What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[mick321]

I’m sure that they’re not the ONLY fruits of the OF.

A common and particularly distasteful element in each of these videos is the apparent pleasure in which the participants take in abusing the Mass. It brings to mind the footage from Somalia that showed the bodies of Americans dragged through the streets by a laughing mob.

That some folks on this forum would defend it as valid and licit is very sad indeed.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Mass attendance started to decline in the late 1950’s. The decline has been gradual, with a couple of blips upward and then a return to a gradual decline.

The interesting thing is that there has been a gradual decline in the mainline Protestant groups paralleling this decline in the Catholic Church, which would indicate that the source of the decline is due to other factors.

Other sources of declining, besides HV and the immediate whiplash against it are the increase of materialism after WW2 (due in part to the massive relocation of men to the war zones and the subsequent influx of women into jobs beyond teaching, nursing and stenography); when the men came home and found wives and future wives who were significant wage earners; the increasing secularism of society moving religion to a personal private matter, hedonism starting before Vatican 2 with Palyboy and its ilk and exploding with the Free Love movement of the 60’s; the breakdown of the extended family and following right on its heals, the breakdown of the nuclear family; the list goes on and on.

Mass attendance fell off a cliff after VCII not the late 50’s. More Catholics in the US were attending Mass than ever before and we had an amazing number of converts and vocations.

The mainline Prots went down the tubes because they imbibed the same liberalism as the Catholics did. The only sect that did well were the evangelicals who said to Hell with the revolution and stuck to their beliefs regarding conservative morality and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus alone. Meanwhile the post VCII Popes were sucking up to every false religion imaginable.

It seems you are trying to tie the problems to everything except the most obvious cause. I think you need to ask yourself why. The truth will set you free.

 

[ProVobis]

When doing some You-tubing yesterday, I found this comment on one of the videos:

“‘Full and active participation’ means everything has to be dumbed down to the level of the most retarded tone deaf idiot present. Those infallible bishops really know how to pack em in.”

Rather harsh the way it was worded, but I really can’t find any fault with it.

 

[Ockham]

But there’s a lot of OF bashing on here. Not just criticisms of it, but snide, ripping commentaries, as if it isn’t enough to love the EF, but that one has to hate the OF as well. Sometimes, there can be a real sense of community in this part of the forum; the excitement over the FSSP dedication was a good example of that. But other times, there are people who are disregarding Pope Benedict’s admonition against using liturgy to divide the Church.

Ok, now we’re making progress. Awhile ago I stated that the Novus Ordo is less reverent than the Usus Antiquior; you came right at me and haven’t let up. You share an inferiority complex with other defenders of the NO and perhaps allow emotion to get in the way of reason. Maybe I’ve missed it but I haven’t seen snide remarks or hatred towards the NO in this forum. In sincerely doubt any proponents of the UA or Traditionalism in general seek division, rather the opposite. We didn’t have this debate prior to the new Mass.

You challenged me to show how the UA is more reverent than the NO and I did. Like you I grew up in the post-V2 Church and until very recently didn’t know the UA was available anywhere, had not heard of the SSPX, FSSP, or many other facets of traditional Catholic culture. So it has been a learning process yet I have not experienced any sense of inferiority to any of my days as a Catholic.

If you can objectively research this subject you may find the NO critique is valid. The UA structure has a purpose and when many aspects of it were scrapped in the NO there was a purpose to that too. Within the Church there are those with hidden agendas seeking to change it. By changing our liturgy, the way we pray, we change who we are. All Traditional Catholics are trying to do is protect and restore our identity.

The new Mass is more Protestant in its style than the old. Many surveys indicate belief in the Real Presence among Catholics has dropped since the new Mass became the OF. Personally I see a direct correlation.

Here is some information I’ve come across in my research that you may find valuable.

The Theology and Spirituality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
sspx.org/miscellaneous/theology_of_the_mass.pdf

The Ottaviani Intervention
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

The Development of the Mass Since 1960
latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

The Case for the Latin Mass
latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

 

[Lujack]

Ok, now we’re making progress. Awhile ago I stated that the Novus Ordo is less reverent than the Usus Antiquior; you came right at me and haven’t let up.

I came at you and never let up? No, I disagreed with you and never conceded. That’s what happens when people debate.

You share an inferiority complex with other defenders of the NO and perhaps allow emotion to get in the way of reason. Maybe I’ve missed it but I haven’t seen snide remarks or hatred towards the NO in this forum.

I share an inferiority complex with other defenders of the OF? No. You and some others think yourself superior to those who attend an OF Mass, and love making it known. You can’t comprehend the idea that there are reverent OF parishes that people love very much. And I don’t allow emotion to get in the way of reason. I’ve never lost my temper on this thread. I admitted at one point that your arguments were starting to get under my skin despite the fact that I was ostensibly on your side, and you’ve furiously harped on that ever since to try and portray me as some irrational screaming lunatic, and yourself as the cold, dispassionate observer of obvious facts when the situation is not that way at all.

Reread this thread, please. Certain people have had nothing but snide remarks to say about it. You simply can’t accept that there are people who go to reverent OF parishes and like things the way they are there. My father grew up in the EF, and he has no complaints about the OF. He prefers Mass in the vernacular. And he knows Latin very well and was an altar server in the EF for 10+ years. He’d never support a “clown Mass”, but according to you, he must be an idiot or less religious than you for preferring the OF.

In sincerely doubt any proponents of the UA or Traditionalism in general seek division, rather the opposite. We didn’t have this debate prior to the new Mass.

You challenged me to show how the UA is more reverent than the NO and I did.

No. You didn’t. You posted a list, insisted that it was the gospel truth, and then proceeded to declare victory.

Like you I grew up in the post-V2 Church and until very recently didn’t know the UA was available anywhere, had not heard of the SSPX, FSSP, or many other facets of traditional Catholic culture. So it has been a learning process yet I have not experienced any sense of inferiority to any of my days as a Catholic.

If you can objectively research this subject you may find the NO critique is valid. The UA structure has a purpose and when many aspects of it were scrapped in the NO there was a purpose to that too. Within the Church there are those with hidden agendas seeking to change it. By changing our liturgy, the way we pray, we change who we are. All Traditional Catholics are trying to do is protect and restore our identity.

The implicit assumption here is that one is not a traditional Catholic unless they attend the Extraordinary Form. And its a bad one.

The new Mass is more Protestant in its style than the old. Many surveys indicate belief in the Real Presence among Catholics has dropped since the new Mass became the OF. Personally I see a direct correlation.

Personally, I think that the sky is purple. I’m still wrong, and so are you. When the Mass is celebrated the way its meant to be celebrated in the OF, there is nothing Protestant about it.

Now I will agree with you on one thing: church architecture became more Protestant in style, but that clearly started in the 1950’s. Altar rails didn’t come down until the 1960’s, but look at the new churches that were going up in the US during the 1950’s, and the more barren style is clearly there.

Here is some information I’ve come across in my research that you may find valuable.

The Theology and Spirituality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
sspx.org/miscellaneous/theology_of_the_mass.pdf

The Ottaviani Intervention
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

The Development of the Mass Since 1960
latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

The Case for the Latin Mass
latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Thanks, but I’ve already read most of that. I’ll still trundle on down to my humble OF parish and love the Mass there.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

This is what makes things sometimes difficult. I attend an OF parish, like most Catholics do. It is, on the whole, very reverent and a generally wonderful place to be, like all the parishes I’ve been to. It has a good school, and a beautiful church interior.

But there’s a lot of OF bashing on here. Not just criticisms of it, but snide, ripping commentaries, as if it isn’t enough to love the EF, but that one has to hate the OF as well. Sometimes, there can be a real sense of community in this part of the forum; the excitement over the FSSP dedication was a good example of that. But other times, there are people who are disregarding Pope Benedict’s admonition against using liturgy to divide the Church.

These two paragraphs of your post really caught my eye. First of all, most Novus Ordo (OF) Masses are NOT reverent. Even if some are reverent, it doesn’t mean that you should attend one, especially if you have a Traditional Latin Mass nearby.

I wouldn’t be surprised at the OF bashing on this thread considering the fact that this is the Traditional Catholicism part of the forums, and most people on this part are Traditional Catholics (including myself). The reason you see people “bashing” the Novus Ordo Mass is because they understand that the TLM is the true Mass that has been around for centuries. The Novus Ordo has only been around since 1969 and was made mandatory in 1971. I would much rather attend a Mass that has been around for centuries than a Mass that has only been around for 41 years.

 

[Ockham]

I share an inferiority complex with other defenders of the OF? No. You and some others think yourself superior to those who attend an OF Mass, and love making it known.

Sorry to have to point this out, but you are wrong. Please don’t get offended. The EF is more reverent than the OF but by no means do I consider myself superior to anyone. In fact, attending the EF and discovering our Catholic identity has made me very humble.

You can’t comprehend the idea that there are reverent OF parishes that people love very much.

Again, you are wrong. Do you not realize you are putting words in my mouth? This is why I question your emotional response blocking reason. It compromises your credibility in this discussion.

Certain people have had nothing but snide remarks to say about it.

There are extremists on both side of this debate. Take a look at the reaction by some over Archbishop Gomez being appointed as Cardinal Mahony’s successor. There will be fury and uproar for years to come by those who believe the NO isn’t modern enough.

No. You didn’t. You posted a list, insisted that it was the gospel truth, and then proceeded to declare victory.

I proved my point. You’ve yet to counter.

The implicit assumption here is that one is not a traditional Catholic unless they attend the Extraordinary Form. And its a bad one.

That’s a good point which I’ll take with appreciation and effort to correct.

When the Mass is celebrated the way its meant to be celebrated in the OF, there is nothing Protestant about it.

Many of the changes made to the liturgy were done in the spirit of ecumenicism. One of the goals was to make our liturgy easier for our fallen away Christians to return to the flock. How’s that working out? The only major Protestant group to make its way back are the Traditional Anglicans. Compare the NO, the UA, and the Lutheran service and tell me which two resemble each other the most.

Now I will agree with you on one thing: church architecture became more Protestant in style, but that clearly started in the 1950’s. Altar rails didn’t come down until the 1960’s, but look at the new churches that were going up in the US during the 1950’s, and the more barren style is clearly there.

The rebellion didn’t start from nowhere after V2 so pointing this out doesn’t prove anything.

Thanks, but I’ve already read most of that. I’ll still trundle on down to my humble OF parish and love the Mass there.

Reading does not necessarily lead to comprehension. I’m glad you love the OF and participate in the Church as its better than the disgruntled and disillusioned who stay at home on Sundays. However, the OP asked what is a good argument for the EF and I stand by my answer. It is a more reverent liturgy and the Church was better off when it was the only form.

 

[otjm]

Mass attendance fell off a cliff after VCII not the late 50’s. More Catholics in the US were attending Mass than ever before and we had an amazing number of converts and vocations.

Cite your statistics. The only valid statistics I have seen show a gradual fall-off of attendance that started well before Vatican 2.

The mainline Prots went down the tubes because they imbibed the same liberalism as the Catholics did. The only sect that did well were the evangelicals who said to Hell with the revolution and stuck to their beliefs regarding conservative morality and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus alone. Meanwhile the post VCII Popes were sucking up to every false religion imaginable.

It seems you are trying to tie the problems to everything except the most obvious cause. I think you need to ask yourself why. The truth will set you free.

OK, now we know what you think of the Popes. That perhaps explains the rest of your attitude. You have one in cross-wise; but that’s your problem. You want to drag out everything that has happened and blame it on Vatican 2 and the OF, and except for your sayso, that is the sum of your evidence. Your bordeline hatred of the Mass, because you don’t like the format, is truly amazing.

I have attended the Mass in both formats and have a high appreciation of both; Christ is truly present in both. I suspect you would not like the Mass as it occured in the first century.

I have attended all too many Masses prior to Vatican 2 said at 6:30 in the morning by a priest so drunk it still amazes me he could stand; slurred, said under 15 minutes - but we got through all of it. that is every bit as abusive as your repeated comments about clown and balloon Masses. Get over yourself. When you can show me you know more than either of the last two Popes, I will entertain a discussion with you; until then, take your poisonous attitude elsewhere.

 

[malphono]

**If you can objectively research this subject you may find the NO critique is valid. The UA structure has a purpose and when many aspects of it were scrapped in the NO there was a purpose to that too. Within the Church there are those with hidden agendas seeking to change it. By changing our liturgy, the way we pray, we change who we are. **

All Traditional Catholics are trying to do is protect and restore our identity.

The implicit assumption here is that one is not a traditional Catholic unless they attend the Extraordinary Form. And its a bad one.

This is not my quarrel, but I see no such implication whatsoever. IMHO, the quoted paragraph (the bolded portion, minus the last sentence) is actually quite objective and well put. Seems to me the only “implication” therein is that of fact.

 

[Indyann]

Sorry to have to point this out, but you are wrong. Please don’t get offended. The EF is more reverent than the OF but by no means do I consider myself superior to anyone. In fact, attending the EF and discovering our Catholic identity has made me very humble.

Somehow, proclaiming your own humility on the internet does not seem very humble. Oxymoron?

Thanks for the chuckle, though.

.

 

[otjm]

These two paragraphs of your post really caught my eye. First of all, most Novus Ordo (OF) Masses are NOT reverent. Even if some are reverent, it doesn’t mean that you should attend one, especially if you have a Traditional Latin Mass nearby.

Perhaps you ahve access to a survey done around the world; in such case by all means please share it. Otherwise, I would suggest you don’t have a clue as to how many of the OF Masses are reverent and how many are not. There are about 117,000 parishes world wide tracked by Mass Times; out of that number, according to their tracking, something less than 500 have a regular EF; that leaves us with better than 116,000 with the OF. How many, out of that 116,000+ have you personally attended, and how many has your survey covered? Or are you just expounding based on seeing a few parishes - lets be generous and assume you have actually tracked all of 100 parishes. That amounts to a survey of something approaching nine hundredths of one percent. And from that you can pontificate that most are not reverent?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Perhaps you ahve access to a survey done around the world; in such case by all means please share it. Otherwise, I would suggest you don’t have a clue as to how many of the OF Masses are reverent and how many are not. There are about 117,000 parishes world wide tracked by Mass Times; out of that number, according to their tracking, something less than 500 have a regular EF; that leaves us with better than 116,000 with the OF. How many, out of that 116,000+ have you personally attended, and how many has your survey covered? Or are you just expounding based on seeing a few parishes - lets be generous and assume you have actually tracked all of 100 parishes. That amounts to a survey of something approaching nine hundredths of one percent. And from that you can pontificate that most are not reverent?

I don’t know the exact amount of parishes I have been to that offer the Novus Ordo, but out of all of them (I would estimate about 6 or 7, just a guess though), I have seen only one church that offers a reverent Novus Ordo in person. I’ve only been there twice, but I will say that even though it was more tolerable than the others, there still wasn’t anything TRUELY reverent about it. No Latin like some Novus Ordo Mass have (there’s one on EWTN that has Latin), still had communion in the hands, still had the handshake of peace, etc. So to say that it was reverent would probably be false, it was just the closest to being reverent of all the churches I have been to. At the other churches, I can’t say the same thing. One church once had a boy scout Mass, and the priest at that church was suggesting some non-Christian things in his sermons from time to time. One church had a Mass where someone sneezed and the priest said “God Bless You” and everyone laughed. How was that funny? The other churches had some things that I strongly dis-agreed with. So yeah, most Novus Ordo Masses (about 85-90%) are NOT reverent.

And just because it’s reverent does not mean I will attend. Reverent or not, it’s still not the true Mass that has been around for centuries. Even if a Novus Ordo Mass has Latin in it, I will only attend the TLM. Latin is not the only difference between the two Masses. And by the way, you say that you don’t believe Novus Ordo parishes sometimes offer “clown Masses” or whatever. Well, less than half offer Masses that pathetic, but I have seen videos of Masses where to people are tossing a beach ball around, where the priest was playing “Limbo”, and I’ve even heard of a priest that dressed up as a Clown during Mass. It’s quite sad. Oh, and let’s not forget about Cardinal Mahony’s service in LA. With the clapping, the sorry looking so-called “altar” that looked more like a desk, and the liturgical dancers. Even the priests were dancing. It just shows why I stick with the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[pnewton]

In reference to the original question, perhaps entrenchment is more critical than growth. We often think that if we do not move quickly, then we are failing. If you have established a TLM then you have done a good thing. Take the advice of Gamaliel. If God is with you, then you will be blessed. Also, not to be too crass, but priest look not only at attendence, but also the offering a Mass takes in. For us, our smallest Mass brings in as much as one of the larger ones. At one point it was on the table to change it to Spanish (from English). It was left alone due to the fact that the parish needs the funds to survive. I do not know it this is a consideration in your case, but if it is, I am sure your priest is aware of the figures.

 

[ProVobis]

The following statistics are originally from Kenneth Jones’ Index of Leading Catholic Indicators:

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.

Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700–a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000–and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.

Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.

Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

Sacramental Life. 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 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

Mass attendance. 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.

tldm.org/news6/statistics.htm

 

[stevusmagnus]

Thanks Pro. I was about to post that myself.

It pretty much tells any reasonable person what they need to know about the reform.

If the Church were a business and an executive had executed a plan with these results he would have been fired a long time ago and the company would have changed direction immediately.

 

[Lycorth]

Thanks Pro. I was about to post that myself.

It pretty much tells any reasonable person what they need to know about the reform.

If the Church were a business and an executive had executed a plan with these results he would have been fired a long time ago and the company would have changed direction immediately.

Indeed…

 

[otjm]

Thanks Pro. I was about to post that myself.

It pretty much tells any reasonable person what they need to know about the reform.

If the Church were a business and an executive had executed a plan with these results he would have been fired a long time ago and the company would have changed direction immediately.

A reasonable person would look at what else was happening at the same time, to determine what the actual casuation was.

It is only the simplistic person who will buy into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument for causation.

The sacrament that is more telling than the reduction in the number of vocations is marriage; the fall-off of marriages and the surrounding issues are far more valid evidence of the causation than simply looking at the reduction in the number of ordinations.

Marriage has been impacted by a number of issues, including materialism (which took off after WW2, when we started the move to dual incomes and women moving into non-traditional jobs); the rise of ABC which started in 1930 and by the early 1960’s was fueled by the new form - the Pill; the almost instantaneous rejection of Humanae Vitae and the the following massive increase in the use of ABC; the sexual revolution which reached a fever pitch in the mid 1960s; the gradual move since the 1960s to later and later marriage; the change in civil laws which previously made criminal both ABC and “shacking up” and the massive increase in both categories since then; and the move to “no fault” divorce which lead to a mssive increase in divorces.

Those who obstinately confuse the reform intended by Vatican 2 with the dissent that followed after Vatican 2 and is nowhere prompted by the documents - or for that matter, the OF - are either too intellectually lazy to do any research, or they are approaching intellectual dishonesty.

Many of the same issues that impacted the sacrament of marriage have had an impact - direct or indirect - on other sacraments. The dissent that over-ran HV spread like wild fire; if the Vatican was (theoretically) so far off the mark on sexual issues and was to be ignored, then where else were they to be ignored? Where else were they simply a bunch of out-of-touch old people who simply “didn’t get it”?

It is not the alternatives which are within the OF which caused priests to so thoroughly ignore the rubrics; it was the expanding idea that whatever Rome said was irrelevant, and that relevance had to be applied at the local level.

Vatican 2 did not create the changes in society, nor do the documents support any of the craziness that has gone on since 1965. Nor was it a few priests, ordained after 1965, who gave us the chaos in the OF; it was priests who were ordained before Vatican 2, many of them well before it. Blaming the necessary reform of the Church - which according to this pope and the last one still has not been fully implemented - for the subsequent chaos is simply to ignore the multitude of issues impacting both the clergy and the people in the pews. Experimentation had already started in the Mass before we got the OF handed to us, and that at a time where the rubrics were more formal and complex and a time where authority was far more reaching and (supposedly) effective.

And any business which fires its leader over things which the leader has no control is a business which will fail shortly.

 

[Ockham]

A reasonable person would look at what else was happening at the same time, to determine what the actual casuation was.

It is only the simplistic person who will buy into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument for causation.

While a good point you are making the same error by adding another faulty causation argument. I maintain the changes our civilization went through during the sixties is corelation not causation. The birth control pill probably had just as much to do with the overall changes as did the new Mass.

With Western Christian birthrates dropping below sustainable levels, we are going to experience significant changes to our civilization one way or the other. Maybe when we wake up and listen to the truth of Humane Vitae other long standing traditional Church teachings will experience a renewal as well.

 

[otjm]

While a good point you are making the same error by adding another faulty causation argument. I maintain the changes our civilization went through during the sixties is corelation not causation. The birth control pill probably had just as much to do with the overall changes as did the new Mass.

Since you do not state what you feel is the faulty causation, I would certainly invite it. I have yet to seen anyone show that the chaos we saw in the OF in the 70’s and 80’s was caused by the form of the OF; it certainly has been argued that it did, but only as a conclusion with no evidence.

I submit that what we had then was a massive amount of dissent which in turn lead to a massive amount of disobedience. And the single point of the dissent came out over HV. Once it was decided - not just by the intelligencia, but by the people in the pews - that Rome did not have a clue about the moral rightness or wrongness of the Pill, the dissent spread like wildfire. I watched it, and I am still amazed to this day how much damage spread from that.

The introduction of the OF gets blamed for all sorts of things. The amazing thing is how many priests I find saying the OF according to the rubrics, and saying it in as reverent a fashion as the EF was when I was a youth. The Mass itself - the OF - we can all agree was not organically developed from the EF, and was not what the bishops of Vatican 2 intended. We can discuss the differences between the rubrics and between the prayers of each form. I have no problem whatsoever with that. What I do have a problem with is the sweeping charges that blame the OF for all the problems we have. There are far too many well thought out people who have examined the issues and found casuation to be otherwise, and sadly, those who make such charges seem islolated from the whole discussion. People in general want simple ansers to complex questions. And when someone can provide a simple answer, they don’t want to be confused by the facts.

With Western Christian birthrates dropping below sustainable levels, we are going to experience significant changes to our civilization one way or the other. Maybe when we wake up and listen to the truth of Humane Vitae other long standing traditional Church teachings will experience a renewal as well.

On that we absolutely agree. Moral theology took a turn and went into the toilet, and then someone flushed. It is going to be a very long, slow and painful process to get back on track. Benedict 16 was not wrong when he talked a year or so ago about the fact that we may eventually be a Remnant Church (I believe he was speaking specifically of the Church in Europe); it may be that the Church in the US will not go as tragically low as that in Europe, but we have serious problems here.

 

[Ockham]

Suggesting the sexual revolution is responsible for the decline in Church attendance, seminarians, belief in the Real Presence, etc is the same thing as arguing the OF caused it all. My argument is that they are corelated, contributing factors to the general result. Call it a perfect storm if you will. Once the barn doors of Vatican II were opened the horses ran wild thus producing many of the liturgical abuses that are now norms such as CITH. I am starting to think the NO was the best thing for the TLM as the latter was protected from the rebellious 'spirit of V2/age of aquarius/baby boomer influences.