Universal Indult

[Ham1]

Brennan Doherty:

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.

Granted Catholics are becoming more secular along with the rest of the world. I still don’t see how the new rite mass effected that change. People engaging in pre-marital sex also shot up from 1965 to 2000. So did illegal drug use. Were those caused by the new mass, too?

 

[PASCENDI]

DominvsVobiscvm:

I worry that a universal indult would just open the Tridentine Mass to the many abuses that already plague the Bogus–I mean, Novus!–Ordo.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Perhaps by having the bishops be “narrow and stingy” with respect to the ‘indult’ the Holy Spirit has used these past forty years and the Nervous disOrdo Mess as a means to preserve the dignity of the Old Mass.

I too worry about how some of our clerics would try to screw it up. The one safeguard is the very strict rubrics. The Achilles Heel of the N.O. is that while valid, a heretic could say it because it doesn’t stick in his/her? throat the way the Old Mass did.

In fact, I’ve heard that The Lutheran Church of France (that was a new one on me too!) formerly adopted our N.O. as their own rite. But, they had many many misgivings with our Old Rite.

Fruit of the New Mass? Rotten

My 10 year friend serves at the TLM and was once asked if he’d like to help out at the weekday mass at school.

“Those altar girls don’t do nothing! They just stand there, ring a teeney bell once. Pick up the book ONCE! I’m not gonna do it! It’s a BABY MASS!”

Baby Mass indeed. God Bless his little soul

 

[JNB]

The indult in CO Springs cant be doing too badly, since they recently added another Sunday mass. As for your parish itsjustdave, how Traditional is it?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The indult in CO Springs cant be doing too badly, since they recently added another Sunday mass.

They have two on Sunday and one each weekday. However, my impression was that there were so little people in attendance on Sunday (half as much as my parish’s DAILY attendance). So, from my viewpoint, it doesn’t seem the faithful are starving for the old Latin Mass, as many would have us believe.

As for your parish itsjustdave, how Traditional is it?

It follows the rubrics of the Novus Ordo liturgy. Before daily Mass, we say the Rosary together, as well as several other traditional Catholic prayers. We must do ok, since people from towns just to the north of us travel past other parishes to attend ours.

Several weeks ago, the pastor’s homily was essentially “If you don’t believe in the real presence, you need to worship somewhere else.” My 64-year-old Mother was visiting and she remarked that she hadn’t heard a homily like that since she was 13 years old. It seems not many pastors are dogmatic about Catholic dogmas anymore. It’s time they were.

I think Bishop Michael Sheridan’s conservative Catholicism is needed throughout the US. I don’t believe the Novus Ordo is any less sacred a liturgy than the traditional Latin Mass. It is not the problem within the Catholic Church. I think disobedience is the problem.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Achilles Heel of the N.O. is that while valid, a heretic could say it because it doesn’t stick in his/her? throat the way the Old Mass did.

Hans Kung and Charles Curran, etc., seemed to have had no trouble celebrating the Old Mass, and yet it didn’t seem to keep them from straying from the Catholic faith. Sadly, there has been many a heretic that have celebrated the Old Mass.

 

[JNB]

I know from experience that it takes a while to build up a Traditional Community, I am not sure what mass you went to at the Indult, but again, they would not have expanded to two Sunday masses if attdence was doing that badly. As for Traditional, my litmus test is if a parish/mass uses altar girls and EMEs, I would not call it traditional, no matter how orthodox the preaching.

The indult has faced several hurdles, for one, many who would like to go to a Latin mass is unaware they exist anymore, or are legal to go to, some think that everything, including the readings and the sermon are in Latin, so information needs to be given out to what the Tridentine mass is and what it is not.

Here in Columbus, the TLM attdenence has been building up slowly, despite the fact most people are unware such a mass exists, and it will continue to build up as it has in other cities such as Atlanta, Sacramento and Denver.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

With regard to statistics … I suggest you look at the big picture:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia(1909) “Statistics of Religions”, Table VIII:
newadvent.org/cathen/14275a.htm

**In 1909, Catholics comprised 18.7% of the world population.
Non-Catholic Christians comprised 20.8% of the world population

Ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians: 0.900**

From Encyclopedia Britannica’s “Adherents of All Religions by Six Continents - Mid- 1995”:
zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

**In 1995, Catholics comprised 16.9% of the world population.
Non-Catholic Christians comprised 16.8% of the world population.

Ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians: 1.008**

It’s seems all of Christianity has dropped 5.8% as a percentage of the earth’s population in the past 100 years. In the same period, Catholicism has dropped 1.8% as a percentage of world population, while Greek/Oriental Orthodox have dropped 4.9%.

In other words, the drop in Catholicism is significantly smaller than both Orthodoxy and non-Catholic Christianity overall.

However, the ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians has increased over the past 100 years.

God bless,
Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for Traditional, my litmus test is if a parish/mass uses altar girls and EMEs, I would not call it traditional, no matter how orthodox the preaching.

My litmust test of an orthodox Catholic is one that rejects the proposition that the Church can formally and authoritatively establish a universal discipline that is harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

The proposition that the Church can establish a discipline that is dangerous or harmful is not an new allegation against the Church. Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) condemned this same proposition offered by the Synod of Pistoia [condemned in the Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” Aug 38, 1794]

Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Pope Pius VI condemns the proposition that the Church “could have established discipline which is … dangerous and harmful.”

Is there anything in Catholic tradition that contradicts Pius VI?

God bless,

Dave

Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.
– St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

Granted Catholics are becoming more secular along with the rest of the world. I still don’t see how the new rite mass effected that change. People engaging in pre-marital sex also shot up from 1965 to 2000. So did illegal drug use. Were those caused by the new mass, too?

I believe that a radical alteration of the liturgy will affect the belief of Catholics, for better or worse. I do not blame the new Mass for changes in the secular world such as drug use or fornication. I do think changes in the liturgy can have an effect on Catholics, such as their belief (or lack thereof) in the Real Presence, Mass attendance, vocations, potential converts, and other areas. I would also cite the lack of strong, orthodox catechesis as another major factor.

The secularizing of the world, and thus of Catholics, would tend to make an even a stronger case that we need a greater return to a liturgy and catechesis which strengthens the faith of Catholics in the midst of this secularization.

Here is an interesting poll concerning belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist:

According to a more recent New York Times and CBS poll of Catholics who attend Mass regularly, the number of Catholics who accept the Real Presence decreases as age decreases:

Age 65 and over: 51% believe in the Real Presence.

Age 45–64: 37% believe in Real Presence.

Age 30–44: 28% believe in Real Presence.

Age 18–29: 17% believe in Real Presence.

http://catholicapologetics.com/ba3.htm#Introduction

Belief in the Real Presence of Christ is obviously something which is affected a great deal by liturgy and catechesis.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

a greater return to a liturgy and catechesis which strengthens the faith of Catholics in the midst of this secularization.

Amen. However, I don’t agree that the liturgy you speak of is the 1962 Roman Missal. If one does not know Latin, he may as well be celebrating the Mass in ancient Aramaic for all the catechetical value it will give to your average American Catholic.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Ham1]

I could not agree more that catechesis is the key. Unfortunately, Catholic education has been pretty weak over the last 50 years. The good news is that there is definitely a renewed spirit among the seminaries and younger priests.

I hear people complaining all the time about liturgical abuses and yet in my parish and three other parishs in the area, masses are very reverent and liturgically correct. And I live in a fairly liberal diocese! The good news is there are MANY great seminarians and young priests now. Also, with both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Church is clearly emphasizing the importance of a correct liturgy.

I think that many people out there like to blame the new mass as the cause of the problems. I think the problems run much deeper than that. Obviously, seminaries were filled with problems well back into the 1940’s. I firmly believe that the Church was already in turmoil well before Vatican II. Just because problems seemed to follow chronologically after the new mass, does not mean they were caused by the new mass. If we use that same logic, we could make a case that the tridentine mass caused priests to sexually abuse others.

The new evangelization is well on its way. Just look at the success of the EWTN and Catholic Answers and others!

 

[JNB]

Dave, sometimes it is difficult to argue with people such as you, while you mean well, you employ mental gymnastics to defend various practices that, while lict in the strict sense, are hardly prudent. I wont rehash the debate on three other seperate threds, but communion in the hand, altar girls and EMEs are just some of the less than prudent practices. the liturgical mess we face now was not a situation Pope Pius VI faced, or even St. Pius V in the uncertanty in the years before Trent. As for Latin, if it was so bad, why did it work so well as the liturgical language of the West for well over 1000 years? I think it is arrogant to think that the church was a failure in evengelisation before Vatican II, because it was actually quite sucessful before then.

The gates of hell will not prevail against the church, but that does not mean all dioceses and parishes will be protected, and sadly the liturgical decsions of too many Bishops and even Pope John Paul II has made the current situation worse. A sloppy liturgy leads to a sloppy faith life, and like it or not Dave, no mantter what EWTN does say, there are very serious problems the church does face, the numbers, while they do not tell the entire story, do tell how bad things have become.

As for the New Evangelisation, if the typical liturgy was like the mass on EWTN or at their shrine, things would be great, but that is not the case sadly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

but communion in the hand, altar girls and EMEs are just some of the less than prudent practices.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. However, mine differs.

I assert, much like the Baltimore Catechism of 1891 that served the US so well for many years:

The Pope has authority from God Himself, and the priests get theirs through their bishops. Therefore, to resist or disobey lawful authority is to resist and disobey God Himself. …

But remember, the Pope is not infallible unless he is teaching faith or morals; that is, what we believe or do in order to save our souls. If the Holy Father wrote a book on astronomy, mathematics, grammar, or even theology, he could make mistakes as other men do, because the Holy Ghost has not promised to guide him in such things. Nevertheless, whatever the Pope teaches on anything you may be pretty sure is right. … we should have the very greatest respect for the opinions and advice of the Holy Father on any subject. We should not set up our limited knowledge and experience against his, even if we think that we know better than he does (Baltimore Catechism No. 4, Lesson 11)

Obedience to the Roman Pontiff, no matter imprudent we may believe him to be, is the key to keeping the Catholic Church faithful to Christ. It is God that will judge the Pope’s imprudence. I try to avoid being an “arm chair” quarterback to the decisions of my pastor, bishop, and pope when they are in no way binding upon us something that is against higher authority.

God bless,

Dave

 

[JNB]

Dave, obidience is good, but blind obidience is somthing else, you still employ mental gymnastics to defend liturgical actions that have not been part of Catholic tradition, big or small T. Also note, and sadly too many people fail to note this, just because somthing has been allowed, such as altar girls and EMEs, communion under both species via the cup, it by no means mean they are mandated by the Vatican, just simpily allowed.

I am of the very STRONG opinion that blind, child like obidence is one of the BIGGEST reasons why the church is in such bad shape today liturgically. Too many faithful Catholics did not question their Pastors or Bishops when things were changing, they just accepteed it as if these things were mandated, even though they were not.

You my prefer to accept the liturgy being trashed, I am not, and I go to a parish and support in any way I can this parish, that does not trash the liturgy.

 

[JNB]

Also Dave, again, realise that in the Baltimore Cathechsism was published, the liturgy was pre set, so it was a different time, a different era, when the faith was not under such horrible attack from within.

In any event Dave, people want more reverence at mass, and that small FSSP conregation you dismiss will grow as people get fed up with abuses, even at so called conservative parishes. As the net spreads the word the old mass is still alive, more people will attend, and this has and will generate even more vocations.

 

[Ham1]

JNB,

So, the vatican is “allowing” liturgical practices that are bad???

So does a parish that follows the GIRM to a “T” constitute a parish that “trashs” the liturgy?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… still employ mental gymnastics

Oh, sure. Mental gymnastics … like quoting saints and catechisms of the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.(*Letter to the Smyrneans *8:1 [A.D. 110]).

I prefer my “childlike” obedience, thanks.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

As the question of obedience has come up, which is an important question, I wanted to chime in.

I agree of course that the Church is guaranteed not to teach error in her official teachings regarding faith and morals. However, there is absolutely no such guarantee in regards to practical decisions made by a Pope or bishops. Their practical decisions may be of great benefit to the members of the Church, or they could be harmful. That is one reason why we pray for our Church leaders. If a practice, even if allowed by Rome, seems to be harmful to the faithful, there is nothing amiss in praying for its abrogation and even petitioning Rome for its abrogation.

Thus practical decisions in regard to the liturgy, such as the changes made after the Second Vatican Council, or in reintroducing communion in the hand, are not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be beneficial to the Church.

Dr. William Marra of Fordham University pointed out a distinction Dietrich von Hildebrand once made:

“We obey, but we do not necessarily agree.”

Dr. Marra gave a hypothetical example given by Alice von Hildebrand. Let’s say a Pope decided to demolish Saint Peter’s basilica to make room for a parking lot (and no, I do not think this will actually happen). We could ask the Pope to please not do it. But, ultimately, he has the authority. He could do it. And if he decided to do it, he would have to be obeyed. But that does not mean we would have to be glad that he did it or think that it was a good idea.

The above examples from Dr. William Marra are from an excellent talk he gave entitled “The Pope, The Council, and The Mass.” It’s one of the best talks I’ve heard on the subject of the liturgical changes after Vatican II. It is available for $6.00 from Keep the Faith. Here is the link:

http://www.keepthefaith.org/scripts/index.asp?book=283

God bless.

 

[JNB]

Ham 1, GIRM is a step in the right direction, but at the same time, GIRM has instutionalised many practices that were orginally abuses, but the Vatican decided to allow the practices anyways, out of a extreme fear of schiam that they have had since the 60s. In the end, in a local parish, things such as altar girls and EMEs are up to the local pastor, and while lict, both of these elemnets, along with the hymns selected and so on further horizontalises the liturgy, takes away the mystery, and has helped lead to the sad state of the faith we see all too often.

The fact that the Vatican has made clear a Pastor does not have to have altar girls has helped, but more needs to be done to restore the liturgy to its rightful state.

Itsjustdave, if 88 is your birthdate, you have to get a broader perspective on things, a more hostorial perspective. Just because someone in authority does something, again, does not mean it is the correct way to do somthing, and as Brennan has said, disagreements on liturgical issues does not mean the teaching authority of the Pope on matters of faith is being dis obeyed.

Lastly, one last question, why is it at Papal masses all the altar servers are male and now EMEs used?

 

[JNB]

Meant to say No EMEs used