Universal Indult

[Ham1]

Thanks for the support!

Yeah, it seems no one read my post very clearly.

It seems obvious that problems with the Church and with the faithful reach far before Vatican II and the new mass.

 

[Ham1]

dcs:

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!

As I mentioned before, I stated PHEPH in reference to one post which I quoted. I specifically did this because the post that I quoted did not contain any causal link. That does not that all posts making this claim did not show any causality.

As far as the sexual abuse link, the statistics from the report show that over 70% of abuser priests were ordained before the new mass and 89.5% were born before 1949. What I think this statistic does show is that the seminaries must have been in trouble well before the new mass and VII.

 

[dcs]

Ham1:

As far as the sexual abuse link, the statistics from the report show that over 70% of abuser priests were ordained before the new mass and 89.5% were born before 1949. What I think this statistic does show is that the seminaries must have been in trouble well before the new mass and VII.

I would not be surprised to find that 70% of all priests in the U.S. were ordained before 1969 and that ~90% of them were born before 1949.

But it really doesn’t matter, this isn’t really what you claimed. You claimed that sex abuse “plummeted” after the introduction of the New Mass:

Ham1:

If we use your logic then we could say that sexual abuse by priests plummeted once we got rid of the old mass.

If you are going to give an example of the PHEPH fallacy, then your example should at least be based on true premises.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Melman:

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.

It is not really “faith” that causes one to believe that the New Mass has helped cause a decline in the belief in the Real Presence and a dramatic decline in Mass attendance. I think first and foremost it is a matter of common sense. And no, this is not a matter of “proof.” We are not talking about scientific experimentation here, but rather reason and logic backed up by evidence.

Let’s say I were a car maker and had a certain model that was selling rather well. Then I got rid of that model and introduced a new one which looked significantly different and sales started dropping dramatically. It would seem reasonable for the car maker to first look to the introduction of the new model for the reason for the decline in sales, particularly if other car manufacturers were not experiencing a similar decline.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

As far as the sexual abuse link, the statistics from the report show that over 70% of abuser priests were ordained before the new mass and 89.5% were born before 1949. What I think this statistic does show is that the seminaries must have been in trouble well before the new mass and VII.

Here is an interesting quote from James Hitchcock, who is a Catholic professor of history at St. Louis University. This is from the excellent article entitled: “The End of Gaudium et Spes?” at:

http://www.montfort.org.br/eng/veritas/end_gaudium_spes.html

Here is the quote:

“The scandals are a particularly grim result of misplaced post-conciliar optimism. Strict rules about clerical behavior were generally rescinded after the Council, on the grounds that priests could be trusted to act in appropriate ways.”

And yes, I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but hopefully it is food for thought.

 

[theMutant]

Melman:

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.

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.

The statistics regarding belief in the Real Presence are based on polls of CATHOLICS WHO GO TO MASS. Maybe we don’t always quote those statistics correctly, but they are still there. You say that you haven’t seen anything to support it, but I wonder if you have actually ASKED anyone in your travels around the country. Hmmmm. I recently attended a First Communion. While I was walking down the steps after Mass, I overheard one of the children who had just received our Lord for the first time make a comment about the taste of th Eucharist. Her CATHOLIC mother told her not to worry about it because “it’s only symbolic of Christ.” I realize that there are plenty of Catholics who do believe in the real presence, but I personally know many who don’t and I just can’t seem to convince them otherwise. Why? Because they don’t view it as a very important issue.

In regard to this parallel about the priestly sex scandal. This parallel failed to demonstrate that the reason for the decline in Mass attendance is unprovable because the reason for the priestly sex scandal HAS been proven. Read the reports. The reason for the decline in Mass attendance is supported by the testimonies of those who left the Mass and the Church; many of whom said that the changes in the Mass were one of the primary reasons for their leaving.

It is you who support your position based solely on “faith.” Your faith that the new Mass is such a wonderful thing is so strong that you REFUSE to see the clear evidence of the problem that have occurred as a result of it. The Mass itself is Holy, valid, and licit. The number of changes to it were unwise and have allowed for abuses and a general failure to use the Mass as a tool for Catechesis for the Catholics in attendance. If you believe otherwise, then I ask the same of you that I asked of others before; give examples of the blessings to the Church that have been a result of this Mass and that could not have also been given through the traditional rite.

 

[system]

theMutant:

It is you who support your position based solely on “faith.” Your faith that the new Mass is such a wonderful thing is so strong that you REFUSE to see the clear evidence of the problem that have occurred as a result of it.

Actually, you don’t know what my position is. So I’ll tell you.

Until a few months ago, I didn’t even know the mass was changed in 1970. I made First Communion in 1972, began serving mass thereafter, and I never ever heard our very devout traditional pastor (ordained about 1950), nor any relatives, nor ANYONE, mention that things “used to be different”. No laments nor longings for the old ways, certainly never heard about anyone leaving the church over it. I’ve been a lot of places since those days, and the topic has just never come up.

When I learned of the old Mass, I was interested in learning more. Simply from a historical perspective - but also to find out why no one ever talked about it, since there’s so much fuss online about it. My parents said they were glad when the new mass came along, since in their estimation “no one” in their community understood Latin anyway.

It’s only in the online forums where the old mass seems to get so much attention, and the new mass is blamed for everything from declining mass attendance (the churches in my area are packed to the gills every Sunday) to disrespect of the Eucharist (I’ve never seen it) to athlete’s foot.

I’m not arguing one side against the other. I simply have yet to see a convincing argument, supported by real evidence and good logic, that the old mass was somehow “better”. It’s actually somewhat befuddling to watch the “Tradtionalists” get so irate when any of their party line is questioned.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Melman:

I’m not arguing one side against the other. I simply have yet to see a convincing argument, supported by real evidence and good logic, that the old mass was somehow “better”. It’s actually somewhat befuddling to watch the “Tradtionalists” get so irate when any of their party line is questioned.

Melman, for a good argument for the Latin Mass vis a vis the New Mass please go here:

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

The article is called “The Case for the Latin Mass” by Dietrich von Hildebrand.

Dietrich von Hildebrand was called a “20th Century Doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII. I have not come across anyone who writes more intelligently regarding the liturgy (though I would recommend Father Aidan Nichols and Father Brian Harrison as well).

For further evidence, please also see this article (which I have mentioned before), 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.

 

[Iohannes]

The only indult Traditional Latin Mass left in Orange County at the Mission San Juan Capristrano is very crowded. To get seats, one has to arrive about 45 min - 1 hour before Mass starts.

 

[theMutant]

Melman:

Until a few months ago, I didn’t even know the mass was changed in 1970. I made First Communion in 1972, began serving mass thereafter, and I never ever heard our very devout traditional pastor (ordained about 1950), nor any relatives, nor ANYONE, mention that things “used to be different”. No laments nor longings for the old ways, certainly never heard about anyone leaving the church over it. I’ve been a lot of places since those days, and the topic has just never come up.

Once again, I state that your view is based on your “faith;” although it may be more correct in your case that your faith is based on the fact that you were not exposed to the complaints in your youth (neither was I) and that you didn’t “hear” complaints as you went around the country. Well, quite frankly, I don’t hear complaints in the various places I have attended Mass either, but I have been told by many of the treatment they received (even by priests) if they dared to complain. Lamentations and complaints weren’t tolerated by those who enforced the change and “traditionalists” who are obedient Catholics mostly suffered in silence. I base this on their own testimony because I was also not born in time to be aware of the change. My father is a perfect example of this. I never heard him complain about the changes to the Mass while I was growing up but he disliked the changes just the same. You can read his views in this thread, the posts of GeorgeCooney. Why did he never complain? Because he is an obedient Catholic who accepts the authority of the Church and of the Pope over the Mass. You will find that this is the case with most people labelled as “traditionalists.”

As far as the “traditionalist” movement only being vocal on these types of forums, you are displaying even more your limited experience in reviewing this issue. There are world-wide organizations promoting the universal indult and calling for a review of the changes to the Mass. These organizations include many priest and bishops and even cardinals. We are not some fringe group that simply cannot accept change.

You say that you have not seen a loss of faith in the Eucharist. Maybe you have been to those parishes which are shining exceptions to the rule and which are the basis for my repeated assertions that the current rite CAN be offered in a sincere and reverent manner. The main problem that I have with your post and those who insist on attacking “traditionalists” is that you consistently refuse to address the issues we bring up. One of my previous posts listed many points where the new rite fails to meet the intention of changing the Mass and the directives of Vatican II. Not one person has refuted these points, they just keep repeating their claims. The loss of faith in the Eucharist is something that is well known in the Church and is the reason that Rome has had to make appeals to people to make Eucharistic devotions and to bishops to foster these things.

You say that Mass attendance is “packed” everywhere you go to church. Well, I used to think so until I started comparing the way Mass used to be scheduled. My idea of “packed” wasn’t what the “old-timers” knew of as “packed.” Churches offering 5 masses every Sunday with all of the pews jammed with people and the rest lined up along the walls and filling the entire back of the Nave. I admit that there are places all around this country where Catholics are attending the current rite of Mass with fervent faith. I maintain that these are exceptions to the rule. I have given several examples and I am sure that others could as well.

What I find interesting is the panic with which those who prefer the current rite react to the assertions that it facilitated some of the problems in the Church today. Among them are some who would not have a problem in allowing the universal indult but they won’t tolerate any of the evidence offered that shows the problems associated with the current rite. We give information from studies and polls from both within and outside of the Church. They simply claim that we’re wrong.

 

[system]

Brennan Doherty:

Melman, for a good argument for the Latin Mass vis a vis the New Mass please go here:
[latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm](http://www.latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm)

Thank you, I will check that out. Although I notice it was written in 1966, and the new mass didn’t even exist at that point.

I found this article very helpful to my incoming ignorance on the entire matter of the old mass and “traditionalists”:
latinliturgy.com/calkinstalk_lla.htm

I have no interest in engaging in lengthy debates, as I said there is a lack of provable cause-and-effect to any of this stuff.
[/quote]

 

[system]

Brennan Doherty:

Melman, for a good argument for the Latin Mass vis a vis the New Mass please go here:

Thank you, I will check that out. Although I notice it was written in 1966, and the new mass didn’t even exist at that point.

I found this article very helpful to my incoming ignorance on the entire matter of the old mass and “traditionalists”:
latinliturgy.com/calkinstalk_lla.htm

I have no interest in engaging in lengthy debates, as I said there is a lack of provable cause-and-effect to any of this stuff. The time is probably better spent in prayer or other educational reading.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Melman:

Thank you, I will check that out. Although I notice it was written in 1966, and the new mass didn’t even exist at that point.

Yes, that’s true, but (according to von Hildebrand) even in 1966 it was difficult to find a Latin Mass in the U.S.; apparently changes were already being made. I wasn’t old enough at the time to know either way.

Further, von Hildebrand’s arguments apply just as well to the liturgical situation as it is now.

God bless.

 

[PASCENDI]

This comparison of the Old Mass versus the New was a real side splitter for me. As was their video debunking sedevacantism.

catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/20149.html

 

[Ham1]

Melman:

Thank you, I will check that out. Although I notice it was written in 1966, and the new mass didn’t even exist at that point.

I found this article very helpful to my incoming ignorance on the entire matter of the old mass and “traditionalists”:
latinliturgy.com/calkinstalk_lla.htm

I have no interest in engaging in lengthy debates, as I said there is a lack of provable cause-and-effect to any of this stuff. The time is probably better spent in prayer or other educational reading.

AMEN!

 

[dcs]

Melman:

found this article very helpful to my incoming ignorance on the entire matter of the old mass and “traditionalists”:
latinliturgy.com/calkinstalk_lla.htm

I have no interest in engaging in lengthy debates, as I said there is a lack of provable cause-and-effect to any of this stuff. The time is probably better spent in prayer or other educational reading.

True enough, and a good reason to avoid Msgr. Calkins’ article entirely. (Though for anyone interested, it was very ably refuted by Michael Davies and Christopher Ferrara in a 2002(?) issue of The Latin Mass.)

 

[system]

dcs:

True enough, and [desire to spend time on other things] a good reason to avoid Msgr. Calkins’ article entirely. (Though for anyone interested, it was very ably refuted by Michael Davies and Christopher Ferrara in a 2002(?) issue of The Latin Mass.)

The Latin Mass and Mr. Davies both being completely biased toward the “Traditionalist” camp, don’t forget to mention that. Msgr. Calkins’ article, although a bit lengthy, was very balanced and fair… which as a newcomer to all this, I found very helpful.

 

[dcs]

The Latin Mass and Mr. Davies both being completely biased toward the “Traditionalist” camp, don’t forget to mention that. Msgr. Calkins’ article, although a bit lengthy, was very balanced and fair… which as a newcomer to all this, I found very helpful.

Msgr. Calkins’ article was neither balanced nor fair and he is no less biased than Michael Davies or The Latin Mass. If anything he is more so. He refers to Davies and those like him as “ideologists who have no concern for the care of souls (cf. Jn. 10:12-13) and who are totally committed to a crusade for the restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal at any cost.” What is “balanced and fair” about that?

I should add that Msgr. Calkins’ job as a member of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is to promote the traditional Missal and to assist the faithful in obtaining its licit celebration from their Ordinaries. His job is not to denigrate faithful traditionalists, or to ask more of the faithful than the Church asks. The Pope’s response to traditionalists was that the Bishops of the world should be “generous” in allowing them to assist at the traditional Latin Mass. Msgr. Calkins’ response, on the other hand, is that traditionalists should be perfectly happy with a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in Latin with Gregorian chant, and those that aren’t are ideologists who have no concern for the care of souls. Nice.

 

[Marie]

Dcs:

Msgr. Calkins’ response, on the other hand, is that traditionalists should be perfectly happy with a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in Latin with Gregorian chant, and those that aren’t are ideologists who have no concern for the care of souls. Nice.

You seem to have incorrectly paraphrased him from my reading of the article. I don’t get that attitude you alude to him in my reading of the article at all.
Msgr. Calkins':

Please note that when I use the word “traditionalist” in this presentation I am not referring to serious Catholics who love the Church, are docile to her teaching and “are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition”[6]; I am speaking, rather, of ideologists who have no concern for the care of souls (cf. Jn. 10:12-13) and who are totally committed to a crusade for the restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal at any cost.

 

[theMutant]

In this thread, I have maintained that the change in the Latin liturgy has constituted a drastic change from the traditional liturgical practice of the Latin Rite. I have also claimed that these changes, while not approving such things, have led to the abuses which have become so wide-spread that it is regarded as a common problem throughout the Latin Rite. I have also claimed that the changes to the liturgy have divided Latin Rite catholics. To those who disagree with me on these points, I would like to say the following.

First of all, I do not contend that liturgical abuse is part of the nature of the new liturgy. I have admitted that it can be offered in a reverent way and that Catholics can be inspired in their Faith by it. In regard to this point, it is my opinion that the traditional liturgy is more inspiring in that regard; but that’s how it impacts me. It is a fact, however, that the numerous options have made it possible to abuse the liturgy because Catholics in the pews did not know what changes being introduced in their parishes were legitimate.

I know that there are parishes, where the current liturgy is thriving, but I contend that these are the exception to the rule and that Mass attendance, in general, has dramatically declined since its introduction.

An article in 1997 showed Cardinal Ratzinger recognized this to be the case.

“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.”
…
In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued his General Instruction of the Roman Missal, revising the Order of the Mass and related prayers. The old Mass rite was to be banned, with few exceptions, after a transition period of several months.

Although the Mass had undergone evolutionary changes through the history of the Church, there was always a sense of “continuity,” Ratzinger wrote. Even Pope Pius V, who reworked the Roman Missal. in 1570 following the Council of Trent, allowed for the continued use of some liturgies with centuries-long traditions.

Cardinal Ratzinger said there "is need for a new liturgical. movement to call back to life the true heritage of Vatican Council II.

The complete article is at catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=196

Other articles

catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=6089

archtoronto.org/ter/pasletters/0010carddin.htm

unavoce.org/anditcametopass.htm

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/CWR/CWR1197/UnitedStates.html

unavoce.org/stickler.htm

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=24947

dailycatholic.org/issue/04Jan/jan20tra.htm