Not lesser in essence; lesser in extrinsic merit. Both of the articles I linked to include many quotes to demonstrate that the extrinsic merit of all Masses is not equal.
This also explains why Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) would say: "I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”
Obviously, the crisis in the Church is not due to the intrinsic merit of the Mass, since the intrinsic merit is the same with all valid Masses; it is due to a lessening in the extrinsic merit - how much grace the faithful receive at the Mass - which has been greatly lessened due to the “disintegration of the liturgy”.
Take a look at the stats of the number of converts coming into the Church during the 50s, and then the dramatic decrease from the mid 60’s forward. I would also point to the number a priests who left the priesthood after the new Mass was introduced (over 50 thousand in the decade that followed Vatican II). There are still converts, and I myself am one; but I entered because, through study, I realized that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ, not because of the Novus Ordo liturgy. I have heard of many new converts who were scandalized when they witnessed what was taking place at their local Church.Then how to explain the many faithful Catholics who have **come into **the Church since the promulgation of the Ordinary Form?
You are correct but I don’t think you prove the causation.Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but there can certainly be (an often is) a cause/effect relationship by two correlated events. So, for example, if a person gets into an automobile accident, and the next day their house burns down, the correlation of the two events would not imply causation. However, if a nuclear bomb was detonated and everyone within several blocks were instantly turned to dust, who would claim that correlation between the two did not demonstrate a cause/effect.
.
Based on what? I have heard theories that disprove this but I want to hear your argumentFact: The changes in the new Mass correspond almost identically to the changes employed by the Protestants, which led to the loss of Faith in the Protestants within one generation.
I know what this means, it also means that the prayer of the church is what she believesWhat the Church Teaches: The Church teaches that the lex orandit will effect the *lex credenda *- that is, the way someone prays will effect the way they believe.
Ok you used the same error that happened earlier, just because the church “changes” the liturgy doesn’t mean she prays in error or that it effects the belief of others.The Fruits: Today the polls show that a majority of Catholics no longer believe what the Church teaches.
I guess it has an impact but I fully agree with the reforms of Vat II the issue is the implementation of those reforms.[Now, I fully admit that there are other factors as well (such as the poor catechesis and the generally bad state of society), but to exclude the new Mass as a contributing factor is to ignore the obvious - especially when so many predicted that the prayers of the New Mass would lead to a watering down of the Faith.
Jack, I completely get what you’re saying. I don’t know your personal experiences, but would I be really off base in asking if these negative people you’ve encountered were practically all on Internet forums and website? Possible we are talking about not enough people to fill a small side chapel?I feel almost averse to the EF. A lot of people who attend it seem to be so elitist, pretty much a fundamentalist species of Catholicism. There are a lot of us to whom the EF simply is not practically available; for example, there’s only one parish in my diocese that offers it, and it’s at least 20 miles from my house. Considering I go to school and work much closer, and have a parish within spitting distance that offers a very beautiful Novus Ordo, I think I’m going to go with what God has given me.
People who advocate the EF seem to, from my observations, look back to the pre-Vatican II days too romantically. The 1950s in were a sort of “roaring '20’s” for the American Church, but were followed by the Great Depression of the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Granted, EF advocates have every right to be upset by Masses with rock-n-roll and clown priests, but they don’t have a right to brand anyone and everyone who doesn’t unquestioningly follow the Archbishop Lefebvre party line as modernists. That’s just discrediting your brothers and sisters in Christ, whose worldviews are probably 99.9999% identical.
But God also gave you a Traditional Mass 20 miles from your house. I know many people who drive 2 hours to attend the Traditional Mass. But I’m sure you would consider those who make this sacrifice to be “elitist”.I feel almost averse to the EF. A lot of people who attend it seem to be so elitist, pretty much a fundamentalist species of Catholicism. There are a lot of us to whom the EF simply is not practically available; for example, there’s only one parish in my diocese that offers it, and it’s at least 20 miles from my house. Considering I go to school and work much closer, and have a parish within spitting distance that offers a very beautiful Novus Ordo, I think I’m going to go with what God has given me.
What are you trying to say here? What is the evil that God is Permitting.Another point is that, while God will permit evil, He will always draw good out of it. St. Augustine said that is why God permits evil - so that he can draw a greater good out of it. The good that God is drawing out of the current crisis in the Church is a greater fervor in those who love Him.
Take a look at the stats of the number of converts coming into the Church during the 50s, and then the dramatic decrease from the mid 60’s forward. I would also point to the number a priests who left the priesthood after the new Mass was introduced (over 50 thousand in the decade that followed Vatican II). ** There are still converts, and I myself am one; but I entered because, through study, I realized that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ,** not because of the Novus Ordo liturgy. I have heard of many new converts who were scandalized when they witnessed what was taking place at their local Church.
So, even though there was a dramatic decrease in conversions after the Novus Ordo was introduced, God’s grace is still available to those who are open to the truth. God wants nothing more than to have souls he died for enter the Catholic Church, and therefore when he sees a sincere soul searching for the truth, He will give them the necessary grace to convert. That is how I explain the converts coming into the Church in spite of the doctrinal and liturgical chaos of the present day.
Another point is that, while God will permit evil, He will always draw good out of it. St. Augustine said that is why God permits evil - so that he can draw a greater good out of it. The good that God is drawing out of the current crisis in the Church is a greater fervor in those who love Him.
Having been there before and after Vatican II, I did not love God less after. Dissidents inside and outside the Church use Vatican II as a scapegoat today. Without studying history, people who were not there can jump to conclusions that are not valid. In the 1950s, Christian morality was respected and reflected by the government and media. We had prayer in schools and said the Pledge of Allegiance which included the words “One nation, under God…”I feel almost averse to the EF. A lot of people who attend it seem to be so elitist, pretty much a fundamentalist species of Catholicism. There are a lot of us to whom the EF simply is not practically available; for example, there’s only one parish in my diocese that offers it, and it’s at least 20 miles from my house. Considering I go to school and work much closer, and have a parish within spitting distance that offers a very beautiful Novus Ordo, I think I’m going to go with what God has given me.
People who advocate the EF seem to, from my observations, look back to the pre-Vatican II days too romantically. The 1950s in were a sort of “roaring '20’s” for the American Church, but were followed by the Great Depression of the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Granted, EF advocates have every right to be upset by Masses with rock-n-roll and clown priests, but they don’t have a right to brand anyone and everyone who doesn’t unquestioningly follow the Archbishop Lefebvre party line as modernists. That’s just discrediting your brothers and sisters in Christ, whose worldviews are probably 99.9999% identical.