I don’t find it is strange because there were many other changes in the sixties. Since this decline is not universal world-wide, I tend to believe other issues are more of an impact. The council has not hurt the African Church, for example. Same council, different culture, different results.
It must be admitted though that in many of those countries the affects of the council were small, either because they did not have consistant communication with the outside world, or because in many cases native believers resisted some of these changes. I know of one person who went to Africa who said that there are parts of French-speaking Africa where you cannot find a New Mass, since the area has been entirely dominanted by SSPX, especially in Gabon, where Archbishop Lefebvre was Archbishop of Dakar. Now to the extent that this has affected the growth of the Church is uncertain, for as you rightly point there were many differences between here and there. We also have no evidence to point that the Church would have declined if no changes had occurred.
Amen to that, Eve. I struggle with Latin. I read of a saint going centuries back who was in favor of the mass in the vernacular. However, after witnessing the steady drain of Catholic culture and practices(for example, our parish priest, who has been a priest for at least 15 years, has never heard of the brown scapular) and after hearing Eyes Have Not Seen and On Eagle’s Wings probably in 2/3’s of the Sunday masses I go to all year, there is no other way to bring back Catholicism into the Church other than the traditional Latin mass. I really feel lifted up and transported somewhere at a Tridentine Mass. The laity of the Church today is very Protestant in its art, music, architecture, and everyday Catholic living.
Sad but true.
I was responding to numbers. Why don’t we paste this comment up with the percentages above, if numbers are irrelevant? I agree that statistics are largely irrelevant and easily manipulated. Yet some how they always show up when people want to bash the Church or something about the Church they do not like.
I agree. One of the things that strikes me about the EF is that I have a true sense that I am “connected.” For the most part, the EF is the same liturgy that so many of the Saints assisted at, revered, and in many cases died for. (This is not to say that Catholics don’t still die today for the OF mass). However, with the OF I feel that there is a disconnect, a kind of rupture with the continuity. We are taught that the Church is threefold, the Church militant here on earth, the Church penitent (I think that’s the right term) - those suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in heaven. While the grace of the sacraments are the same and always will be, I feel it is the external rite and ritual of the EF that allows me to understand in a more real sense what the Saints and Doctors saw in the liturgy, and be “connected” to the Church penitent and Church triumphant. When I hear the words of consecration, the Domine non sum dignus, the Agnus Dei, the Confiteor, I am in awe that St. Thomas Aquinas said these same words in the same way, St. Joan of Arc heard the same mass, and on and on. I think that having a singular and perpetual liturgy for the Latin Rite was one of the most beautiful ways to enable the faithful to emulate the saints. While the EF mass will probably never go away (I pray), the existence of a parallel mass which has systematically eliminated many of the devotions and rituals that so many participated in everyday for over 1500 years, is IMHO a sad thing, since it isn’t necessary to do so, and quite probably (again with non existent statistics, since only God truly knows) doesn’t lend itself to a richer faith life, and doesn’t lend itself to the same correlation with so many saints.
I do believe it as well. Also, in my opinion the Priests who are doing this are doing it so that their weekly collection does not become lighter. It is sad. Pope St. Piux X warned the chirch about the sins of Modernism and Liberialism. Today it seems that the church must change to reflect with the progressives and become “modern”. Before, the Church dug its heels in and said we must follow the Church and its traditions.
Here is one thing to think about. Look at the requests to be “Semaniarians” at FSSP, Christus Rex, and even at the Traditional Nuns. They have a different problem. Their problem is space. Look at the average Diocesan Seminary? How are they with their numbers? Are their rooms filled? How many beautiful Parishes have closed? The question is why have the faithful have left? Ask the ones who left the Priesthood and the Catholic Church in the 70’s and a answer most will reply is “The Old Mass!”. I have asked people who left the Catholic Church and that is the answer they gave.
Since I did not post any numbers, it would not be in my power to do this. Numbers are helpful for consideration, but in the abstract prove little except the skills of a statistician. I believe in this sense the sentiment of St. Athanasius applies: “The faithful, even if reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church of Christ.”
That’s inaccurate!
Friend, while I truly appreciate your defence of the American Catholic Church. I have studied is signifiant depth what happened and why. The why is not suitable for public domain publication, so I will not respond to the “why it happened” beyound stating that what the effects of the NO Mass were and are, are not a huge surprise to many.
Beautifully stated and I could not agree more. Thank you Fr. Bill:thumbsup:!
Wonderful insight Fr.
Blessings Father! This is the only thing I think I have a problem with-the use of the term “active participation” as being opposed to “interior participation” as if concentrating and praying with all one’s might, uniting one’s prayer to the prayer of the priest, is somehow not fully active unless it’s being done out loud. I would say that both masses offer “equal” opportunity for “participation.” Just that the participation may be in different ways, and suited for different people.
This may have already been said here, but I think that challenging the Council and the NO mass as being wrong in and of themselves is incorrect and uncharitable. Concerns and criticism over parts that were poorly written or ambiguously expressed is fine. But this criticism should be aimed at encouraging the Church to re-address the issues and offer clarification where abuses have occured and (IMHO) take a stronger stance on enforcing Church discipline in those matters.
) However, I think that as long as there is pressure by the laity for the integrity of thier clergy, we’ll eventually see the corrections we seek. I almost guarantee though, by then there will probably be other problems that need to be addressed - as far as I can tell, Satan hasn’t given the Church a break since it began.If all else fails, pray?