I
Iohannes
Guest
So the Latin Rite can be forced down the Byzantines throat?
- Status
M
Matthew
Guest
Good point Iohannes. The first misconception is that mere disobedience is supposedly schismatic (not even taking into account circumstances which would render an action taken to be actually morally praiseworthy; the legislator must himself be obedient in order to demand obedience) and the second is a perverse notion of authority, its purpose and the abuse thereof. Authority is not an arbitrary exercise of the will, nor is it given to destroy, but only to edify, to build up the Body of Christ. Abusive power is rendered null by the simple fact that it is an abuse of power. This all presupposes that we can know what is and what is not an abuse or conducive to the common good. Lastly, this conversation never seems to address the immutable nature of Ecclesiastical Tradition, which no one can *essentially * change, alter or despise without incurring the anathema of Nicea II.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
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. The introduction of the “dialogue” Mass changed that somewhat, but not fully.
As to the comments above, 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.
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.
As children, when visiting my grandmother’s house, my cousins and I were expected to walk past both St. Louis’ and St, Stanislaus’ Churches and continue onward to St.Patrick’s. Instead, we sometimes snuck into St. Louie’s, where we blissfully daydreamt through the sermon in French. At risk of being spotted and reported by French-Canadian neighbor-friends of Grandma, we were more inclined to press onward to St. Stanislaus, because after “listening” to the Polish sermon and being looked at quizzically by Father (who knew his parishoners) during Communion, we could retire after Mass to the adjacent Polish bakery, where by gestures we could make it understod that we wished to enjoy the pure, unadulterated sugar content of a marshmallow doughnut, using 5 cents held back from our collection money.
(We got caught eventually; turned out that our Uncle Bob, altho he had barely finished school, was fluent in Polish learned from co-workers and great friends with the baker, who noticed the remarkable resemblence the 3 of us had to our uncle and asked him if the Sunday customers might be relatives. Uncle Bob, of blessed memory, interdicted us from St. Stanislaus, unless we learned sufficient Polish to appreciate the sermons of his other good friend, the priest.)
Many years,
Neil
C
cmom
Guest
Ah yes. We had the german, polish, slovak, croatian, hungarian, italian, greek Catholic Churches in our little town, often two blocks from each other. And I being Irish was not allowed in any of them. We were sent to the 2 territorial churches. Today the children and grandchildren of these people worship at the same Masses in one language - English!!!
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Iohannes,
Thank you for noting that point. The Latins tried that before - it didn’t work well!
And see, as well, the quote below my signature.
Many years,
Neil
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Cmom,
Yep. Territorial equalled Irish
We might not have always been able to secure territory in our native land, but we had a firm stranglehold on the territorial parishes here in the US.Thanks for mentioning the Croats and Hungarians, I didn’t intend to slight them, nor the rare, but occasional Scandinavian parish found in the upper reaches of the Midwest
Many years,
Neil
A
Amethyst
Guest
So, let’s have the best of both worlds, which we can easily do. Follow the current rite, celebrated in Latin. The only inaccessbile portion would be the homily; I’m not sure how to handle that. But I don’t know that I’d mind sitting quietly and meditating on the mysteries while the priest spoke in Spanish or Tagalog for a few minutes, at least sometimes.
There WERE ethnic parishes before Vatican II, by the way, since many practices of popular devotion differed among varous ethnic groups, and the Church was robust enough, and had priests enough, to offer worship and parish life to ethnic neighborhoods according to their (small-t) Traditions.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
TLM Altar Boy:
By definition, there are 2 categories of schism: heretical schism, more frequently termed “mixed schism” and pure or “simple schism”.
Mixed schism is generally joined with heresy or originates in it (heresy itself doesn’t per se constitute or result in schism. Schism as we usually think of it, almost always begins as the second type. It results from and is the breaking of the bond of sumission or subordination to lawful hierarchical authority, without an accompanying persistent error that directly and absolutely opposes a defined dogmatic decree.
St. Jerome: “heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church.”
St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe”
As a matter of practicality, pure schism almost inevitably, ultimately, evolves into mixed schism since it is a short distance from breaking the bond of submission, subordination, obedience, to the outright denial of episcopal and, finally, papal authority.
Schism, though, must be understood as separate from mere disobedience. Every schism involves a disobedience, but not every disobedience constitutes a schism. To do so, there must be denial of the herarch’s divine right to exercise authority, as well as refusal to be subordinated to their authority.
Schism doesn’t require membership in a schismatic body. An individual becomes a schismatic when he or she personally chooses to rebel against legitimate hierarchical authority.
To describe the SSPX as Protestant is incorrect; Protestants deny the authority of the Pope; the SSPX does not deny it, but elects to disobey him. As well, Protestants hold other beliefs which are at odds with Catholic doctrine. As yet, that is not the case with the SSPX.
Many years,
Neil
Altar Boy,
By definition, there are 2 categories of schism: heretical schism, more frequently termed “mixed schism” and pure or “simple schism”.
Mixed schism is generally joined with heresy or originates in it (heresy itself doesn’t per se constitute or result in schism. Schism as we usually think of it, almost always begins as the second type. It results from and is the breaking of the bond of sumission or subordination to lawful hierarchical authority, without an accompanying persistent error that directly and absolutely opposes a defined dogmatic decree.
St. Jerome: “heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church.”
St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe”
As a matter of practicality, pure schism almost inevitably, ultimately, evolves into mixed schism since it is a short distance from breaking the bond of submission, subordination, obedience, to the outright denial of episcopal and, finally, papal authority.
Schism, though, must be understood as separate from mere disobedience. Every schism involves a disobedience, but not every disobedience constitutes a schism. To do so, there must be denial of the herarch’s divine right to exercise authority, as well as refusal to be subordinated to their authority.
Schism doesn’t require membership in a schismatic body. An individual becomes a schismatic when he or she personally chooses to rebel against legitimate hierarchical authority.
To describe the SSPX as Protestant is incorrect; Protestants deny the authority of the Pope; the SSPX does not deny it, but elects to disobey him. As well, Protestants hold other beliefs which are at odds with Catholic doctrine. As yet, that is not the case with the SSPX.
Many years,
Neil
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Hypothetically, yes!
Of course, I can’t imagine such as being anything but most graely imprudent on the part of the Pope. As such, it would probably be sinful for him to do so. And yet, because such is not intrinsically evil, the Byzantine faithful, who truly are faithful, would have to comply and bear it as their cross.
Dude, it’s called obedience. In everything but sin (i.e. intrinsically evil).
I’m sorry, bu it seems to me that historic “Latinizations” were self-imposed by those Eastern Catholics wanting to appear “more Catholic.” I know of no Papal mandate requiring them to do so.
The Lefebvrist = Protestant analogy was not meant to be taken literally; it was simply meant to illustrate what is common to all schism/heresy: disobedience and private interpretation.
M
Matthew
Guest
J
jaybird
Guest
We came into the Church 3 years ago after 30 plus years as Protestants, having been born and raised Catholic. I was even an altar boy and know the Latin. We were like frogs thrown into boiling water. The Church we had known was gone and replaced with a hybrid, part-Protestant and part whatever. There were a few who acted like they believed in the Real Presence. We had to try somewhere else. Fortunately, only 70 miles away is a parish, an apostolate of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. What a difference!
The Mass itself is Eucharist centered, not Man-centered. The congregation dresses like they believe God is really present. The congregation is young! The priests (three of them) are young. There is SILENCE in the sanctuary before and after Mass. Most attendees stay for 5-10 minutes after Mass to pray. This little parish has 60 altar boys, not indult servers. They know their stuff, too. Vocations anyone? The FSSP seminary in Nebraska is having to expand. Too many vocations, not enough space! Lots of sinners attend here. Two priests or more hear confessions before every Mass and there are lines. I could go on but I will say that the seeds of the renewal are in the Traditional movement. Why? God honors those who honor Him. The Latin Mass is God-centered and the attendees actually believe in the Real Presence. They act like it. The fellowship waits until the Mass is over and is outside. Find a Tridentine Mass in your area and you’ll see.
The Mass itself is Eucharist centered, not Man-centered. The congregation dresses like they believe God is really present. The congregation is young! The priests (three of them) are young. There is SILENCE in the sanctuary before and after Mass. Most attendees stay for 5-10 minutes after Mass to pray. This little parish has 60 altar boys, not indult servers. They know their stuff, too. Vocations anyone? The FSSP seminary in Nebraska is having to expand. Too many vocations, not enough space! Lots of sinners attend here. Two priests or more hear confessions before every Mass and there are lines. I could go on but I will say that the seeds of the renewal are in the Traditional movement. Why? God honors those who honor Him. The Latin Mass is God-centered and the attendees actually believe in the Real Presence. They act like it. The fellowship waits until the Mass is over and is outside. Find a Tridentine Mass in your area and you’ll see.
T
Tboy4Christ
Guest
I have really mixed emotions on this subject. We are fortunate to have a Tridentine chapel here in our area and I have been and loved it! And I agree there is now a huge and ever increasing following, with a majority 20-30 somethings. However, I can’t help but feel that going over to this full-time would leave me feeling like a seperatist or something. I’m really torn as I’m sure many are…
You can’t help but think that the Church is being divided on some level…
Also, I have twin 10 years old daughters that have been raised in our, somewhat traditional but still post Vat II parish and I’m really afraid of confusing them. This requires much more prayer and searching as far as I’m concerned…
You can’t help but think that the Church is being divided on some level…
Also, I have twin 10 years old daughters that have been raised in our, somewhat traditional but still post Vat II parish and I’m really afraid of confusing them. This requires much more prayer and searching as far as I’m concerned…
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
DV,
That’s a foolish and ill-considered statement. You are very naive if you believe that most or even many Byzantines or Oriental Catholics would do so.
That statement demonstrates ignorance of the history of Eastern and Oriental Catholicism. While there were certainly instances in which Eastern Catholics adopted latinized practices to be more accepted or “appear more Catholic”, the vast majority of latinizations were imposed by Latin missionaries who sought to “save” us from the errors of our ways or by Latin hierarchs who were ignorant of the fact that there even was another aspect to the Church.
Prime examples include the actions of Irish and German hierarchs, particularly Archbishop John Ireland, in the early 20th century US. Archbishop Ireland can personally be credited with having sent many Eastern Catholics back to Orthodoxy. Others of his ilk can take credit with having created the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Diocese of Johnstown, PA; established in response to enforced latinization.
While many papal promulgations spoke in support of Eastern Catholicism, not all did, and those that did were frequently not backed up when push came to shove.
None of what I’ve said should be read as taking anything away from those Latin hierarchs (such as Boston’s Richard Cardinal Cushing, of blessed memory), and those Latin clergy who supported our Churches and cared for our faithful, assisting us to maintain our heritage, during the times when our peoples were without hierarchs, adequate clergy, and churches.
Many years,
Neil
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
There is a very good editorial entitled “Restore the Old Mass” in the May, 2004 issue of the Catholic magazine “Inside the Vatican” by Robert Moynihan.
G
goat
Guest
Brennan Doherty:
Can you give us the gist of the article?
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I will go ahead and type in the editorial as I think it would be better than just a few snippets or summarizing it. I hope this is okay.
I offer the caveat that an editorial is offered in the context of the entire magazine and is not meant as a “stand-alone” argument for the restoration of the old Mass. Thus, for the past couple of issues and in this latest issue “Inside The Vatican” has published some excellent articles on the liturgy. Their website for subscribing or ordering back issues is:
http://www.insidethevatican.com/.
Or one can call 1-800-789-9494.
An excellent magazine.
Here is the editorial:
Restore the Old Mass
******* ***“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.”
No one can deny the desire on the part of the authors of this instruction to impart a sense of the sacred to the new Mass.
But, after studying the catalogue of “do’s and don’ts” in the document, one senses a reluctance on Rome’s part to get to the true root of the problem: namely, the new Mass itself.
There have been books written on what’s missing in the new Mass, by Cardinal Ratzinger among others, and the authors of this instruction are aware of these studies. But they do not p(name removed by moderator)oint the real source of the 40-year secularization of the Mass. The problem is that the New Mass attracts and “enables” abuses because it was intentionally shaped to diminish the “transcendent” and emphasize the “profane” dimension.
The new Mass has turned out to be a rite too rapidly produced and too influenced by the rampant secularization of the 1960s. Patching it up is a vain effort.
At least in this one area, it is possible for the Church to take decisive action.
The successor of Peter can even tomorrow issue a solemn decree more or less as follows: “The cries of God’s people are at last heard; the ‘winter’ is over, the true ‘springtime’ is come: the ancient, holy liturgy of the Roman rite, cherished by so many saints, will, with no further delay, be restored in all the churches of Christendom….”
Then the Pope would set forth the steps by which innovation, experiment, and individual artistry would come to an end and the ancient sacrificial offering of the Mass – in all dignity and solemnity – would be restored. Some will argue that such an action would be a grave mistake, that making such a liturgical change would both “impede ecumenical progress” and “further confuse the faithful.”
I offer the caveat that an editorial is offered in the context of the entire magazine and is not meant as a “stand-alone” argument for the restoration of the old Mass. Thus, for the past couple of issues and in this latest issue “Inside The Vatican” has published some excellent articles on the liturgy. Their website for subscribing or ordering back issues is:
http://www.insidethevatican.com/.
Or one can call 1-800-789-9494.
An excellent magazine.
Here is the editorial:
Restore the Old Mass
******* ***“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.”
-
Code:
--Psalms 137:1-6 (KJV)*
No one can deny the desire on the part of the authors of this instruction to impart a sense of the sacred to the new Mass.
But, after studying the catalogue of “do’s and don’ts” in the document, one senses a reluctance on Rome’s part to get to the true root of the problem: namely, the new Mass itself.
There have been books written on what’s missing in the new Mass, by Cardinal Ratzinger among others, and the authors of this instruction are aware of these studies. But they do not p(name removed by moderator)oint the real source of the 40-year secularization of the Mass. The problem is that the New Mass attracts and “enables” abuses because it was intentionally shaped to diminish the “transcendent” and emphasize the “profane” dimension.
The new Mass has turned out to be a rite too rapidly produced and too influenced by the rampant secularization of the 1960s. Patching it up is a vain effort.
At least in this one area, it is possible for the Church to take decisive action.
The successor of Peter can even tomorrow issue a solemn decree more or less as follows: “The cries of God’s people are at last heard; the ‘winter’ is over, the true ‘springtime’ is come: the ancient, holy liturgy of the Roman rite, cherished by so many saints, will, with no further delay, be restored in all the churches of Christendom….”
Then the Pope would set forth the steps by which innovation, experiment, and individual artistry would come to an end and the ancient sacrificial offering of the Mass – in all dignity and solemnity – would be restored. Some will argue that such an action would be a grave mistake, that making such a liturgical change would both “impede ecumenical progress” and “further confuse the faithful.”
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
(Continued from above post)
I understand these arguments, and feel their force.
But I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass, with its simple solemnity and rich symbolism, would not offend non-Catholics, as is feared, but attract them, and attract them profoundly.
And I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass would not “confuse” the faithful, but “galvanize” them, deepening their Christian faith, confirming them in their love of God and neighbor. And this, in fact, is what the bishops of Vatican II most deeply desired.
I am convinced that the restoration of the old liturgy would be a consolation to many who have attended the new Mass, not to “participate more fully” in the liturgy, but, out of obedience to a Pope and hierarchy which has asked them to “give up” the Mass they love.
I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass would be a “festival day,” a day of universal celebration, and, as such, would mark the beginning of a great renewal in Church life.
Some will argue that such a restoration would be disrespectful toward Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the new Mass in 1969.
I disagree. Paul VI was himself hesitant about the new Mass, as he was about so many things. He approved it half-heartedly. It is said that after he attended a “trial run” of the new Mass, he said, “But where is the mystery? The mystery is gone!” He himself felt something was missing in the new Mass, but promulgated it anyway.
In April, I had a conversation with Father Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, 90, one of the priests who celebrated Mass for Mel Gibson in Rome during the filming of The Passion of The Christ. Charles-Roux, was ordained in the 1950s. He knew Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI personally. In 1971, after celebrating the new Mass for about 18 months, he asked Paul VI to receive him at Castel Gandolfo. Paul agreed. Charles-Roux said to Paul: “For 18 months I have celebrated the new Mass, but I cannot continue. I was ordained to celebrate the old Mass, and I want to return to it. Will you permit me to do so?” And Paul said: “Certainly. I never forbade celebration of the old Mass; I have only offered an alternative.”
The alternative has become the norm, and the perennial liturgy of the Latin West is now celebrated only in a few chapels here and there, almost furtively, as if in hiding, as if in a time of persecution.
So let us read “the signs of the times” and restore the liturgy of the ages, the liturgy of Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of England, of Boniface and Bernard, of Francis and Clare, of Aquinas and Bonaventure, of Ignatius and Bellarmine, of Newman and Chesterton, and of our own parents and grandparents.
Let us preserve from oblivion the beautiful and holy liturgy which we inherited from our forefathers, that our posterity may thank us for having the courage to do what is fitting and just in an age of iron and lead.
–Robert Moynihan
“Inside The Vatican” May, 2004 (pp. 6-7).
Again, the editorial is best read in the context of the liturgical articles published in the May, 2004 edition and the prior two issues. It is not a stand-alone argument. One can order individual issues from “Inside The Vatican” at
[insidethevatican.com/](http://www.insidethevatican.com/)
Or one can call 1-800-789-9494.
God bless.
I understand these arguments, and feel their force.
But I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass, with its simple solemnity and rich symbolism, would not offend non-Catholics, as is feared, but attract them, and attract them profoundly.
And I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass would not “confuse” the faithful, but “galvanize” them, deepening their Christian faith, confirming them in their love of God and neighbor. And this, in fact, is what the bishops of Vatican II most deeply desired.
I am convinced that the restoration of the old liturgy would be a consolation to many who have attended the new Mass, not to “participate more fully” in the liturgy, but, out of obedience to a Pope and hierarchy which has asked them to “give up” the Mass they love.
I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass would be a “festival day,” a day of universal celebration, and, as such, would mark the beginning of a great renewal in Church life.
Some will argue that such a restoration would be disrespectful toward Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the new Mass in 1969.
I disagree. Paul VI was himself hesitant about the new Mass, as he was about so many things. He approved it half-heartedly. It is said that after he attended a “trial run” of the new Mass, he said, “But where is the mystery? The mystery is gone!” He himself felt something was missing in the new Mass, but promulgated it anyway.
In April, I had a conversation with Father Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, 90, one of the priests who celebrated Mass for Mel Gibson in Rome during the filming of The Passion of The Christ. Charles-Roux, was ordained in the 1950s. He knew Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI personally. In 1971, after celebrating the new Mass for about 18 months, he asked Paul VI to receive him at Castel Gandolfo. Paul agreed. Charles-Roux said to Paul: “For 18 months I have celebrated the new Mass, but I cannot continue. I was ordained to celebrate the old Mass, and I want to return to it. Will you permit me to do so?” And Paul said: “Certainly. I never forbade celebration of the old Mass; I have only offered an alternative.”
The alternative has become the norm, and the perennial liturgy of the Latin West is now celebrated only in a few chapels here and there, almost furtively, as if in hiding, as if in a time of persecution.
So let us read “the signs of the times” and restore the liturgy of the ages, the liturgy of Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of England, of Boniface and Bernard, of Francis and Clare, of Aquinas and Bonaventure, of Ignatius and Bellarmine, of Newman and Chesterton, and of our own parents and grandparents.
Let us preserve from oblivion the beautiful and holy liturgy which we inherited from our forefathers, that our posterity may thank us for having the courage to do what is fitting and just in an age of iron and lead.
–Robert Moynihan
“Inside The Vatican” May, 2004 (pp. 6-7).
Again, the editorial is best read in the context of the liturgical articles published in the May, 2004 edition and the prior two issues. It is not a stand-alone argument. One can order individual issues from “Inside The Vatican” at
[insidethevatican.com/](http://www.insidethevatican.com/)
Or one can call 1-800-789-9494.
God bless.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
We have an indult in the Diocese of Colorado Springs, and the 1962 Mass is offered every day. I went to the Sunday Mass and there was less than 50 people in attendance. In contrast, there are twice as many in attendance at the **Daily Mass **at my traditional Novus Ordo parish. Also, it seems the traditional Mass rarely draws many converts as compared to the Novus Ordo parishes.
It doesn’t seem the Catholic populous (or potential converts) of Colorado Springs are starving for the unsuppressed 1962 Latin Mass, does it?
I’m a fairly educated Catholic, and my impression is that my wife would have never converted to Catholicism through the 1962 Mass. It’s not catechetical unless you are already a learned Catholic who has some understanding of Latin.
We pray the Mass. For me and my family, it’s more beneficial to pray the Mass in the language we pray in every day.
In my opinion, the 1962 Latin Mass is solid food, when the average sinner in the pew requires milk.
God bless,
Dave
It doesn’t seem the Catholic populous (or potential converts) of Colorado Springs are starving for the unsuppressed 1962 Latin Mass, does it?
I’m a fairly educated Catholic, and my impression is that my wife would have never converted to Catholicism through the 1962 Mass. It’s not catechetical unless you are already a learned Catholic who has some understanding of Latin.
We pray the Mass. For me and my family, it’s more beneficial to pray the Mass in the language we pray in every day.
In my opinion, the 1962 Latin Mass is solid food, when the average sinner in the pew requires milk.
God bless,
Dave
H
Ham1
Guest
It seems that many here who view Vatican II and the mass as the cause of all current problems are falling into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Society as a whole has changed drastically over the last 50 years. Many of the changes seemed to come to a head in the sexual revolution in the early 70’s. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that individuals in their late teens and early 20’s just spontaneously decided to live by looser moral standards and relativistic religious ideals than the previous generation. What exactly were these people taught in the Catholic schools and families from 1945 to 1960? These people then grew up to be teachers and priests. Sure, many were and are orthodox but is it any real surprise that abuses became more common or perhaps more noticable?
Take a look at the abuse crisis. 89.5% of accused priests were born before 1949. Nearly 70% of the accused priests were ordained before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. That means that most of them had tremendous exposure to the old latin rite mass. They grew up with it and learned it in the seminaries. It seems to me the problems with abuse, both sexual and liturgical has its roots far before the new mass.
It seems quite clear to me that changing the mass didn’t create the problems in the first place and changing it back isn’t going to fix anything either.
Society as a whole has changed drastically over the last 50 years. Many of the changes seemed to come to a head in the sexual revolution in the early 70’s. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that individuals in their late teens and early 20’s just spontaneously decided to live by looser moral standards and relativistic religious ideals than the previous generation. What exactly were these people taught in the Catholic schools and families from 1945 to 1960? These people then grew up to be teachers and priests. Sure, many were and are orthodox but is it any real surprise that abuses became more common or perhaps more noticable?
Take a look at the abuse crisis. 89.5% of accused priests were born before 1949. Nearly 70% of the accused priests were ordained before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. That means that most of them had tremendous exposure to the old latin rite mass. They grew up with it and learned it in the seminaries. It seems to me the problems with abuse, both sexual and liturgical has its roots far before the new mass.
It seems quite clear to me that changing the mass didn’t create the problems in the first place and changing it back isn’t going to fix anything either.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Here is a snippet from an interview with Kenneth Jones, author of Index of Leading Catholic Indicators:
Do the statistics show anything about the ordinary life of Catholics?
Again, in all areas there has been a dramatic decline. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) **In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms - converts - in 2002 there were 80,000. **In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm
Further, Father George Rutler, in his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press), in the chapter titled “A Liturgical Parable” stated that we have lost a countless number of potential converts due to the changes in the liturgy. He recalled the day when potential converts had to be reminded to convert because of the truth of the Catholic faith, and not merely because of the beauty of her liturgy.
Ironically, I have a non-Catholic friend with a Protestant background who always makes sure I notify her when the next Dominican rite Latin Mass (basically the same as the Tridentine) will occur so she can attend. I have no question that a more large scale return to the Tridentine rite, particularly when coupled with Gregorian chant and hopefully in a halfway decent looking church, can open up many people’s hearts to conversion. Beauty is often the gateway that opens people’s hearts to the truth.
Do the statistics show anything about the ordinary life of Catholics?
Again, in all areas there has been a dramatic decline. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) **In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms - converts - in 2002 there were 80,000. **In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm
Further, Father George Rutler, in his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press), in the chapter titled “A Liturgical Parable” stated that we have lost a countless number of potential converts due to the changes in the liturgy. He recalled the day when potential converts had to be reminded to convert because of the truth of the Catholic faith, and not merely because of the beauty of her liturgy.
Ironically, I have a non-Catholic friend with a Protestant background who always makes sure I notify her when the next Dominican rite Latin Mass (basically the same as the Tridentine) will occur so she can attend. I have no question that a more large scale return to the Tridentine rite, particularly when coupled with Gregorian chant and hopefully in a halfway decent looking church, can open up many people’s hearts to conversion. Beauty is often the gateway that opens people’s hearts to the truth.
- Status