You must not challenge the NO Mass

[pnewton]

I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that there was inorganic development with the NO Mass, also. And to my mind he is very liturgically and theologically learned - at least more so than anyone here, I’m guessing.

That is what I have heard, but can not find. I think this supposed statement was made in a preface he wrote for someone else’s book. In the preface to his own book, he spoke of the Mass today be like the uncovering of the whitewash on a brilliant fresco and stated there is no going back. He was equally quick to point of the dangers of this as well and speak to the point of preserving our Mass.

In fact, Pope Benedict is the perfect synthesis of knowledge and authority when it comes to liturgy. Spirit of the Liturgy is a very enlightening book for people extreme on either end of the liturgical spectrum.

 

[Malkin71]

That is what I have heard, but can not find. I think this supposed statement was made in a preface he wrote for someone else’s book. In the preface to his own book, he spoke of the Mass today be like the uncovering of the whitewash on a brilliant fresco and stated there is no going back. He was equally quick to point of the dangers of this as well and speak to the point of preserving our Mass.

In fact, Pope Benedict is the perfect synthesis of knowledge and authority when it comes to liturgy. Spirit of the Liturgy is a very enlightening book for people extreme on either end of the liturgical spectrum.

I do believe the book that you are mentioning is"Reform of the Roman Liturgy" by Msg. Klass Gambler. It is in the preface.

 

[pnewton]

I do believe the book that you are mentioning is"Reform of the Roman Liturgy" by Msg. Klass Gambler. It is in the preface.

Thanks.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.

Damooster:

On this one, it’s vital for people to listen to the ENTIRE RESPONSE given by Cardinal Arinze and not just to read your Paraphrase of part of his answer, which I feel doesn’t accurately represent what Cardinal Arinza said.

Although some Traditionalists (usually referred to as “Rad-Trads”) here challenge the authority of Vatican II and the Validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, MOST Traditionalists here are Faithful Catholics who are dismayed and appalled by those who have used the “Spirit of Vatican II” to hijack the Reforms of the Council to “make the Church relevant to our society” by compromising the Truths of the Faith. and, Most of us are sick and tired of the obvious and outrageous Abuses and “Innovations” which have infected the Divine Liturgies which are offered in our Parishes and Dioceses here and around the world causing many of these Masses to be Illicit, and some to be Invalid. :banghead: It was this situation that Cardinal Arinze referred to at the end of his response, and it’s this situation that has so many wondering if the Novus Ordo can be offered with the reverence and devotion that our Lord deserves.

The only answer I can offer is this:

The Mass of Vatican II, by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
It’s true that when the priest faces the people for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, there may be a sense of greater unity as a community. But there is also a danger of the priest being the performer and you being the spectator - precisely what the Council did not want: priest performers and congregational spectators. But there is something more problematic. You can see it, perhaps, by contrasting Mass facing the people with Mass facing East or facing the Lord. I don’t say Mass “with my back to the people” anymore than Patton went through Germany with his “back to the soldiers.” Patton led the Third Army across Germany and they followed him to achieve a goal. The Mass is part of the Pilgrim Church on the way to our goal, our heavenly homeland. This world is not our heavenly homeland. We don’t sit around in a circle and look at each other. We want to look *with *each other and with the priest towards the rising sun, the rays of grace, where the Son will come again in glory on the clouds.

     And so, in Mass celebrated in the traditional way, the priest does face          the people when he speaks on God's behalf to proclaim the Word and explain          it. And he does face the people when he receives their gifts. And then          he turns to face with the people and to offer those gifts up to our common          Father, praying that the Holy Spirit will come down and transform those          gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ. And when that most sacred act          takes place, the priest turns to offer the gifts back to the people. I          think that is much more dramatic. Whether I am right or not, all I'm asking          is a right to exist. If not peaceful coexistence, at least coexistence.          

     Now strange as it may appear, there is absolutely no permission required          to say Mass facing East. The Pope does it every morning in his chapel.          But there is such a taboo against it that most pastors would be afraid          to do it for fear they would be exiled to some lowly parish.

     The Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said nothing          about removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out kneelers.          It said nothing about turning the altar around. It said nothing about          multiple canons. That, too, is an invention; a pure invention.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
Read the Article - I think you’ll see one way the Novus Ordo Missae can be offered reverently and with appropriate devotion.

I have been privileged to participate in the celebration of a 16th Century English Translation of the Tridentine Latin Mass (Low Mass). It was gorgeous! :extrahappy: I’ve been told that the TAC will probably be allowed to adopt it for the Liturgy if the Vatican accepts the TAC’s application for unity…

When that happens, you’re all invited to a celebration of the Solemn High Mass - Gregorian Canon in 16th Century English!

Meanwhile, listen to the whole response by Cardinal Arinze - Every thing he had to say was important… :yup:

I hope this makes things a little more clear.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Layman]

You must not challenge the N.O. Mass …

when it’s being done properly i.e. with Latin, the priest Ad Orientem and with Chant.

Sadly, there are only only one or two places in the world where this is currently done. The rest have novelties and abuses. So these should be challenged.

In trying to make the Mass more ‘accessible’ and didactic, the clergy are dumbing it down and making it more mundane, to my eyes. Whereas, I think, you should try to push people a little, lift them out of the mundane and into the Heavenly. Which a well-done Latin Mass does, if you’re receptive to it.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Quite some time ago some “traditionalists” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope Pius VI (or “NO Mass” in their lexicon) was an “invalid” form of the Mass… After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of those like Cardinal Arinze.

The claims of an “invalid” Mass morphed into one of a “inorganic development.” That seems to be the battle cry of today for the extremists. Sadly they are simply wrong – the Mass of Pope Pius VI actually draws its inspiration from a period prior to the Tridentine Mass. Nothing however would change even if their claims were accurate.

I think such extremists are very much part of the Cafeteria Catholic brand. They made no effort to reconcile their beliefs with the truth. They simply pick and choose what they will believe and accept.

Charioteer:

I’ve actually attended NO Masses where Priests used “Canon 5” - “Make it up as you go” (often not saying, “This is my Body.” or, “This is my Blood.” the min. needed to confect the Eucharist), over LEAVENED, SWEETENED BREAD.

I think it’s clear that abuses such as the above are what appalled most Traditionalists, and most faithful Catholics. and, Before you claim the NO is based on Liturgies from a period before the the TLM, please remember the TLM evolved from the Mass that existed for over 1000 years BEFORE the Council of Trent. The Roman Canon was originally known as the Gregorian Canon, and Gregorian Chant predated Pope St. Gregory the Great by 1000 years and was used in Jewish Liturgies (including the Seders) for over 400 years before the Incarnation of our Lord:

Yemenite Jewish Chants - Shema
youtube.com/watch?v=Lh5Zok4yUWQ
10 Commandments - Yemenite Version
youtube.com/watch?v=1xLME2cHX2M&feature=related
(Sounds like the Preface to the Canon)
Chanting Isaiah 43 Yemenite Hebrew & Aramiac
youtube.com/watch?v=lYINb5-lGNA&feature=related
(Sounds like the Preface to the Canon)

Regarding the idea that the NO was a Product of Organic Development… Please read the article I linked from Fr. Fessio, Editor & Publisher of Ignatius Press and former student of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

The Mass of Vatican II, by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
Where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.

     Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it          was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council,          which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should          be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, "Oh, let's          pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth."          That's not organic growth; that's archeologism, specifically criticized          by Pius XII in *Mediator Dei*.

     The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like          the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. .... But they totally invented the canon. It would be like taking          piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece          of some tree, then putting them together and saying, "Well, you see that?          It's organic." But it's not organic; it's constructed.

     Canon Four is based on an Eastern Egyptian canon, still used in the Eastern          Church; and so, there is some justification for it. But it's seldom used          today because you can't use it with any other prefaces; it has more or          less dropped by the wayside. 

     The point is that the Council did not call for a multiplication of canons,          and I think there are lots of other reasons for sticking with the Roman          canon. Nor did the Council, as I mentioned, abolish Latin. It specifically          mandated the retention of Latin and only permitted the use of the vernacular          in certain circumstances. And, finally, the Council did not prohibit Gregorian          Chant, as you might be led to think from its absence in your parishes.          The Council actually prescribed Gregorian Chant to have pride of place.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
I don’t think anyone has ever accused Fr. Fessio of being a “Cafeteria Catholic”. Since Pope Benedict has written on this and substantially agrees with his former student, I’m not going to argue this point, and I don’t think you’re going to win this one debating the issue with Fr. Fessio and Papa Bene. I suspect that Pope Benedict and his former student know a LOT more about the Liturgy than any of us do.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Ockham]

THE NEW LITURGY

In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Up to that time, what is commonly referred to as the “Tridentine” or “Latin” Mass, was used by the Church. On the face of things, it may seem to be a simple matter for the Pope to change the Mass. It has been done before. Is there a difference, then, between the modifications made by Paul VI and the liturgical changes of the past? There is a radical difference, and one that has had disastrous consequences for the universal Church.

THE NEW MASS CONTRADICTS TRADITION

The “Tridentine” or Roman Rite Mass, while it has developed organically over the 2,000 year history of the Church, is essentially the Mass that was given to the Apostles and the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Although various rites emerged, they all maintained the same spirit imparted to the liturgy by Our Lord and were only adapted to various cultures without any deviation in doctrine. The Roman Rite, up to Vatican II, underwent only minor changes, such that the famous English liturgist Fr. Adrian Fortescue was able to state that “no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details.”

Pope St. Pius V, to protect the Roman Rite from innovations and eliminate any variations, codified the Traditional Latin Mass in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum in 1570. The Mass that he was confirming was not some new creation like the Novus Ordo Missae, but a Mass that matched in every respect the Faith of the Apostles. Nor was it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See. His bull says in part:

"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

"Furthermore, by these presents , in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain . . . that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force . . .

(The complete Apostolic Constitution “Quo Primum” of Pope St. Pius V (July 14, 1570) is available in print from Angelus Press (angeluspress.org/) or online (papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm).

 

[damooster]

We likewise declare and ordain . . . that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force . . .

I’ve always wondered about this: is/was it common practice for Popes to set something in stone and not give successors the option of modifying it? What happens to the Popes that do against their predecessors mandates?

 

[Layman]

I’m guessing that’s what’s happened in the last 40+ years is not a new phenomenon in the life of the Church and Pope Pius V was trying to do something about it in his day; wayward clerics making free with the Mass. So he set a standard in stone, or tried to.

If such clerics only penalised themselves in the other world it might not be so bad, but they could be taking a lot of wavering souls with them.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Thank you Traditional Ang. for the links to ancient chant. To which I add:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZdumEJoK0Lg

The Exultet (in English no less) on Holy Saturday. After all these years of serving as an altar boy before Vatican II and singing 20 years in a cathedral choir - in the Exultet we hear our roots and our sacred traditions. And for people like me and my friend Palmas, we are thankful that at least this has been retained. I have to wonder how many of our NO fellow Catholics have ever heard the Exultet in either Latin or English - or for that matter heard the Gospel of John chanted on Good Friday.

Forty years I have submitted to the magesterium. I have never challenged the NO but when regulations changed in 1983, I voted with my feet and joined the cathedral parish instead of either of two geographical parishes who wouldn’t know the Exultet if I stood in front of the doors of either church and chanted it in English. I saw my parents marginalized before they passed away. I have no intentions of being marginalized by being reduced to a Low Mass indult parish because my bishop merely “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio.

I rejoice and embrace our sacred traditions. I am mindful that my Irish ancestors had to attend Mass out along the hedge rows in fields. I also know that after the Second Vatican Council that there was such a rush to change such that I sang for the senior’s graduation in 1968 in Latin and that for my graduation in 1969 it was Simon and Garfunkle (Bridge over Troubled Waters, Sounds of Silence) played by three classmates. I carry that wound to this day and look forward to my class reunion in three weeks in which I intend to challenge the three of them to join me in singing Palestrina’s “Sicut Cervus” at the next alumni Mass.

 

[pnewton]

The Exultet (in English no less) on Holy Saturday. After all these years of serving as an altar boy before Vatican II and singing 20 years in a cathedral choir - in the Exultet we hear our roots and our sacred traditions. And for people like me and my friend Palmas, we are thankful that at least this has been retained. I have to wonder how many of our NO fellow Catholics have ever heard the Exultet in either Latin or English - or for that matter heard the Gospel of John chanted on Good Friday.

You mean these are not done everywhere? Even our little backwater parish does both of these chants. Our priests can not sing so he has to have us do them, but they **are **chanted.

 

[brotherhrolf]

You mean these are not done everywhere? Even our little backwater parish does both of these chants. Our priests can not sing so he has to have us do them, but they **are **chanted.

Howdy, pnewton! Nope, recited at my local geographic parish this last Holy Saturday and at my local geographic parish back in the 80s before we moved. (Same thing to be said for chanting the Gospel of John). But I have hope. Fr. Frank takes over in June. He was rector at the cathedral from '84 to '96 and Fr. Paul (who did chant the Exultet when Fr. Frank was at the cathedral) takes over as rector at the cathedral. Win-win for me.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Quite some time ago some “traditionalists” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope Pius VI (or “NO Mass” in their lexicon) was an “invalid” form of the Mass. This went on for some time. After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of those like Cardinal Arinze.

Not all that long ago some “neocons” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope St. Pius V was abrogated. This went on for 40 years. After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of Pope Benedict XVI.

The claims of an “invalid” Mass morphed into one of a “inorganic development.”

Actually, the claim was, and still is, that it can be invalid (i.e. the consecration) in certain circumstances. The claim of “inorganic development” has also always been there since the beginning, and both statements are quite correct.

That seems to be the battle cry of today for the extremists. Sadly they are simply wrong – the Mass of Pope Pius VI actually draws its inspiration from a period prior to the Tridentine Mass.

Read Mediator Dei. Also, I’d like to point out that Trent was a culmination of 1500 years of development in Catholic liturgy. The grandeur and ceremony, fitting for the King of Kings, was built up from earlier times as we were able, but in every generation giving Christ our very best. Early Christians gave God the best that they had at the time. We developed from there into a religion that could give even more to God (shown in outward ways such as the liturgy and the building of cathedrals etc.). Now we are able to worship God in an even more elegant fashion, so why should we go back to giving God what in earlier times would have been our best, but today is simply not our best? Fortunately we haven’t razed any of the great cathedrals to plant catechombs in their stead, but unfortunately, along with the new liturgy we also did get new looks in church design. “Simple” and “antiquarian” aren’t synonymous with “ugly”, and I wish the church wreckovators would have kept that in mind.

Nothing however would change even if their claims were accurate.

I’d be careful with this. Trads have been maligned and accused of being inaccurate before, with shocking results to the accusers.

I think such extremists are very much part of the Cafeteria Catholic brand. They made no effort to reconcile their beliefs with the truth. They simply pick and choose what they will believe and accept.

You say so. Of course you’re right…it’s trads who pick and choose what they will believe and accept, not the 75% of post-concilliar ‘Catholics’ who choose to have a hard time getting to Mass but twice a year. Hmmm…

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Read Mediator Dei. Also, I’d like to point out that Trent was a culmination of 1500 years of development in Catholic liturgy. The grandeur and ceremony, fitting for the King of Kings, was built up from earlier times as we were able, but in every generation giving Christ our very best. Early Christians gave God the best that they had at the time. We developed from there into a religion that could give even more to God (shown in outward ways such as the liturgy and the building of cathedrals etc.). Now we are able to worship God in an even more elegant fashion, so why should we go back to giving God what in earlier times would have been our best, but today is simply not our best? Fortunately we haven’t razed any of the great cathedrals to plant catechombs in their stead, but unfortunately, along with the new liturgy we also did get new looks in church design. “Simple” and “antiquarian” aren’t synonymous with “ugly”, and I wish the church wreckovators would have kept that in mind.

 

[pickguard1]

Valid criticism of V II stems from the ambiguity of its language. There is nothing heretical per se in the documents. Indeed much is laudable. However, the problems that have arisen are due not to errors of Vatican II per se, but rather the seeming lack of weight that is given to man’s ability to screw things up if not given the proper guidance. It’s essentially the abuses in the liturgy that are the subject of criticism. While the liturgy itself IS drastically different from the old Latin Mass, there isn’t anything written into it that is invalid. It’s the novelty, the abuse, the “make it up as you go” that trigger cries of lament. The sad fact is, that simply making such drastic changes to the mass fostered a feeling that, if it can be changed this much, what’s the big deal with a little more? This coupled with overall horrendous discipline among the clergy with regards to stopping abuse when it started has created an environment of catholic churches where the mass in one church might be close to unrecognizable relative to mass at another. Indeed, the uniformity and “catholicity” that existed with the mass of Pius the V is a mere shadow of its former self.
IMHO, the only things in Vatican II that “must” be believed (de fide) are those which were already defined prior to Vatican II. Of course, one should give assent of faith to its pastoral nature - however the council didn’t formally define any doctrines, and I believe any Catholic is free to disagree with the council, especially on the promulgation of a new form of liturgy, simply from the perspective of observing its fruits. One can’t in good conscience call the new liturgy invalid “per se”, but the net result of its promulgation (and accompanying vagueness) is the likelihood that many of them are just that.

 

[PJM]

=damooster;5142547]I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.

Wecome home friend!

The “NO” Mass is current, valid, and licit! But, does it do what Mass is intended to do? Save souls?

1970 = about 73% of all Catholics regullarly attended Sunday and HD Masses
2006 = about 23%

1970 = About the same 73% understood and Believed in the Real Presence; one of the KEY Dogma’s of the RCC.
2006 = 20% or less

1970 = about 70% of Catholics regularly went to the Sacrament of Confession
2006 = about 10%

1970 = Catholic divorice were only a small percentage of the reflective number for the USA population.
2006 = Catholics are nearly as likely as non-Catholics to get a divorice

Catholic Pro Life /anti abortion record

In each of the past three Presidentail elections 50% or more of self professed Catholics have voted in favor of the Pro DEATH candidate.

The numbers of Priest, and Religious is far below half of what it was in 1970.

Catechism of the RCC:

1074 "The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the font from which all her power flows." It is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God. “Catechesis is intrinsically linked with the whole of liturgical and sacramental activity, for it is in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, that Christ Jesus works in fullness for the transformation of men.”

So it seems to be fair and just to accept the fact that the “NO” Mass is highly ineffective in saving souls and leading folks to Christ.

These facts are precisely why His Holiness has and is trying to reistablish the TRULY Extrodinary form of the Mass. It is not about “latin per sae,” it is about Catholic piety, personal holiness, a proper Vertical demension to our most important rite.

It is about rejecting self, infavor of God!

Lord I am truly not worthy to receive you; say but the Words and I shall be healed." Amen!

 

[Ockham]

Valid criticism of V II stems from the ambiguity of its language. There is nothing heretical per se in the documents. Indeed much is laudable. However, the problems that have arisen are due not to errors of Vatican II per se, but rather the seeming lack of weight that is given to man’s ability to screw things up if not given the proper guidance. It’s essentially the abuses in the liturgy that are the subject of criticism. While the liturgy itself IS drastically different from the old Latin Mass, there isn’t anything written into it that is invalid. It’s the novelty, the abuse, the “make it up as you go” that trigger cries of lament. The sad fact is, that simply making such drastic changes to the mass fostered a feeling that, if it can be changed this much, what’s the big deal with a little more? This coupled with overall horrendous discipline among the clergy with regards to stopping abuse when it started has created an environment of catholic churches where the mass in one church might be close to unrecognizable relative to mass at another. Indeed, the uniformity and “catholicity” that existed with the mass of Pius the V is a mere shadow of its former self.
IMHO, the only things in Vatican II that “must” be believed (de fide) are those which were already defined prior to Vatican II. Of course, one should give assent of faith to its pastoral nature - however the council didn’t formally define any doctrines, and I believe any Catholic is free to disagree with the council, especially on the promulgation of a new form of liturgy, simply from the perspective of observing its fruits. One can’t in good conscience call the new liturgy invalid “per se”, but the net result of its promulgation (and accompanying vagueness) is the likelihood that many of them are just that.

Very well put. As PJM points out, you sow what you reap. I am starting to believe once the numbers started dropping, priests started allowing all sorts of innovations for fear of losing the small yet active minority campaigning for them.

 

[Charioteer]

…The “NO” Mass is current, valid, and licit! But, does it do what Mass is intended to do? Save souls?..

There is one piece of data that you don’t have that renders much of your typing moot. You don’t have any idea what the statistics would look like if the OF had never replaced the EF as the normative Mass of the Latin Rite.

At best you can guess. You don’t even have enough data to do a proper ANOVA nor do you have control of the multitude of variables that contributed to this change in attendance.

In other words you don’t have any idea if the Mass of Pope Paul VI had any impact on Mass attendance. It might very well be that attendance would even be lower today had the Mass of Pope Paul VI never been promulgated.

 

[pnewton]

Wecome home friend!

The “NO” Mass is current, valid, and licit! But, does it do what Mass is intended to do? Save souls?

So it seems to be fair and just to accept the fact that the “NO” Mass is highly ineffective in saving souls and leading folks to Christ.

Yes! It is salvific.* Post hoc ergo propter hoc* is neither fair, nor does it change the reality of the Mass.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Yes! It is salvific.* Post hoc ergo propter hoc* is neither fair, nor does it change the reality of the Mass.

This is true, and in rhetoric one never assumes that one thing leads to another without proof. That having been said, however, there is a certain suspicious tendency that leads one to believe where there is smoke there is fire. You must admit there is strange coincidence between the growth we witnessed before the council and the dramatic declines since. At the bare minimum we can a least say the liturgical reform has not improved the situation. Even Pope Paul VI said “The smoke of satan has entered the Church through some crack,” which I am inclined not to take as a positive asessment.