S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Please cite your evidence regarding Catholic use of contraception in the 30’s and 40’s.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
November 2009 New York Times Op Ed
nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29wolfe.html
WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.
All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”
Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.
Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.
The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.
Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our … Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)
How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.
Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.
But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.
But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change. Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors. And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy.
Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.
At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.
nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29wolfe.html
WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.
All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”
Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.
Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.
The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.
Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our … Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)
How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.
Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.
But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.
But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change. Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors. And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy.
Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.
At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.
T
Timothysis
Guest
As I am a bit thick, please highlight those sections that “can be said and understood in a protestant sense.” Also, what can be understood in a “heretical light.”It seems you are failing to understand a rather basic concept I’ve been stating throughout this thread. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer. The Lutherans have said there is no problem in them saying the Novus Ordo as is because, as is, it does not contradict any of their beliefs. The entire Mass can be said and understood in a Protestant sense. This was the goal. The Lutherans are not “making it into” anything other than what it is, word for word. That a Protestant would have no trouble using Catholic prayers of Mass to be understood in a heretical light should be troubling to all Catholics.
Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.
Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope {Benedict}, our Bishop {name of local bishop}, and all the bishops, with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you. Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be.
- Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship. We hope to enjoy for ever the vision of your glory, through Christ our Lord, from whom all good things come.
M
malphono
Guest
No, I’m not missing the argument. I know it well, and have for 40+ years. And still I don’t quite buy it, at least not in the Latin. Oh, I know quite a lot about the late Archbishop and I fully agree that he was a liturgical butcher, and that the results of his endeavors (including the “revisions” made to the text – not the timing, which I agree with – of the Holy Week rites in 1955) leave a lot to be desired (read: they’re horrid). I will even go so far as to agree that some Protestants might be “comfortable” with the OF (in translation, at least). What I don’t buy, though, is the assertion that the OF was “Protestantized” or designed to reflect “Protestant” theology. And as I said earlier, I am one who has scrupulously avoided the OF for some 40 years. As far as I’m concerned, what the OF really is, (in its Latin original anyway, and even in its “reform of the reform” mode), is “liturgy lite” which I find sorely lacking, not to mention unfulfilling. In translation it’s quite a bit worse than that. All that said, I still don’t buy into the “it’s Protestant” theory. Bad liturgy? Yes. Protestant? No.You’re missing the argument. The argument is that the NO was Protestantized and made ambiguous as compared to the TLM. I don’t think this is really in dispute. One Mass is acceptable to Protestants, one is not. Once clearly contradicts Protestant belief, one does not. That Bugnini wanted to eliminate the Roman Canon (!) and also develop a new rosary where “Holy Mary Mother of God” was omitted tells us all we need to know.
It is not like Bugnini’s designs were secret. He and the Protestant “observers” told us many times what they were up to. This is not some secret revelation.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Tim,
What sections are you proposing that Lutherans would have a problem with?
What sections are you proposing that Lutherans would have a problem with?
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
I think we agree in principle, but we are getting caught up in terminology.No, I’m not missing the argument. I know it well, and have for 40+ years. And still I don’t quite buy it, at least not in the Latin. Oh, I know quite a lot about the late Archbishop and I fully agree that he was a liturgical butcher, and that the results of his endeavors (including the “revisions” made to the text – not the timing, which I agree with – of the Holy Week rites in 1955) leave a lot to be desired (read: they’re horrid). I will even go so far as to agree that some Protestants might be “comfortable” with the OF (in translation, at least). What I don’t buy, though, is the assertion that the OF was “Protestantized” or designed to reflect “Protestant” theology. And as I said earlier, I am one who has scrupulously avoided the OF for some 40 years. As far as I’m concerned, what the OF really is, (in its Latin original anyway, and even in its “reform of the reform” mode), is “liturgy lite” which I find sorely lacking, not to mention unfulfilling. In translation it’s quite a bit worse than that. All that said, I still don’t buy into the “it’s Protestant” theory. Bad liturgy? Yes. Protestant? No.
The words of the NO can still be understood in a Catholic sense, otherwise the liturgy would be explicitly heretical. When I use the word “Protestantized” it is equivalent to saying that the explicitly Catholic parts of the Mass were diluted, dimished, made more vague, ambiguous, however you want to put it, so that it would be at the least less offensive to Protestants and in the case of certain Protestant pastors even “acceptable” to them.
I’m not claiming that true Catholic priests are believing like Luther in saying the NO. I’m claiming that the NO is not as explicitly Catholic and contrary to Protestant belief as the TLM and in that sense one could say the Mass was “Protestantized”. The NO Mass as said in the Catholic Church by priests with the correct intention is not “Protestant” per se because they say it with Catholic interpretation and sense. My point is that this intention and sense is mostly implicit in the New Rite where it was explicit in the Old.
T
Timothysis
Guest
You said "The entire Mass can be said and understood in a Protestant sense. " I have posted the current translation of Eucharistic Prayer III and ask that you highlight those words or sentences that “can be said and understood in a protestant sense.”Tim,
What sections are you proposing that Lutherans would have a problem with?
I maintain that the prayer is wholly and distinctly “Catholic;” if a Lutheran can use it with a quiet conscience then it is due to a mistaken understanding on his part. You maintain that I am mistaken. I ask that you show examples from this prayer anything that can be understood "in a protestant sense."
M
malphono
Guest
I’m going to play “Devil’s Advocate” here:You said "The entire Mass can be said and understood in a Protestant sense. " I have posted the current translation of Eucharistic Prayer III and ask that you highlight those words or sentences that “can be said and understood in a protestant sense.”
I maintain that the prayer is wholly and distinctly “Catholic;” if a Lutheran can use it with a quiet conscience then it is due to a mistaken understanding on his part. You maintain that I am mistaken. I ask that you show examples from this prayer anything that can be understood "in a protestant sense."
It seems to me that there are two things which would be categorically rejected by the Lutherans (or other Protestants):
- “We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” (aka the epiklesis) and
- “Mary, the virgin Mother of God”
M
MarkThompson
Guest
You’re giving a source that’s 55 years old; you haven’t been giving it for 55 years.There is certainly evidence he said the quote. I (and hundreds of other people) have continually given the source for 55 years. Did Bugnini ever deny it?
The google translation of the Italian comes out as follows:
So, at best, you have the Archbishop describing changes to the Good Friday prayers in this fashion: “Well, I regret that we had to change them, but if we want to draw our separated brethren back to us, it’s better not to call them heretics and schismatics all the time.” That’s an incredibly far cry from what this quotation is usually trotted out to show: that Bugnini somehow wanted to strip the Catholicism from all the prayers of the entire Novus Ordo.“Yet the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the way the union of the separated brethren, removing stone that can be while away an obstacle or embarrassment, led the Church, even those painful sacrifices.”
Also, with all due respect, the “Strip Catholicism out to please the Protestants” version of this quote is even less faithful a translation of the original than “And also with you” is to “Et cum spiritu tuo.”
November 2009 New York Times Op Ed
Yes, I saw that, but it’s just an op-ed (not a news piece) from a trad-Catholic fundamentalist.
L
Layman
Guest
Almost forgot. Other rites have been changed e.g.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinal.htm
Also the rites of exorcism and extreme unction. To make them more ‘celebratory’, I hear. Likewise, Prime was dropped from the Divine Office. Prime is interesting. There’s a Psalm which says “Turn back evil upon my enemies and destroy them in thy truth”.
If ordination, extreme unction and and exorcism have been changed, why? To make them more intelligible to the listener??!
It’s been a busy few decades for some folk.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinal.htm
Also the rites of exorcism and extreme unction. To make them more ‘celebratory’, I hear. Likewise, Prime was dropped from the Divine Office. Prime is interesting. There’s a Psalm which says “Turn back evil upon my enemies and destroy them in thy truth”.
If ordination, extreme unction and and exorcism have been changed, why? To make them more intelligible to the listener??!
It’s been a busy few decades for some folk.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
From the Lutheran Eucharistic Prayer…I’m going to play “Devil’s Advocate” here:
It seems to me that there are two things which would be categorically rejected by the Lutherans (or other Protestants):
- “We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” (aka the epiklesis) and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_the_Lutheran_Church
…Gathered in the name and remembrance of Jesus, we beg you, O Lord, to forgive, renew, and strengthen us with Your Word and Spirit. Grant us faithfully to eat His body and drink His blood as He bids us to do in His own testament. Gather us together, we pray, from the ends of the earth to celebrate with all the faithful in the marriage feast of the Lamb in His kingdom, which has no end. Graciously receive our prayers; deliver and preserve us. To You alone, O Father, be all glory, honor and worship, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.
People: Amen.
- “Mary, the virgin Mother of God”
Beyond that, I’m not so sure. But I also think those two are enough to quash the “it’s Protestant” theory.
What Do Lutherans Believe About the Virgin Mary?
By Dr. Richard P. Bucher
Of course the Christian Church rightly honors and thanks God for Mary who became theotokos, the “mother of God.” Lutherans are one with the ancient Church in calling Mary that. Mary was the mother of the full Jesus, who is God and man in one Person. Of course we agree that to lose the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth is to lose Jesus Christ.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Sources have been quoting it for 55 years with no denial from Bugnini and no credible articles claiming he did not say it. Once we establish he said it, we can move on to the other 500 things he did and said telling us this was his mindset. Again we are arguing over minutiae and missing the big picture.You’re giving a source that’s 55 years old; you haven’t been giving it for 55 years.
It is evident that he did indeed strip out the most Catholic parts of the TLM including the offertory. This is not in dispute that I know of.So, at best, you have the Archbishop describing changes to the Good Friday prayers in this fashion: “Well, I regret that we had to change them, but if we want to draw our separated brethren back to us, it’s better not to call them heretics and schismatics all the time.” That’s an incredibly far cry from what this quotation is usually trotted out to show: that Bugnini somehow wanted to strip the Catholicism from all the prayers of the entire Novus Ordo.
Prove it.Also, with all due respect, the “Strip Catholicism out to please the Protestants” version of this quote is even less faithful a translation of the original than “And also with you” is to “Et cum spiritu tuo.”
What in the article is false?Yes, I saw that, but it’s just an op-ed (not a news piece) from a trad-Catholic fundamentalist.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
All of it.You said "The entire Mass can be said and understood in a Protestant sense. " I have posted the current translation of Eucharistic Prayer III and ask that you highlight those words or sentences that “can be said and understood in a protestant sense.”
The prayer can be understood as Catholic. It can also be understood and interpreted as Lutheran. It is not explicitly Catholic like, for instance, the offertory of the TLM. Pretty simple stuff.I maintain that the prayer is wholly and distinctly “Catholic;” if a Lutheran can use it with a quiet conscience then it is due to a mistaken understanding on his part. You maintain that I am mistaken. I ask that you show examples from this prayer anything that can be understood "in a protestant sense."
A
At_Trent
Guest
Polls can be misleading or inaccurate, but these 2 are worth noting
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/11/poll-53-of-catholics-want-latin-mass.html
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/04/44-percent-of-germans-want-old-mass.html
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/11/poll-53-of-catholics-want-latin-mass.html
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/04/44-percent-of-germans-want-old-mass.html
O
otjm
Guest
Per CARA: the peak was in 1957 at 74%. By 1965, the end of Vatican 2 (and while the EF was in force for a significant pat of that period), attendancee was already down to 67%. That works out to about 1% per year.You mentioned it many times, but your claim is wholly unsupported by the statistical data. If things are as you say we’d expect to see a leveling of Mass attendance immediately before and after the liturgical changes. Instead sharp declines began immediately after VCII when the changes began to be implemented in 1965. Under the Old Rite we had 75% Mass attendance. We now have about 25%.
The change in the liturgy did not bring back Protestants. In that you are right. There were, ironically, far more conversions before the reforms. The reason is that the Protestants can say the NO in their own churches, and the Conciliar Church insists there is no pressing need for them to convert to be saved, so why convert?
Since you want to look at attendance rates, CARA shows that in 2003, 33% were in weekly attendance.
That means in 38 years, there was a 34% decrease or less than 1 percent per year.
Sharp declines simply do not show. It did not drop and then level off, but simply meaneered downward; with an increase interestingly in 2000, the Jubilee year.
And while you are at it, please source your conversion rates before and after Vatican 2 since you are implying without any evidence that concersions are down.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Big Steve, you’re right but let’s be fair to the non-Catholics, though. Remember they were the ones very influential in preserving the TLM through the Agatha Christie Indult. So they’re not all that bad. They realized the old Latin Mass as well as the Catholic Church had been most responsible in building and forming and shaping our Western civilization, its art, music, culture, governments, etc.The Tridentine Missal is explicitly Catholic and explicitly professes the Catholic understanding of propitiatory sacrifice the Protestants reject out of hand. Just look at the offeratory of the TLM. This is heresy to Protestants.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
First of all (and this is my bad too) 1965 was 45 years ago. Second, I haven’t seen any quotations of this alleged sentence from earlier than a few years ago. Do you know of any “sources” that were “quoting it” before, say, 1995?Sources have been quoting it for 55 years with no denial from Bugnini and no credible articles claiming he did not say it. Once we establish he said it, we can move on to the other 500 things he did and said telling us this was his mindset. Again we are arguing over minutiae and missing the big picture.
That may or may not be true (though, er, the Ordinary Form does have an offertory), but if so it’s unconnected with what he was discussing in the article from L’Osservatore Romano, which was changes to the Good Friday prayers.It is evident that he did indeed strip out the most Catholic parts of the TLM including the offertory. This is not in dispute that I know of.
Well, the Italian says,Prove it.
E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
My Italian is not perfect (better at Latin and Spanish), but a faithful translation says,
And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.
That’s just not remotely close to:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.
What words are in this that isn’t in the original? – “strip,” “Catholic,” “prayers,” “liturgy,” “shadow,” “Protestants.” That’s not a translation; it’s a fabrication.
Again, don’t misunderstand – I sing Gregorian chant weekly; I go to a TLM when I can, such as high Mass this past Sunday. But debate should take place on honest terms, and this quotation is just not honest.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
From the Index of Leading Catholic IndicatorsPer CARA: the peak was in 1957 at 74%. By 1965, the end of Vatican 2 (and while the EF was in force for a significant pat of that period), attendancee was already down to 67%. That works out to about 1% per year.
Since you want to look at attendance rates, CARA shows that in 2003, 33% were in weekly attendance.
That means in 38 years, there was a 34% decrease or less than 1 percent per year.
Sharp declines simply do not show. It did not drop and then level off, but simply meaneered downward; with an increase interestingly in 2000, the Jubilee year.
And while you are at it, please source your conversion rates before and after Vatican 2 since you are implying without any evidence that concersions are down.
A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74% of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A study by Fordham University concluded that 65% of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965 (conclusion of the Council). It was 25% in 2000.
“After temporarily rising to nearly 75% in the immediate aftermath of WWII, U.S. Mass attendance stood at about 65%, and hence roughly it’s 1939 level, in the period immediately following Vatican II. From there on it fell continuously at a relatively fast pace initially, then much more slowly, and now (2003) more recently faster again.”
US Protestant Church attendance did not mirror such a decline during the same time period, but held steady. This kills the idea that the sharp decline was due to “societal factors”.
In 1965 there were 27.7 converts for every 10,000 Catholics. In 2002 there were 12.2 - a decline of 56%.
T
Timothysis
Guest
A non answer.All of it.
Having just read the Lutheran service I can assure you that there is a world of difference between the fact that "* Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements)[7], so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself[8] in the Sacrament of the Eucharist whether they are believers or unbelievers”* and the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood, the difference between transubstantiation and the condemned belief of consubstantiation.The prayer can be understood as Catholic. It can also be understood and interpreted as Lutheran. It is not explicitly Catholic like, for instance, the offertory of the TLM. Pretty simple stuff.
Also, there is not a wit of mention in the Lutheran service of "we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice" or "Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself" or "Lord, may this sacrifice" which indicate that what just occurred is a real sacrifice of propitiation, something that is explicit in the offertory - “Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts” and "Pray, brethern, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the alimighty Father, may the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name for our good and the good of all his Church" - something that is foreign in a Lutheran service.
If you cannot see the distinctly Catholic elements in the above as opposed to those doctrines held by the Lutherans then there isn’t anything that will satisfy you. So please explain to me just what, exactly, in the above can be understood to be Lutheran.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
The NO “offertory” is nothing more than a Jewish table prayer (no doubt acceptable even to Jews).First of all (and this is my bad too) 1965 was 45 years ago. Second, I haven’t seen any quotations of this alleged sentence from earlier than a few years ago. Do you know of any “sources” that were “quoting it” before, say, 1995?
That may or may not be true (though, er, the Ordinary Form does have an offertory), but if so it’s unconnected with what he was discussing in the article from L’Osservatore Romano, which was changes to the Good Friday prayers.
Look, I’m not going to go and research the exact years and places since 1965 when the quote was cited though you are welcome to do so. The quote stands on it’s own in the newspaper for all to see. Furthermore, a simple internet search on Bugnini will tell any objective observer what they need to know with hundreds of quotations and sources. This is like analyzing whether a photograph of the sky was real or forged or photoshopped in order to discover whether the sky is really blue. It’s pointless.
The point still stands. Bugnini wanted to (and did) remove (strip) Catholic prayers from the Liturgy in order to not be a “stumbling block” to Protestants. Spin that however you want to, it is still a strikingly novel and ecumenical attitude to the Catholic Mass, bending over backwards not to offend Protestant heretics, which was unprecedented in the Church’s 2000 year history.Well, the Italian says,
E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
My Italian is not perfect (better at Latin and Spanish), but a faithful translation says,
And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.
That’s just not remotely close to:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.
What words are in this that isn’t in the original? – “strip,” “Catholic,” “prayers,” “liturgy,” “shadow,” “Protestants.” That’s not a translation; it’s a fabrication.
We would need an Italian translator we both trust to give his opinion. Since that ain’t happening, see my words above, that this is just one of a mountain of things about Bugnini (including his most obvious actions(!) that demonstrate his intent repeatedly.Again, don’t misunderstand – I sing Gregorian chant weekly; I go to a TLM when I can, such as high Mass this past Sunday. But debate should take place on honest terms, and this quotation is just not honest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.