Universal Indult

[JNB]

About following ones Bishop, again, there are cases where the Bishop is wrong. That is how Protestantism got a foothold. In germany and England, faithful Catholics did not leave the church, it was their Bishops who decided to put Politics over faith, and by making their choices, all the priests, parishes and laity under them became Protestant. Many Catholics followed their Bishops even as they went into schism and heresy. More recently, in the 60s, faithful catholics in Holland followed their Bishops, even as they proclaimed the infamous Dutch Cathechsim, that was considered borderline heresy by many, and now the church in Holland is basically dead for most intents and purposes, with mass attendence between 2-4%. There is a point where faithful Catholics have to speak up.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

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.

I agree that problems existed prior to Vatican II. And I am grateful for the news that seminarians are more orthodox than they were ten or twenty years ago.

However, I also believe we have experienced a crisis of faith perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Church. I do not wish to blame anything and everything on the new Mass. Nevertheless, “Homiletic and Pastoral Review” ran an article 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 are some excerpts:

Thirty years later the liturgical changes that were implemented in the aftermath of Vatican II have again become a subject of debate. Conventional opinion has it that all has gone well, that the renewal that was promised at the time has taken place and that the Church is all the better for it.

Not everyone agrees with this optimistic assessment, however, and some of the more forceful criticism of the current liturgy has come from high places within the Church. Day-to-day observation paints a similarly mixed picture. Active parishes with dedicated priests and laity certainly exist, but for every such story of success, one of failure can be related — a church that has been closed, a seminary near emptiness, or close family members who no longer practice their faith. What is needed is broad-based, formal statistical evidence on developments since Vatican II, particularly on developments directly related to the liturgy. My purpose in this article is to provide such evidence. To do so, I have collected data on Mass attendance of U.S. Catholics over the period 1939 to 1995. I compare these data with data on Mass attendance of English and Welsh Catholics over the shorter period 1959 to 1996 and with data on church attendance of U.S. Protestants over the same period as for U.S. Catholics.

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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

I agree.

However, the examples typically provided are things that the Pope DID versus things that the Pope formally and authoritatively taught or approved as canon law, sacred liturgy, etc. Those things the Pope approves as ordinary universal doctrine (although not infallible), authoritatively and formally promulgated is far different than kissing a Koran or remaining at Avignon instead of returning to Rome.

Canon law states “Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”

**Can the Church establish a liturgy or any discipline that is “harmful or dangerous” to the faithful as is proposed about the Novus Ordo Missae? According to the condemnation of Pope Pius VI in the Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” Aug 38, 1794, Catholic traditions says no. **

So, *Crossing the Threshold of Hope … not binding. … **Canon Law, Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitutions, etc. **… *binding on all Catholics.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(Continued)

Two views on the liturgy

---

****At the time the New Rite of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae, was introduced, expectations ran high. The liturgy, it was said, was being renewed, stripped of later nonessential accretions and returned to its earlier and simpler form. The faithful, as a result, would find the Mass more understandable. This would heighten their appreciation for the Mass and increase their participation in it.

Has this actually been the case? Have the liturgical changes had such effects? In the conventional view, the answer is an unqualified “yes.” We encounter such sentiments repeatedly in official Church pronouncements, both from the Vatican and from the various national bishops’ conferences. We read them in the mainstream Catholic press. And we hear them from the pulpit.

A typical example was provided in a column on the liturgy written by the editor of my diocesan newspaper several years ago. The motivation for this column was an article from the Catholic News Service reporting observations that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had made in an autobiographical volume that had just been released in Italy but had not yet been translated into English. Cardinal Ratzinger had been cited in the CNS article as calling the current situation one of “ecclesial crisis” and as attributing this in turn to what he claimed was a “collapse of the liturgy.”

The editor disagreed quite vehemently with Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment, so much so that he did not even wait until he had read the book before he panned it. “The cardinal frets too much,” he opined. “At least here in America, Catholics have embraced the so-called new liturgy. Contrary to what the cardinal is saying, there is a much better understanding that the Mass is the central act of the Church. There is an understanding that the Mass is not just another devotion. It is the place where we meet Jesus in sacramental union. We have a better understanding because of changes in the liturgy.”

This difference in perspectives clearly is more than simply one of nuances. If Catholics have “embraced” the new liturgy, there cannot have been a liturgical “collapse” or a “crisis.” If there has been such a collapse, there cannot have been anything other than the most transient of embraces. The point is that this difference is so profound that it ought to be possible to confront these two competing descriptions with actual data on Catholics’ behavior so that one of them can be ruled out.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(Continued)

… The data, therefore, confirm what casual impressions for some time have suggested. Mass attendance is way down, even in America and Britain where the Church had been strong. To make matters worse it continues to fall further. Liturgical change and liturgical renewal apparently have not gone hand in hand.

---

Correlation versus causation

Such a conclusion, it could be argued, confuses correlation and temporal ordering with causation. The observed trends may very well be real but have little to do with the post-conciliar liturgical changes per se. They could instead be a reflection of other factors. The declines in Mass attendance could conceivably be just one further consequence of the broader erosion of values that began in the late 1960s, and that has continued thereafter.

The data on church attendance of U.S. Protestants, which are plotted in Figure 3 together with the data for Catholics that we have just reviewed, provide evidence on this question. The Protestant series is, so to speak, the “control group.” The contrast between its behavior and those of the two Catholic series is stark indeed. In the Protestant data, we see no downward trend at all. Church attendance is lower than that for Catholics during most of the period but is certainly not declining. In fact it may even have begun to trend up. If the temper of the times had been the cause of the decline in Catholic Mass attendance however, there is no reason that similar forces should not have operated within Protestantism too. Church attendance should have declined there also.

… This is a powerful finding, and quite at odds with the conventional view. If the post-conciliar changes had been the overwhelming success they very often are described as being, we would expect to see increases in Mass attendance. We would certainly not expect to see the substantial declines that have taken place in both the United States and England and Wales over the past 30 years. That Protestant church attendance during this period behaved so differently makes the data even more difficult to reconcile with the conventional view. Had Protestant church attendance declined too, it might have been possible to argue that the situation in Catholicism would have been even worse if the liturgical changes had not been implemented. Given the near constancy and then rise in Protestant attendance, however, that argument becomes quite tenuous, if not out and out untenable.

What then went wrong? The problem, I believe, resides in the liturgy itself — both the way in which it was altered and what it was changed into.

For almost fourteen hundred years the Roman Rite remained largely the same. The few changes that did occur were all relatively small in nature and quite spread out over time. Historians of the liturgy point to roots of the Roman Rite that extend back to the fourth century. Three centuries later, according to the great English liturgist Adrian Fortescue it was almost fully developed. “[A] modern Latin Catholic who could be carried back to Rome in the early seventh century would — while missing some features to which he is accustomed — find himself on the whole quite home with the service he saw there,” Fortescue wrote (1913).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(Continued)

One of the important hallmarks of human institutions that stand the test of time is that they are effective. They do what they are supposed to do better than the alternatives. As a result, they survive, while their competitors go by the boards. This, I would argue, is the reason why the Roman Rite varied so little from one century to the next.

The other general feature of such institutions is that they develop slowly, evolving gradually and seemingly by trial and error rather than being implemented all at once according to some grand design drawn up on high. They are, to use the phrase made popular in my own field of economics by the Nobelist Friedrich von Hayek, the “result of human action not of human design.” In this connection, J.A. Jungmann referred to the Roman Rite as a “liturgy which is the fruit of development” (cited in Ratzinger, 1993).

At heart, the liturgy is our encounter with God. It is the ultimate of human institutions. It is the one institution that aims at uniting created with Creator, imago Dei with Deus. A liturgy that does this well, by the very fact that human nature does not change, will not change in any substantial degree either.

The argument that it had to be radically altered thirty years ago and ever after tinkered with to be relevant to and understood by “modern man” is fundamentally misguided. As Cardinal Ratzinger has argued, it involves “a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the essence of the liturgy and of liturgical celebration. For in the liturgy one doesn’t grasp what’s going on in a simple rational way, as I understand a lecture, for example, but in a manifold way, with all the senses, and by being drawn into a celebration that isn’t invented by some commission but, that, as it were, comes to me from the depths of the millennia and, ultimately, of eternity” (Ratzinger, 1996, p.175).

Post-Vatican II, it was indeed a commission that ruled. We see the end results of this policy in the data that I have just presented. Msgr. Klaus Gamber, I believe, summarized the situation quite well when he wrote: “The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman Rite, with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which is was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries” (Gamber, 1993, p. 102).

What is to be done? Unfortunately, no simple answer to the question presents itself. It is comparatively easy to tear down the wall of a house, as anyone who has ever renovated a home can attest, but much harder to put things back in order. The law of prayer and the law of belief are closely intertwined, and beliefs once eroded are not easily reestablished. Two necessary conditions for the process to start, however, are for the return of the sacred to the Mass, and the reestablishment of its links to the liturgy of the ages. This has to be done in a credible way. It has to be more than piecemeal in implementation and it cannot be seen as just one more bit of liturgical engineering.

As a practical matter, therefore, the old Mass needs to be made much more widely available again. The Pope, a year and a half ago, urged that this be done. Addressing the pilgrims who came to Rome to celebrate the tenth anniversaries of the issuance of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and of the founding of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, he stated: “I invite the Bishops also, fraternally, to understand and to have a renewed pastoral attention for the faithful attached to the Old Rite and, on the threshold of the Third Millennium, to help all Catholics to live the celebration of the Holy Mysteries with a devotion which may be true nourishment for their spiritual life and which may be a source of peace.” It is curious and indeed quite scandalous that so many bishops throughout the world continue to turn a deaf ear to this plea.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

itsjustdave1988:

I agree.

However, the examples typically provided are things that the Pope DID versus things that the Pope formally and authoritatively taught or approved as canon law, sacred liturgy, etc. Those things the Pope approves as ordinary universal doctrine (although not infallible), authoritatively and formally promulgated is far different than kissing a Koran or remaining at Avignon instead of returning to Rome.

Canon law states “Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”

**Can the Church establish a liturgy or any discipline that is “harmful or dangerous” to the faithful as is proposed about the Novus Ordo Missae? According to the condemnation of Pope Pius VI in the Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” Aug 38, 1794, Catholic traditions says no. **

So, Crossing the Threshold of Hope … not binding. … **Canon Law, Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitutions, etc. **… binding on all Catholics.

God bless,

Dave

Dave, I agree that the liturgy promulgated by a Pope is binding. However, (obviously) by its nature, liturgy is not an article of supernatural faith such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or the ban against artificial contraception. Hence it is simply a fact that while a Pope and bishops are to be obeyed, they can and have promulgated decisions on practical matters which have not always been the best.

I can agree that God would not allow a Pope to promulgate an invalid Mass, however.

I don’t have a copy of Denzinger’s with me, yet I have heard it taught by very knowledgeable Catholics, such as Dr. Marra or Dietrich von Hildebrand, that the grace of infallibility simply does not extend to practical decisions. An example would be the suppression of the entire Jesuit order which was done a long while back.

God bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Itsjustdave, if 88 is your birthdate, you have to get a broader perspective on things, a more hostorial perspective.

Thanks for your concern, however, 1988 is the year I married by wonderful bride Heidi.

I’ve studied Catholicism enough to know what it does and does not teach, and what it it has and had not taught. I’m currently enrolled in a MA in Religious Studies so I don’t think I’m shooting from the hip.

Just because someone in authority does something, again, does not mean it is the correct way to do somthing

True. But Lumen Gentium solemnly describes how we should make inquiry into the orthodoxy of what our superior is teaching and/or permitting withing the Church …

By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ.
–Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 37

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

With respect to altar girls, the law specifies that it is up to the bishop to decide. Just because one bishop decides to allow altar girls, that doesn’t make it binding on any other bishop. I am humbly obedient to the teachings of Bishop Michael Sheridan, as it is he that God has given the flock of Colorado Springs. If he should teach or allow something contrary to higher authority, I would use the following protocol to make inquiry, in accord with canon law.

Effective Lay Witness Protocol
cuf.org/protocol.htm

As for the EMHCs, in Rome, they ought never to use EMHCs because there are enough priests, deacons, and acolytes available that there use would be an abuse of the intent of the law.

For my parish, however, we have 6000 members with only 2 priests and 2 deacons. Our situation is much different from that in Rome, therefore EMHCs are authorized.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

they can and have promulgated decisions on practical matters which have not always been the best.

I agree. I’m not arguing for the infallibility of the liturgy or any policy or teaching short of de fide teachings of Catholicism. I’m not even arguing that the Novus Ordo is the “best” liturgy of the over 20 approved liturgies of the Catholic Church.

However, I am arguing that each of the over 20 approved liturgies of the Catholic Church, when celebrated licitly in accordance with the intent of canon law, are Sacred Liturgies.

To suggest that a lawfully established discipline of the Church is actually harmful or dangerous to the faithful is far different than to argue whether it is the right policy for the times or culture. In other words, the liturgy may not be superbly optimized, but the proposition that it is a harmful or dangerous discipline is condmened by Catholic tradition. Errors short of “evil” are possible in my view.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brennan,

yet I have heard it taught by very knowledgeable Catholics, such as Dr. Marra or Dietrich von Hildebrand, that the grace of infallibility simply does not extend to practical decisions.

Yes, but might it extend to ordinary universal disciplines? I don’t believe this has been definitively ruled out, and it seems there are those who find the thesis undeniable.

I refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Here’s an excerpt…

[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

---

This seems to be in accord what Pope Pius VI asserts in the Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” Aug 38, 1794.

Whether liturgy is infallible or not, I find it implausible that approved Catholic liturgies can be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faithful, given Pope Pius VI’s condemnation. If they are not harmful, then they are helpful. If they are not dangerous, then they are a safe means of sanctification.

God bless,

Dave

 

[JNB]

To be fair, the Novus Ordo missal itself never allowed altar girls or EMHC, and in truth, I do noty have a issue with the missal in of itself, I also will not say a mass that uses altar girls or EMHC is invalid, because they are valid, but again, I will not say they are prudent in terms of conveying a vertical notion to the liturgy, much less in fostering vocations to either the seminary or the convent.

Again, validity is one thing, prudence is another. Dave, no matter how well studied you are, you still need to be a little less child like in your faith and asses things from a critical point of view. In terms of the dogmas and doctrines, I am of course in line with the faith, but also I realise that many of the clergy are all too human and on many matters, mistakes are made, the liturgical mess is one of the issues, mainly because there are too many options in terms of rubircs in the current missal.

Case in point, on how difficult this matter is, look at the web site www.stjoan.com it is St Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis MN, it its is technically in union with the local Archdiocese and therefore Rome, but are they in reality?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

itsjustdave1988:

Brennan,

Whether liturgy is infallible or not, I find it implausible that approved Catholic liturgies can be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faithful, given Pope Pius VI’s condemnation. If they are not harmful, then they are helpful. If they are not dangerous, then they are a safe means of sanctification.
I agree that the Church will not impose a discipline which contradicts her own teaching. There is nothing in the new Mass which contradicts Church teaching, or is heretical or evil. I do not use the words “dangerous” or “harmful” in regards to the new Mass. Actually, because the new Mass is valid, it is of inestimable worth because of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Nevertheless, it is a good question to ask if the new Mass lifts one’s heart and mind to God as well as the old. Does it foster a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist as well as the old? Here is an excerpt from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s seminal essay, “The Case for the Latin Mass”:

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

Dietrich von Hildebrand, was one of the world’s most eminent Christian philosophers. A professor at Fordham University, Pope Pius XII called him “the 20th Century Doctor of the Church.” He is the author of many books, including Transformation in Christ and Liturgy and Personality.

Reprinted from the October 1966 issue of TRIUMPH

THE ARGUMENTS for the New Liturgy have been neatly packaged, and may now be learned by rote. The new form of the Mass is designed to engage the celebrant and the faithful in a communal activity. In the past the faithful attended mass in personal isolation, each worshipper making his private devotions, or at best following the proceedings in his missal. Today the faithful can grasp the social character of the celebration; they are learning to appreciate it as a community meal. Formerly, the priest mumbled in a dead language, which created a barrier between priest and people. Now everyone speaks in English, which tends to unite priest and people with one another. In the past the priest said mass with his back to the people, which created the mood of an esoteric rite. Today, because the priest faces the people, the mass is a more fraternal occasion. In the past the priest intoned strange medieval chants. Today the entire assembly sings songs with easy tunes and familiar lyrics, and is even experimenting with folk music. The case for the new mass, then, comes down to this: it is making the faithful more at home in the house of God.

Moreover, these innovations are said to have the sanction of Authority: they are represented as an obedient response to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. This is said notwithstanding that the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy goes no further than to permit the vernacular mass in cases where the local bishop believes it desirable; the Constitution plainly insists on the retention of the Latin mass, and emphatically approves the Gregorian chant. But the liturgical “progressives” are not impressed by the difference between permitting and commanding. Nor do they hesitate to authorize changes, such as standing to receive Holy Communion, which the Constitution does not mention at all. The progressives argue that these liberties may be taken because the Constitution is, after all, only the first step in an evolutionary process. And they seem to be having their way. It is difficult to find a Latin mass anywhere today, and in the United States they are practically non-existent. Even the conventual mass in monasteries is said in the vernacular, and the glorious Gregorian is replaced by insignificant melodies.

 

[Iohannes]

Ham1:

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.

There were problems before VII, however VII and the Novus Ordo allowed the problems to be full blown:

seattlecatholic.com/article_20040322.html

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(Continued)

MY CONCERN is not with the legal status of the changes. And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new mass is replacing the Latin Mass, that the old liturgy is being recklessly s[c]rapped, and denied to most of the People of God.

I should like to put to those who are fostering this development several questions: Does the new mass, more than the old, bestir the human spirit – does it evoke a sense of eternity? Does it help raise our hearts from the concerns of everyday life – from the purely natural aspects of the world- to Christ? Does it increase reverence, an appreciation of the sacred?

Of course these questions are rhetorical, and self-answering. I raise them because I think that all thoughtful Christians will want to weigh their importance before coming to a conclusion about the merits of the new liturgy. What is the role of reverence in a truly Christian life, and above all in a truly Christian worship of God?

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

The rest of the essay is quite good.

I would also recommend an excellent work called “Reform of the Reform?” from Ignatius Press. It contains some excellent essays by Father Brian Harrison and Father Aidan Nichols regarding the reform of the liturgy after Vatican II.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… be a little less child like in your faith

I don’t think so …

**Luke 18:17 “Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” **

God bless,

Dave

 

[jjwq2]

I did not read all of the replies that were posted. However, I have had some weird experiences in my life that have lead me to love and treasure the Tridentine Mass for its traditions and all it has to offer. Unfortunately, rumor has it that one of two parishes in our diocease that is permitted to have the Tridentine Mass will loose it within the next few years. Please pray that this does not occur. It is true that many travel to celebrate Holy Mass in this way. Why are people willing to do this? What does it hold that the others do not? Its beauty and contempletive nature are so much more condusive to prayer and to the verticle relationship of soul to God than the Novus Ordo Mass.

 

[JNB]

Again, that is about doctrines and dogmas of the church, not opinions on liturgy. Again, not every decsion coming from the Pastor, the Bishop or even the Vatican in terms of liturgy is prudent. Again, it is not a matter of accepting the mass as being valid or not, it is a matter of prudence. A mass that is horizontal in nature, with the elements I mentioned , risks losing the vertical element externally, and this has led too many people to take a casual approach to their faith. Step back from your apologetic material Dave, and just think, please.

Again, I will not deny the church authority on these matters, the church says A or B is allowed, then I accept it as allowed and will not change the validity of the mass, but that does not mean I think it is the correct course of action, especially on issues that are not doctrines and dogmas. Also, again, Child like obidience in clrgey 35 years ago got the church into a large amount of mess, when Catholics did not question the changes, often not mandated, being made.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Step back from your apologetic material Dave, and just think, please.

Step back from your condescension and try to accept that after my having experienced both liturgies, I disagree with your assertions. I instead prefer the Novus Ordo 1) as a better tool for catechesis as it is said predominantly aloud and in the venacular, 2) it results in more people in the pews and therefore a greater number of souls being sanctified, and 3) it results in more conversions.

I also disagree with your diagnosis of what caused the crisis in the Church. Seems more probable that disobedience, not religious assent is to blame.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Iohannes]

Many youths I have talked have no Idea that Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary and they attend the regular St. Suburbia Novus Ordo.

 

[JNB]

Its just Dave, with mass attendence between 25-30%. and Cardinal George made a mention of this, compared to 75-80% 40 years ago, the old mass wasnt too bad to keeping people in the pews, also per capita, there were more converts to the church in the 50s compared to now.

I think you also have to realize that things that are common place now, such as overuse of EMEs, altar girls and even communion in the hand started out as dissent not sanctioned by Rome, just that Rome caved in on these issues to avoid schism, so if there wasnt dissent, these issues would not have come up. In the end, it really is not about the missal or even the liturgical language, I have seen the Novus Ordo celebrated in a very reverent manner, it is about rubircs, it is about being faithful to tradition, it is about the mystical. Sorry to say, but too many parishes do not have reverence or anything that approaches the mystical.

Last;y for Cathchisis, why is it so many no longer believe in the real presence? Somthing is terribly wrong.