass.

Correction… this is the number of legitimate variations that can be made by combining the options, not the number of options.

David W. Cooney o)

 

[lyoncoeur]

Ham1:

Soooooooo…

Options create abuse?

Many options do not create or cause abuse in of it’s self…but with so many options, you have to be especially diligent about correctness. With so many options it becomes easier to let inconsistencies or outright incorrect practice slide by…just as we Americans are given many options as a result of our many constitutional freedoms, we have to be especially diligent about how we conduct ourselves.

 

[Iohannes]

itsjustdave1988:

Iohannes,

The bishop ought to be ashamed of himself. Can you tell me who it was? I like to keep track of which Bishops are trustworthy and which are lousy.

God bless,

Dave

Here is another post about the situation in Orange County:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9590&postcount=65

 

[dcs]

theMutant:

Correction… this is the number of legitimate variations that can be made by combining the options, not the number of options.

There’s actually more options than that, since there are now 10 approved anaphorae (Eucharistic Prayers) for the NOM (and that number doesn’t include those for “children’s Masses”). Also, the Gradual is still permitted to be used instead of the Responsorial Psalm.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

theMutant:

You seem to put forth the idea that the changes to the Mass foster greater participation because people no longer concentrate on reading along in the Missal. This is erroneous. You are arguing against the wisdom of many popes who declared that the best way to get the people to participate in the Mass is to put missals in their hands.

David,

No, I argue that it is no longer necessary to read along in a Missal in order for the congregation to understand what the priest is saying and, therefore, follow him. You can listen - without the necessity to be fluent in Latin.

I don’t remember any papal declarations that the best way to obtain participation in Mass by the faithful is to put missals into their hands. And, if there are any such declarations, I’m sure they weren’t made ex cathedra, so I decline to be concerned about arguing against such “wisdom”. I would instead suggest that any hierarch who believes that reading to follow encourages participation bone up on adult learning styles and pedagogic methodology.

theMutant:

You also argue that the fact that people used to go to ethnic parishes before the Mass changed indicated that offering the Mass completely in the vernacular did not increase the division of Catholics of different ethnic backgrounds. I maintain that this is completely illogical. GeorgeCooney’s point in bringing this up is that, with the 1962 Missal, you could attend and participate in the Mass at a parish anywhere in the Latin rite in a way that you simply cannot with the Mass offered completely in the vernacular. If you attend a mass according to the 1962 Missal in a parish that speaks a language you do not understand, the only part of the Mass you would not be able to understand is the sermon. Other than that, you could offer the exact same prayers as the priest and everyone else in that parrish because you it was all done in ONE language and there were no options.

I once tried to attend Mass in a parish where I did not speak the language. What opening prayer did the priest offer? What readings were used? I have no idea on these and many other points including what form of the Creed they used. I was not participating in that Mass because I could not. I had been rendered unable to do so by the fact that the entire Mass was offered in a language I don’t understand and there are so many options that I had no way of knowing what was going on.

George argued that in the days of the Latin Mass, people weren’t sitting in ethnic/linguistic groups, suggesting that they were scattered throughout the church, blissfully partaking of a Mass they all understood because it was served in a language that had the commonality of being unknown to any of them. I pointed out that

if George lived at the time in any major city, particularly those east of the Mississippi, the people of all languages weren’t sitting next to each other - they were off attending Mass in the national or ethnic parishes of their homeland.

and that

If TBoy had looked in the phone book pre-1965 he would indeed not have seen Vietnamese, Filipino, or Japanese parishes listed, because the number of Catholics from any of those cultures (with the exception of Filipinos in some West Coast areas) was not sufficient - almost non-existent in fact - to support such. He would, however, in most large urban dioceses have probably seen (the precise mix depending on the diocese’s heritage) Italian, French, Lithuanian, Polish, Slovak, Albanian, Portuguese, Belgian, an occasional German, maybe a Swiss or Austrian (I remember seeing one each of such in western Pennsylvania), Spanish, or Chinese parishes. It was a fair bet that all the other - undesignated - parishes were accepting of everyone but, in most dioceses, would be considered the Irish parishes.

My point was that ethnic or national parishes were not a phenomenon that arose in the wake of VII; they were, in fact, as if not more prevalent than they are now. As to your experience, it clearly argues for being certain that the parish at which you plan to attend Mass serves it in a language that you understand, not a hard thing to do.

Many years,

Neil

 

[theMutant]

Irish Melkite:

I argue that it is no longer necessary to read along in a Missal in order for the congregation to understand what the priest is saying and, therefore, follow him. You can listen - without the necessity to be fluent in Latin.

I don’t remember any papal declarations that the best way to obtain participation in Mass by the faithful is to put missals into their hands. And, if there are any such declarations, I’m sure they weren’t made ex cathedra, so I decline to be concerned about arguing against such “wisdom”. I would instead suggest that any hierarch who believes that reading to follow encourages participation bone up on adult learning styles and pedagogic methodology.

Neil,

You seem to feel that the ability to understand what the priest is saying in your own language naturally leads to greater participation of the faithful than when reading along in the Missal. I disagree. Maybe your parish is wonderful and your priests offer the current rite in a reverent way. Maybe the Catholics in your parish are on-fire with the faith and attentive during Mass. If so, count yourself lucky because this is not the case in my parish, or in the many other parishes I have been to, or in the parishes of others with whom I have spoken.

Catholics talking all through the Mass, reading the bulletin (or other things), and doing other things rather than participating in the Mass still occur regularly - changing the Mass to the vernacular has not eliminated this. Based on conversations I have had with many people, including those who share your preference for the current rite, show me that this has actually increased since the Mass has changed.

You say that one can listen without the necessity to be fluent in Latin when the Mass is offered in the vernacular. Well, I am in no way fluent in Latin and was able to fully participate in the Latin Mass. However, I cannot fully participate in a Polish, Spanish, or German Mass. This, in my opinion, completely disarms your argument about whether or not people were disobedient in the past and went to an ethnic parish instead of their own. (It used to be required to attend and support the parish in which you lived. It is now only strongly recommended.)

If I can find the papal declarations about using Missals, I will gladly share them for your consideration. However, there are no ex cathedra declarations about the superiority of being able to listen to the Mass in the vernacular rather than using a Missal. In fact, you are STILL supposed to use the Missal when participating in the Mass in your own language (I admit that this is not an absolute requirement).

In regard to “adult learning styles and pedagogic methodology,” PUH-LEESE! Are you actually trying to claim that the changes in the Mass were made to accomodate these? I never found such a claim in any of the documents that have come out to explain why these changes are so wonderful. Current educational THEORIES about learning styles and methodologies are responsible for the current deplorable state of our primare, secondary, and adult education systems. I have done a bit of studying in this myself as well as having lengthy discussions with many educators on the subject so don’t expect such statements to have ANY impact on my opinions in this matter.

Peace,

David W. Cooney

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks for the info Iohannes.

I used to live in Orange County as a kid. I was an altar boy at St. Bonaventure and went to elementary school there.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gotta agree with Neil. We don’t have missals at my parish. Nobody but the catechumens seem to use or need them. I bring my missal, because it contains some wonderful traditional prayers from St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, etc., for praying before and after Mass.

However, after experiencing the TLM, I prefer the liturgy in the language I pray at home, the same language as my Bible at home, the same liturgy since I was a kid (with few exceptions).

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. The “my liturgical prayer is holier than your liturgical prayer” discussion is something I don’t care to get into. There are over 20 approved Catholic liturgies, each of them sacred. I neither lobby for or against the TLM, but it seems traditionalists will never be happy until the 1962 Roman Missal is celebrated by everyone … an even then, they’ll likely find something else to complain about.

God bless,

Dave

 

[dutch]

I was brought up in the Novus Ordo Mass and attend the Tridentine Mass when I can. It’s really obvious that in general, those who celebrate and participate in the Missal of 1962 are much more orthodox and passionate about their faith.

This isn’t rocket science. There is a huge break in tradition in the way mass was celebrated prior to 1970 vs. the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated now. This break in tradition is not organic but is trying to refashion the faith so it conforms to our needs.

The missal of '62 is still around for a reason. That is because the reform of the liturgy failed in what it was intended to do.

** lex orandi, lex credendi**

 

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

The “my liturgical prayer is holier than your liturgical prayer” discussion is something I don’t care to get into. There are over 20 approved Catholic liturgies, each of them sacred. I neither lobby for or against the TLM, but it seems traditionalists will never be happy until the 1962 Roman Missal is celebrated by everyone … an even then, they’ll likely find something else to complain about.

Dave,

Your comments seem to me a rather transparent attack on those who disagree with you while trying to place yourself outside of and even above the discussion. If you really don’t get to get into this topic, then why do you make posts about it?

The Catholics I know who lobby for the TLM don’t do so because of a “holier than thou” attitude but because we genuinely feel that the current rite has wreaked havoc on the Latin Rite of the Church.

1: Vatican II stated that changes to the Mass should (a) respect the long standing tradition and practice and (b) be done in order to meet the needs of the Church.

2: The changes to the Mass in the Latin Rite have introduced so many options that the faithful are not able to discern when abuses are being introduced. This in contrary to the needs of the Church.

3: I maintain that the number of options allows for so many variations that they constitute a drastic change to the Mass that fails to respect the long standing tradition and practice of the Latin Rite. This is contrary to the wishes of Vatican II.

4: The practice of offering the Mass completely in the vernacular was contrary to the long standing practice of the Latin Rite and also contrary to Vatican II’s constitution on the liturgy.

5: Offering the Mass entirely in the vernacular prevents the faithful from participating in the Mass except where their own language is used. Even if Catholics congregated according to their ethnic background and language in the past, this change has only served to further divide and isolate Latin Rite Catholics of different ethnic backgrounds by making it impossible, rather than merely unlikely, for them to participate in Masses offered in parishes where they do not know the language.

6: These changes have caused divisions among Latin Rite Catholics and drove a great number of Catholics away from the Mass and, in some cases, from the Church. I do not maintain that these Catholics were in any way justified in this but, considering this fact, I fail to see how these changes served the needs of the Church.

7: The Holy Father has repreatedly said that the Mass according to the 1962 Missal should be made available for those Catholics attached to it. Most bishops have refused to make this accomodation.

8: It is just as easy to fail to fully participate in a Mass offered entirely in the vernacular as it is when following along in the missal. It is also just as easy to fully participate in a Mass offered in Latin by following along in the Missal as with hearing the Mass entirely in the vernacular. Therefore, the change allowing for the Mass to be offered entirely in the vernacular did nothing to promote fuller participation of the faithful.

9: Vatican II taught that the Latin Rite bishops need to be sure that the Catholics of their dioceses know and understand certain parts of the Mass in Latin. The change to allow the Mass to be offered completely in the vernacular is contrary to this instruction.

The universal indult should be granted fror all of these reasons; especially number 7. The changes that constitute the current Latin rite of the Mass failed to address any needs of the Church and have resulted in a dramatic decline in Mass attendance. It does not follow the directions set forth by the Council; especially ragarding respecting long standing traditions and practices and maintaining the use of Latin. I feel that the universal indult will help those of us who feel spiritually abandoned by the Latin Rite of the Church. I also feel that the changes made to the Mass should be reconsidered according to the teaching of Vatican II. For all of the reasons stated above, I disagree with those bishops who assert that the current rite of Mass adheres to the wishes of the council.

David W. Cooney o)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

theMutant,

Traditionalists are a very vocal minority within the Catholic Church. I post my opinion as I believe it to bring some conservative balance to the discussion. I’m not opposed to a universal indult. I just don’t see that it will have much affect. We already have an indult Mass in Colorado Springs and I think the 50 or so people who attend are very happy with it.

we genuinely feel that the current rite has wreaked havoc on the Latin Rite of the Church

You are free to genuinely feel anything you wish. I genuinely disagree.

The proposition that the Church can establish a discipline that his harmful or dangerous was condemned as erroneous by the Catholic Church. Certainly disciplines can be abused and become harmful over time because of that abuse, which may be the result of poor catechesis or just plain sloth, but the discipline, as established by the Roman Pontiff, was neither harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

The changes that constitute the current Latin rite of the Mass … have resulted in a dramatic decline in Mass attendance.

I don’t think so. The decline in Mass attendance seems to be a consequence of the bigger decline in Christianity in general. The decline in Christianity over the past 100 years affected non-Catholic Christianity significantly more than Catholicism. Therefore, the decline in attendance seems more likely to be a result of something that has affected ALL Christianity as a percent of world population.

God bless,

Dave

 

[theMutant]

I do not maintain that the rite of Mass itself is harmful, but that it was unwise. The changes failed to adhere to the stated guidelines of Vatican II and have done nothing to improve the faith of Catholics or to bring non-Catholics into the Church. These changes set the stage for the harm that has been wrought upon the Latin Rite of the Church. Even if the Mass itself cannot be directly blamed, it has been the instrument for these harms. If you wish to disagree, I think that we would all appreciate it if you could cite examples of the benefits that the new rite has brought that the traditional rite could not. Until you can do so, you just don’t seem to have any basis for feeling that the new Mass has not wreaked havoc on the Latin Rite. I have found this to be pretty consistent in various discussions on this matter. Those who are described as “traditionalists” cite examples of what has happened since the changes were made and those who favor the current rite brush them aside with little plattitudes and seem to feel that should be enough to end the discussion.

Don’t get me wrong here. I believe that the current Latin rite of Mass is entirely valid and that it CAN be offered in a reverent and faithful manner. It can be used for effective catechesis. I cite as an example of this the Masses offered on EWTN. However, EWTN is the exception and abuses have become all too prevalent; so much so that Rome had to issue special instructions to end the abuse. A point that those who share your view have completely failed to address. These abuses COULD NOT have become so wide-spread if the numerous options of the current rite were not available.

Additionally, some people seem to think that we traditionalists reject any kind of change. This is not the case. Remember that the Missal we want to use it that of 1962, not 1570. The Mass had been changed numerous times between the Councils of Trent and Vatican II. We do not have a problem with this. The guidelines that Vatican II set for considering changes to the Latin Mass were based on the centuries old practice of the Church and if the changes that came after Vatican II had followed those guidelines we would not have had any problem with that as well. We don’t have a problem with the various Eastern Rites either because they trace their liturgical practices all they way back to the Apostles who founded their Rites. We ARE NOT dictatorial zealots who insist that all must do it our way.

You cite one parish where the attendance at the undult Mass is only 50 and use this as “proof” of our being a very vocal minority. I attended one for years where there were at least 100 every Sunday and Holy day. Most of today’s younger Catholics have never learned or experienced the traditional Mass so you cannot count them in your assessment of this. I have had discussions with many young Catholics after they had discovered the traditional Mass and most of them wonder why the Church ever gave it up.

You don’t agree that the changes after Vatican II were enough to constitute a major change. Well, as one who was raised on the post-conciliar Mass, I think they have and I have cited reasons why I think so. My impression when I first attended the traditional Mass was that I was experiencing something totally new to me. Could you please explain in what way the changes “respect the long-standing traditions and practices” of the Latin Rite before the Council? When the Missal was formalized after the Council of Trent, they went back through Church documents all the way back to the beginning in order to restore the Apostolic practice of the Latin Rite.

I have heard the claim that “sloth” or just plain poor catechesis is to blame for the level of abuse. I agree on the point of poor catechesis but remember that Catholics have been told that the changes were “in the spirit of Vatican II.” I have cited why I think that this is incorrect. You disagree with me but you do not explain why. As far as “sloth” goes, anyone who spoke out against the changes was treated as an ignorant neanderthal by those pushing for change, including priests and bishops. This continues today. It is not sloth that has caused the abuses of today, it is a deliberate attack on the Church.

You seem to feel that it is just some grand coincidence that the issues raised by me and others multiplied AFTER the new rite was introduced. It is just a coincidence that the Catholic Church resisted the general decline of Christianity UNTIL the Mass was changed? The decline in Mass attendance was dramatic and immediately followed the change. The decline in Christianity overall was not dramatic, but gradual over the course of many many years. I’m sorry, but your explanation just doesn’t make any sense.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I attended one for years where there were at least 100 every Sunday and Holy day.

Yes. And I attend a parish that has about 100 every weekday. I guess we have different perspectives.