Universal Indult

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

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

If your parish has about 100 every weekday, then it is an exception to the rule already and you should feel very blessed. I have attended parishes of 30,000 families where only 10 to 15 show up for daily Mass (using the current rite). I am not claiming that this is the norm, but you cannot claim that your situation is either. As far as the attandance at the traditional Latin Mass, Sundays and Holy Days were the ONLY days that Mass was allowed. So, I think my perspective is just fine.

I look forward to you addressing the many other points that are still unanswered.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I attend daily Mass at three parishes in the C. Springs, depending upon my schedule … St. Patrick’s, St. Mary’s, and the Chapel at the Mall. Each have had between 50-100 people in attendance at every Mass I’ve been to.

Perhaps it is the Diocese that is exceptional. I happen to think so. Perhaps this is why the Traditionalist draw here in C. Springs is not that great. There are traditional Catholics in every parish.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I look forward to you addressing the many other points that are still unanswered.

Sorry David, but if I answered every point posted to me, I wouldn’t have time to attend daily Mass.

God bless,

Dave

 

[JNB]

You know Dave, enough about the 50 mass goers at the local TLM, ok, how many times do you want to harp on this point, because that is what you are indeed doing.

Again, any community that keeps on being uprooted will have difficulty growing, and that is what the TLM community in your diocese faces, hopefully St Joeseph is going to be their permanent home from now on. Anyways, you may have a solid Bishop, be thankful for that, but your diocese has a long way to go since your previous Bishop from what I read was quite a liberal. Anyways, if you further want to debate, please find somthing else to debate on the “50” mass goers, it gets tiresome.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hey, JNB… I’m only responding to the questions being asked of me. If you don’t like my responses, you don’t have to read them.

Our parish started out in the basement of a restaurant, and continued to grow as we moved to other facilities. Your “keeps on being uprooted theory” is unconvincing.

It was Bishop Hanifen that gave the indult for the TLM. In what way was he liberal?

God bless,

Dave

 

[jimmy_the_hand]

Actually, the TLM in Colorado Springs has about 130 in attendance (on average).

 

[dcs]

itsjustdave1988:

It was Bishop Hanifen that gave the indult for the TLM. In what way was he liberal?

I don’t know anything about +Hanifen, but giving permission for the TLM does not make a bishop not liberal. For example, +Walter Sullivan, the retired bishop of Richmond, VA, was one of the most generous prelates in the country with the TLM, establishing two personal parishes in his diocese. And yet he was also one of the most liberal diocesan Ordinaries.

 

[jimmy_the_hand]

It was Bishop Hanifen that gave the indult for the TLM. In what way was he liberal?

I do not have dates for this event, but I believe the Dignity mass in the Cathedral would qualify as “liberal”.

 

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

Sorry David, but if I answered every point posted to me, I wouldn’t have time to attend daily Mass.

So, you want to just throw out your own views, have other accept them just on the basis of your declaration, but not address the reasons why other disagree with you. Okay, then I guess I’ll give your posts all of the consideration you are giving ours.

You say that lots of people attend daily Mass in your diocese. Praise God! Very few do in my own. One Church has a stone plaque with the old Mass schedules engraved. 5 Masses every Sunday and two on every weekday. There are now only two on Sunday and weekday Mass is only on two days of the week. All of these are very lightly attended. Descriptions that I have heard from people all over the country show similar results. There are other dioceses like yours but they seem to be the clear exception to rule.

My point in bringing this up is that, not only did changing the Mass NOT increase attendance, it drastically reduced it. The fact that attendance was steadily increasing before the changes were introduced and then, suddenly, dramatically decreased afterward shows that your assertion that this was a result of a general decline in Christian observance is incorrect.

 

[GeorgeCooney]

JMJ

Reading through these posts leaves me very sad, but very thankful that I experienced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for many years before the Novus Ordo and the overwhelming, associated changes in Church design, decor, and “bringing up to date.” There is no relationship evident in too many of the above posts to the Christocentric purpose of the Holy Sacrifice. The switch to homocentric themes and purposes is staggering.

While the Holy Sacrifice can have a Sacramental element beyond the Holy Eucharist; such as, an ordination, a wedding, a funeral, and other very solemn Church ceremonies, the sine qua non is the priest offering, with the laity assisting, the Infinite Sacrifice to God for our personal sins and the sins of all mankind. The priest and the individual assisting should remember during every moment in the Church that they are in the Real Presence of God. They are there to bend their knees and and to bow their heads in abject humility and submission to God, begging for His Mercy in full recognition, admission, sorrow, rejection, resolution, and amendment for their sins.

They are not there to see others and to be seen, not to display their talents and accomplishments, not to be entertained or amused. They are there to fall on their knees and beg for God’s forgiveness. They are not there to wonder how this parish and/or this priest does Mass. Prior to the *Novus Ordo * and the uncountable, associated changes, the Holy Sacrifice of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was the same throughout the world. The Missal you carried gave you all of the words and rubrics translated into your native tongue; and they were followed strictly. You were completely at home in a French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch village Church where not one other person spoke your language.

The music during Mass should contribute a mood in complete conformity to the purpose of the Mass, principly adoration and humble submission. Organ music had been determined to be the most effective and the least intrusive to this end. Foot tapping or being lost in a song is not proper to the purpose of the Mass. The organist and the choir are best hidden behind the laity to prevent distraction.

Clothing, especially headress, used to be a symbol of power, position, or wealth for men. In Church men removed their headress in humility. For women their hair was "their crowning glory. In Church women covered their hair. This remained a required custom and a public demonstartion of humility until those “associated” changes following “in the spirit” of the Novus Ordo.

I’ve said in other threads that this is not a nostalgia for times past as so many acuse us. It is a great sadness that the awe, the mystery, the adoration exhibited in Church and especially during Mass has been reduced monumentally. I recognize that some priests have maintained or re-instituted proper decorum and attitude within the limitations of the Novus Ordo, but these are exceptions, and in my experience rare exceptions, when compared to the researched and restored Mass required by Saint Pius V in his encyclical, *Quo Primum * (1570).

.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

As a personal opinion, my opinion can be dismissed, but the statistics show clearly and emphatically that immediately after these changes, Mass attendence has dropped severely, the belief in the Real Presence has dropped from above 90% to below 20%, that many Catholics have left the Church, that holy vocations have almost disappeared in the diocese exhibiting the most “modern” adaptations, that Catholic schools at all levels openly teach heresy and blasphemy.

Of course, the Church and its functions were not perfect or without sin and apostacy prior to the Novus Ordo, but for those who have prolonged experience, both before and after, the difference is phenominal.

I pray for a Universal Indult. I **totally disagree ** with those who say or hint that the *Novus Ordo * is illicit or that the Chair of Peter is vacant The Pope has the authority to establish a Mass which has only the Consecration and Communion to be offered in back yards on Sundays. Would that be wise, or the best human method to offer the Sacrifice? Would that better demonstrate in human terms our Offering to God in reparation for our sins. Again in my opinion, I think not. Likewise, I believe that the Novus Ordo has not produced any of the advertised advantages, but has resulted in many effects contrary to those advantages.

May God bless us all.

 

[Ham1]

theMutant:

My point in bringing this up is that, not only did changing the Mass NOT increase attendance, it drastically reduced it. The fact that attendance was steadily increasing before the changes were introduced and then, suddenly, dramatically decreased afterward shows that your assertion that this was a result of a general decline in Christian observance is incorrect.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…

Your statement doesn’t follow in terms of causality. If we use your logic then we could say that sexual abuse by priests plummeted once we got rid of the old mass. Therefore, the old mass caused priests to sexually abuse minors.

The lack of mass attendance and orthodoxy is not caused by the rite of the mass. The problem is much deeper and is a problem with the whole of society and morality.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

itsjustdave1988:

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 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.

I wish to refer once again to the article from “Homiletic and Pastoral Review” in their October, 2000 issue titled: “Novus ordo Missae: The record after thirty years” by Dr. James Lothian.

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

The entire article is good, but here is an excerpt:

“The picture that emerges is distressing. Mass attendance of U.S. Catholics fell precipitously in the decade following the liturgical changes and has continued to decline ever since. This decline moreover is not an isolated phenomenon, confined solely to the Church in America. In England and Wales, the time pattern of Mass attendance has been just as bad, perhaps even worse. Church attendance of Protestants, in contrast, has followed a much different path. For most of the period it was without any discernible trend, either up or down. In recent years it actually has risen. The notion that the Catholic fall off was simply one part of a larger societal trend, therefore, receives absolutely no support in these data.”

God bless!

 

[Thomas]

I’m with George Cooney in hoping for a universal indult. The Novus Ordo is valid, but as a reform it has been a failure. And yes, I am free to disagree with those who say it has born great fruit, even our Holy Father who I respect greatly. The bishops have been willing to tolerate almost anything but, except in a few dioceses, are stingy or refuse entirely to make the Tridentine Mass available. Please read some of the above posts. Even those who have an indult mass are palpably afraid that by some whim of the bishop it will be taken away. I don’t see that fear from those who support the Novus Ordo. Why? The bishops and others might say that it was not intentional, but the apprehension exists nonetheless. If “community” is so important, why don’t we all unite to make sure the Tridentine is widely available, and stays that way?

 

[theMutant]

Ham1:

Your statement doesn’t follow in terms of causality. If we use your logic then we could say that sexual abuse by priests plummeted once we got rid of the old mass. Therefore, the old mass caused priests to sexually abuse minors.

I’m sorry, but you need to read the findings of the investigations regarding sexual abuse by clergy throroughly. The main reason behind that problem was of seminary formation (more specifically, lack thereof) and bishops who listened to flawed medical theories about “curing” such problems and failed to protect their flocks. If you follow the laws of causality, you will see that the change in priestly behavior did not follow the changes in the Mass, but changes in the seminary. Therefore you whole point fall apart.

However, the decline in Mass attendance was a direct result of the changes in the Mass and this is supported by the testimony of those who stopped attending. Lack of orthodoxy has nothing to do with the rite of Mass per se, however, the number of options have allowed abuses to creap in which have led to a reduction in orthodoxy. Remember the previous post that attempted to equate lack of knowlege in the faith with not knowing how to program a VCR. Many Catholics who go to Mass every week do not know their faith. This was not the case before the Mass was changed because the readings for every Sunday were chosen for their support of a particular topic of faith and priests were required to present that topic on that Sunday. This is also outlined and referenced in the Catechism issued by Pope St. Pius V.

I don’t have a problem with the decision to include a wider variety of Bible readings over a three-year cycle in the Mass; however, it was stated that the arrangement of readings was deliberately made so as not to focus on a particular teaching to be presented at that Mass. Therefore, I contend that, while the changes did not necessitate a fall from orthodoxy, they did pave the way for such a fall.

 

[dcs]

Ham1:

Your statement doesn’t follow in terms of causality. If we use your logic then we could say that sexual abuse by priests plummeted once we got rid of the old mass. Therefore, the old mass caused priests to sexually abuse minors.

You have statistics to back that up? It’s a pretty daring claim to make, I think.

The lack of mass attendance and orthodoxy is not caused by the rite of the mass. The problem is much deeper and is a problem with the whole of society and morality.

If the Church were somehow more orthodox and Mass attendance were somehow higher nowadays than before when the traditional Mass was the norm, would you object to people using the excuse “post hoc ergo propter hoc” against those who claimed that the New Missal was responsible?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…

Your statement doesn’t follow in terms of causality. If we use your logic then we could say that sexual abuse by priests plummeted once we got rid of the old mass. Therefore, the old mass caused priests to sexually abuse minors.

The lack of mass attendance and orthodoxy is not caused by the rite of the mass. The problem is much deeper and is a problem with the whole of society and morality.

I have heard the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy used as a refutation of the assertion that the New Mass was a significant factor in the decline in Mass attendance after the release of the New Mass. It is a good idea to take a closer look at this logical fallacy. I found this here:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm

Coincidental Correlation
(post hoc ergo propter hoc )

**Definition:

The name in Latin means “after this therefore because of this”. This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is *assumed *[my emphasis] that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.

**
Examples:

(i) Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased immigration caused the increased welfare rolls.
(ii) I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold disappeared.

Proof:

Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that:

(i) the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur, or

(ii) that the effect was caused by something other than the suggested cause.
References

(Cedarblom and Paulsen: 237, Copi and Cohen: 101)

Merely citing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in no way automatically refutes the claim that the New Mass was a significant factor in the decline of Mass attendance. Now, if people merely assumed that the New Mass was a factor in the decline in Mass attendance without providing any evidence for this assertion, then yes, that would be a problem.

For actual evidence that the New Mass was a real factor in the decline in Mass attendance see the article I link above called “Novus ordo Missae: The record after thirty years” by Dr. James Lothian in the October 2000 issue of “Homiletic and Pastoral Review.” Here is the link:

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

God bless.

 

[Ham1]

theMutant:

I’m sorry, but you need to read the findings of the investigations regarding sexual abuse by clergy throroughly. The main reason behind that problem was of seminary formation (more specifically, lack thereof) and bishops who listened to flawed medical theories about “curing” such problems and failed to protect their flocks. If you follow the laws of causality, you will see that the change in priestly behavior did not follow the changes in the Mass, but changes in the seminary. Therefore you whole point fall apart.

However, the decline in Mass attendance was a direct result of the changes in the Mass and this is supported by the testimony of those who stopped attending. Lack of orthodoxy has nothing to do with the rite of Mass per se, however, the number of options have allowed abuses to creap in which have led to a reduction in orthodoxy. Remember the previous post that attempted to equate lack of knowlege in the faith with not knowing how to program a VCR. Many Catholics who go to Mass every week do not know their faith. This was not the case before the Mass was changed because the readings for every Sunday were chosen for their support of a particular topic of faith and priests were required to present that topic on that Sunday. This is also outlined and referenced in the Catechism issued by Pope St. Pius V.

I don’t have a problem with the decision to include a wider variety of Bible readings over a three-year cycle in the Mass; however, it was stated that the arrangement of readings was deliberately made so as not to focus on a particular teaching to be presented at that Mass. Therefore, I contend that, while the changes did not necessitate a fall from orthodoxy, they did pave the way for such a fall.

Please don’t take what I said out of context. I was not claiming that the Tridentine Mass caused sexual abuse. That would be ridiculous, but would follow logically from what I had quoted from you. My statement was meant to reveal that your statement claiming that the new mass caused the decline in modern attendance is not necessarily true.

In this post now, you are claiming a cause of the current orthodoxy problem with the changes to the Mass. This is a completely different tactic from your previous post and is far more useflu in the discussion.

I hope this helps to clarify.

Just as an aside on the sexual abuse issue, when did these changes occur in the seminary and what do you think caused
the changes?

 

[Ham1]

Brennan,

Thanks for the info. Just to be clear, I was responding to one particular previous post. I was not claiming that all who claim that the new mass caused problems are incorrect. That’s why I quoted the specific post before replying. I hope this helps to clarify.

DCS,

In no way am I claiming that the tridentine mass caused the abuse. That would be an error of the same kind that’s why I posted it saying, “IF we used your logic,…”

And yes, I would still object even if things were more orthodox now. Let’s be clear, I agree that the Church is troubled (although I think things are improving). I just think that it is more useful to examine causes rather than simply chronological order.

I hope you can all understand that I am not some clown-mass favoring lunatic!

 

[system]

Ham1:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…

Your statement doesn’t follow in terms of causality. If we use your logic then we could say that sexual abuse by priests plummeted once we got rid of the old mass. Therefore, the old mass caused priests to sexually abuse minors.

The lack of mass attendance and orthodoxy is not caused by the rite of the mass. The problem is much deeper and is a problem with the whole of society and morality.

I’m going to support you almost 100% on this. (“Almost” because I would never use Latin to make a point. But I digress.)

It simply CANNOT be proven that the introduction of the New Mass, relaxation of requirements like Friday abstinence and veils for women, and so on are related in any measurable way to the price of tea in China, or to anything else for that matter.

And I refuse to believe the “belief in the Real Presence has dropped from above 90% to below 20%” argument. (Last time I heard someone mention this, it was 30%. Now it’s below 20%? Oh no!) I have filed this in the “lies, d*mned lies, and statistics” bin. I have lived all around the country and I simply see NOTHING to support this.

I realize my opinions will fall on deaf ears, because these things have been repeated for so long among the Traditionlist hard-liners that their “faith” in these things will not be shaken.

By the way, you folks do realize that ham1 said “the old mass caused priests to sexually abuse minors.” to demonstrate an assertion as ridiculous and unprovable as “the new mass caused attendance to decline.” I think some of you didn’t see the parallel he was trying to draw, and that makes me sad.

 

[dcs]

Ham1:

In no way am I claiming that the tridentine mass caused the abuse. That would be an error of the same kind that’s why I posted it saying, “IF we used your logic,…”

I didn’t say you were claiming this. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I understood you to be claiming that sex abuse among the clergy was higher when under the old Missal than it is now under the New Missal. That’s why I asked if you had any statistics for this claim.

And yes, I would still object even if things were more orthodox now. Let’s be clear, I agree that the Church is troubled (although I think things are improving). I just think that it is more useful to examine causes rather than simply chronological order.

But then when someone posits the introduction and imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae as a possible cause, he is accused of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy!

I hope you can all understand that I am not some clown-mass favoring lunatic!

I think the proposition that the clown Mass increases lunacy is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.