40 years of Ecumenism and Catholic Decline in Europe: Coincidence?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was struck by the juxtaposition of two articles appearing today.

In the first, the Holy Father bemoans the dying Catholic culture in Europe and the rise of "militant secularism." "'Catholicism's waning influence in Europe is a source of deep dismay', Vatican officials say." Pope Dismayed By Catholic Church's Waning Influence in Europe

The second article talks about the Vatican evaluating fruits of Ecumenism 40 years after the Decree on ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio. Holy See Evaluating 40 Years of Ecumenism

The opening paragraph of the article on Ecumenism: "Evaluating the last 40 years of dialogue among Christians, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity says that genuine ecumenism does not harm Catholic identity."

Later in the article: "The suspicion that ecumenical dialogue harms our own Catholic identity is a grave suspicion," he (Cardinal Kasper) noted. "The truth is the opposite: Dialogue presupposes partners who have their own identity."

Perhaps "genuine" ecumenism does not harm Catholic identity. But how about ecumenism at it has been practiced for the last 40 years? Does anyone else think that 40 years of ecumenism and the rise of miltiant secularism in Europe is not a complete coincidence? Does anyone else think that 40 years of ecumenism and waning Catholic identity of certain European countries is not a complete coincidence?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 11, 2004

Answers

bump again.

-- (doublebump@bump.com), November 12, 2004.

Brian,

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is anything other than a coincidence? The mere fact that two things happen in the same time period doesn't suggest that one is the cause of the other. Perhaps the downfall of Communism is due to the Church's emphasis on ecumenism? They both took place in the same time period.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2004.


Do I have evidence? No, hence the question mark. But, as I say, I am curious to know if "anyone else think(s) that 40 years of ecumenism and the rise of miltiant secularism in Europe is not a complete coincidence?" From your reply, I'm guessing I can put your name in the complete coincidence column. Fine, but turning your question around: do you have any evidence to suggest it is? Ok, I AM skeptical as to the wisdom of modern day ecumenism. What fruit has it bore in Europe? I don't see it. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If you can enlighten me, I'm all ears.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 12, 2004.

Dear Brian,
I'd be interested in the direction you're taking such information. Catholics know there are certain things Christ prophesied with regard to the world's influences on men, and what was to come for His faithful. What do these recent developments lead you to conclude, considering what Jesus Christ promised?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2004.

Eugene,

I'm afraid I'm being obtuse. Sorry. I don't quite know what you're getting at. Are you talking about Jesus saying: "If the world hate you, know that it hath hated me before you...If you had been of the world, the world would love its own...?"

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 12, 2004.



Hi Brian and HEY EUGENE!

Militant secularism has been growing in the U.S. as well, and has been over the last 3 or 4 decades, now culminating in a great divide as has been evidenced particularly in this election year.

I think it's incorrect, Brian, to try to draw such a conclusion. Protestantism was born in Europe 600 hundred years ago. It fomented wars, wars and more wars, divisions and more divisions. A person could draw a conclusion there as well! But perhaps that wouldn't be quite fair either.

Brian, everything evil in the world is NOT a direct result of Vatican II. You're being paranoid and "faithless." Read Dominus Iusus!

Gail

P.S. Eugene, my family and I "officially" entered the Church at the Feast of the Assumption. I couldn't help but remember Fred Bishop's words "you're gonna make a great Catholic" at this marvelous event. Nor could I help but think of my many friends on this forum who helped me along my journey, YOU being one of the foremost! I am still reeling from the experience of the whole thing!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 12, 2004.


Gail-- That's fantastic news!

We'll give thanks to God for the grace he grants you and I know you'll always be happy. It's really been a long while, Hmmm? Since Fred was there, and you made the finest impression on the lot of us, MAINLY ON ME! Lol!

Don't leave us now. Be sure & stay in close contact, and add your joyful presence to our forum!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2004.


Eugene, you are TOOOO kind!

I still keep in contact with Theresa by e-mail. I tried to find your e-mail in August to give you the good news but for some reason I couldn't find it.

Where's John G these days? Is he posting anymore? Did you get to chat with Kiwi much the last time he was here? I wonder what happened to Chris Coose? And there was Jeffrey (the seminarian)? Haven't heard from him either.

I have been over at Ask Jesus at times involved in defending our faith against the typical attacks. Then I had to take a break. Seems you may have taken a break during that time too . .?

Great chatting with you!!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 12, 2004.


Brian, everything evil in the world is NOT a direct result of Vatican II. You're being paranoid and "faithless." Read Dominus Iusus!

Lol, Are you kidding me? Miss conspiracy calling ME paranoid--that's rich! And faithless to boot. Thanks for your insight. Kiwi...help! Ps--I have skimmed through Dominus Iesus.

Since you are so concerned about upholding the glory of VII, let me tell you that the documents define no new doctrine or dogma. I don't have a problem with any of them, except for some ambiguous language here and there which has been abused by modernists in the so- called "spirit of VII." The blame for that falls on the abusers themselves and their enablers. But since we're on the subject, I will ask you the same question: what are the fruits of the implementation of Unitatis Redintegratio in Europe? What has happened specifically to France, Italy, and Spain, Gail? Why has the Church gone south so quickly in those former Catholic strongholds?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 12, 2004.


I had a feeling there was where you intended to go, Brian.

Christ promised His Church that he would be with her all days, even out of the last tribulations. You shouldn't be so eager to bury her because of the Council. Our waves of unbelief had their start well before the reign of John XXIII and the 2nd Vatican Council. It's really unfaithful then, to steer clear now-- of the ecumenical movement. The Christian world had to be called to reunion in anticipation of Our Lord's 2nd advent. If the reunion is failing by human estimation, it still is urgent for Peter to gather Christ's flock before the great tribulation. When the last days arrive, no church will have survived, except the Holy Catholic Church. Sects and denomnations will be doomed.

Circumstances in our day ought to alert you-- and everyone who believes in the Son of God --to an apparent parting of the ways; the last remnant of Christs' people going upwards. His foes going away; to await His judgment. What you've deemed a loss of grace about the Council, has likely been a signal of His imminent return in glory.

All Catholics know that the Pope holds Christ's keys to the kingdom. Those who don't abandon the Pope have nothing to fear. He's our appointed shepherd. By evil design the enemy clouds your vision and misdirects suspicions, blaming the ecumenical Council for the failures of a sinful world. It can't be so. Love for all men was the impulse which brought us Vatican II. The Holy Spirit was invoked there for one last call to all Christians. We appealed to them; come forward and be included among his faithful. We won't disappoint Him if we keep faith. This is the moment for unwavering faith, not for looking back. --That's how I've understood every event coming by way of the 2nd Vatican Council, Brian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2004.



You shouldn't be so eager to bury her because of the Council.

Eager to bury her? That's pretty insulting Eugene. Why would I want to bury the Church? That's completely backwards.

Our waves of unbelief had their start well before the reign of John XXIII and the 2nd Vatican Council.

Yes, true. Authoritarian popes did their best to keep a lid on it, but that's another story.

It's really unfaithful then, to steer clear now-- of the ecumenical movement.

I'm not suggesting we do. I'm wondering about the effectiveness of the modern-day movement in Europe, as its being carried out.

The Christian world had to be called to reunion in anticipation of Our Lord's 2nd advent. If the reunion is failing by human estimation, it still is urgent for Peter to gather Christ's flock before the great tribulation.

I completely agree, although I would point out that the Christian world has always been called to reunion.

Circumstances in our day ought to alert you-- and everyone who believes in the Son of God --to an apparent parting of the ways; the last remnant of Christs' people going upwards. His foes going away; to await His judgment.

I'm inclined to agree with you

What you've deemed a loss of grace about the Council, has likely been a signal of His imminent return in glory.

Perhaps.

All Catholics know that the Pope holds Christ's keys to the kingdom. Those who don't abandon the Pope have nothing to fear. He's our appointed shepherd.

Amen!

By evil design the enemy clouds your vision and misdirects suspicions, blaming the ecumenical Council for the failures of a sinful world.

Sigh! I don't blame the Council.

The Holy Spirit was invoked there for one last call to all Christians. We appealed to them; come forward and be included among his faithful.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Yes we appealed to them, come forward, and they did not come (Europe). And not only did they not come, but some of our own left and joined THEM. You see we have always appealed to them. We should always appeal to them. But are we appealing to them in the most effective manner? That's my question.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 13, 2004.


If we do so in the Holy Spirit, which our prelates did, convening a Church Council dedicated to ecumenism, then we can only blame the Holy Spirit if we judge it a useless effort. You know better than that;

It's God's Will, apparently; some are about to fall away. Instead of becoming reconciled and healed, some are rebelling and losing the faith. The Council, then, must be serving God for just this purpose. To separate the sheep from the goats, as it were. True believers will respond faithfully despite the signs of the times. Weak faith will depair and blame the Church. Particularly if Satan deceives us into presuming the time-tested and insular ways only are God's ways. Satan would hide behind our human desire for comfort and security. Tradition, rather than reunion. This is a deception, since God has power to bring good even out of the evil we see.

It calls for unwavering faith, is what I've suggested. I didn't mean to impugn any good will you were expressing. But, it's good at least, that you were slightly shaken. Let me know if it helps. After all, it's you who have brought up these questions.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2004.


Brian, You call me Ms. Conspiracy (okay, so that is pretty funny) because I have the gall to ask questions about FACTS that don't add up. NO ONE HAS GIVEN an adequate answer to my questions concerning 9/11 on the other thread. (But that's beside the point here and at least you tried to answer my questions.)

Since you HAVE given me this "title" perhaps I will live up to it AGAIN by offering the following FACTS with regard to your original post, as well as my probably-not-worth-much-commentary.

#1 We are getting closer and closer to the end of the age. (No question about that of course)

#2 We see the entire world heading towards a world governance of some sort. This is NO secret. Mary Jo Anderson, respected reporter and Catholic, chronicles much of the stuff being done around the world in this regard. She quotes some things said by world leaders about Christians that are rather CHILLING! Namely 'that the world would be better off without us.' She has covered major meetings with major "movers and shakers" of this new age. She has been spotlighted on EWTN. There are many many others chronicling the events of our times in this vein as well.

#3 Israel still awaits their "secular messiah" The U.S. is Israel's biggest ally. We do everything for Israel including going into neighboring countries to establish "democracy." (Not that I'm against this). But why are we REALLY so into it with Israel? Are we paving the way for something, or someONE?

#4 People are being microchipped around the world and in this country. Mexico and MANY MANY other countries have signed contracts with the maker of the chip to have their people "tagged."

The Bible and our Catechism states that in the end the Church will go through tremendous trial and tribulation and that there will be a "falling away from the faith," according to Thessalonians.

So Brian, it's no "ecumenism" that's the problem. It's not Vatican II. It is simply that are living the end times.

Gail

P.S. Actually, Brian, I think you had mentioned a desire to know more about the Zionists on the other thread. . . ? Very interesting they are. Do a google on "secular messianism" and you will find some interesting things. Zionists are, from what I can tell, "secular messianists."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 13, 2004.


"Love for all men was the impulse which brought us Vatican II. The Holy Spirit was invoked there for one last call to all Christians."

When was the Holy Spirit invoked at Vatican II?

-- Questioning (gty2684@g.com), November 14, 2004.


We are given the Holy Spirit, literally; in the gathering of any synod of bishops or of the Collegial College convened at the summons of the Pope. This is according to Christ's own promises. The Holy Spirit never goes away from the living Church, and the Church never dies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2004.


The church never dies, but those who mishandle the deposit of faith do. They will have to answer for that.

-- Questioning (gty2684@g.com), November 14, 2004.

i have one for you brian,

perhaps its not 40 years of ecuminism thats causing the so- called "decline" of the catholic church in europe, but rather the 40 years of some of the more conservative catholics shunning the church based on their personal preference instead of helping to maintain the church against degradation?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 15, 2004.


I lived in Europe - Spain, Italy, mostly but visited France and Switzerland.

From what I could tell, the whole Protestant vs Catholic thing died out in WW2 and wasn't as big a deal as the secularist/anti-Christian ethic vs. Christianity *(including protestants along with Catholics).

Ecumenism as a result was more an attempt to gather some allies than to end a war. The real cultural war was (*and is) being fought between atheism *(cf. Gaudium et Spes) and Christianity.

All the moral troubles of our time, from sexuality to drugs to the moster-state are emmanations from the decline in faith in God and the incarnation. When men cease believing that God exists and that Christ is Savior (thus, worth listening to for humanity's ultimate good) then all laws, ethics, and traditions are swept away with the rhetorical "well why not?" question that doesn't seek an answer.

It is supposed by these forces that Christian morals are wrong - ergo, to do whatever they forbid would only bring joy and bliss - and that guilt-less youth steeped in depravity would make such lifestyles impervious to pain and trouble.

Springing from moral vice is the intellectual deceit - the pride of life in the abuse of embryos and the weak in the name of "progress" and enlightenment. * Christ is not considered the light - only the atheist dream of man-made paradise via magic or science is considered "light".

I visited a town in Tuscany where of the 800 families living there, only 8 actually attended Mass in the 13th century chapel. Perhaps only 80 people total still believed. The rest had been Communist or Masons for 2 to 3 generations! (First Masons, with the re-unification of Italy in the 1800's, then Commies begining in the 1940s.)

They had a totally materialist conception of reality - they believed in life as animals - sex was just a sport, with no ethical dimension save for the "precautions" for pregnancy. Abortion too wasn't thought as something embarrassing or wrong. Just an inconvenient by-product of a "mistake". The idea that life was more than material well being, or that values existed beyond money and home, pension or passtimes just didn't exist on their mental horizon.

They also assumed that the Americans agreed with them and thought it quaint that we believed in Christ or held values (it was as if they thought I was kidding). They all knew about Christ - but no one believed he was anything other than a nice historical figure who said interesting things about life and the need to be "nice".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.


As long ago as 1963, I worked in a San Diego shipyard. I met a Portuguese American, who came to the U.S. as a young adult. Seemed a fine man, and intelligent.

I mentioned the apparitions of Fatima and he answered very gruffly. ''It's all a lie.''

It was about the first time I realised how badly some Catholics had forgotten their faith. Mind you, this was not an outcome of Vatican II, which wasn't yet concluded. My Portuguese friend had lived in that country during Pius XII's reign.

How likely were his children and grandchildren (to this day) to preserve their Catholic faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2004.


While the manner of his reply might very well indicate some hostility toward the Church, it is not necessary to accept the apparitions at Fatima or any reported apparitions as genuine in order to fully practice one's Catholic faith. No apparition nor any message that purpotedly is received through an apparition is binding on any Catholic.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.

Portugal and Spain once bastions of the faith sustained generations long anti-Catholic regimes which at times sought to stamp out Christianity via armed bloodshed. France's Terror and rein of Napoleon wiped out huge swaths of the Church, and introduced a whole generation of Frenchmen to the atheist gospel of salvation through technical "progress" via science rather than moral advancement through faith and virtue. Sure the 1830's saw the rise of many wonderful French saints but the damage was done. Millions of frenchmen had bought into the new religion and their descendants continue to push this secularism to this day.

I did alot of reading lately of the "Left" in this country - especially paying attention to those fonts of cultural learning the youth pick up. Virtually all of it is non-Christian and alot of it is positively anti-Christian. The bad guy is routinely a Catholic, who is considered a hypocrite (and the idea of God becoming man to save us is completely ridiculed as crazy).

The left is positioning itself with moral vices - called human rights such that should the right ever get its act together there would be a huge confrontation should abortion ever go away. After all, people fight wars over "human rights" do they not?

Every enemy of the Church appealed to such rights while burning churches and executing priests and nuns. It's always been claimed that the pogrom is launched to save people from the evil Church or the backward pope or the gospel which is considered a direct threat to life and happiness.

I think we underestimate the wrath of people who have been addicted to porn, promiscuous sex, and violent pass times (which contraception and abortion make possible) as a subsitute for religion.

They truly believe that life is for having sex, making lots of money so as to buy alot of toys and that morality is a drag on their fun (at best) or "turning the clock back" at worst. Lots of materialists believe that science will eventually defeat even death and thus they will be able to enter immortality without leaving corporality - they will be able to have the orgy without the hangover...selfish pleasure without guilt or disease.

If you don't think the folk who really honestly believe that this is the next evolutionary stage of human existence and thus is a totally good thing to be desired (to be like gods) then you won't understand why they assume that Christians are brute beasts needing to be controlled and ultimately done away with.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.


Dear Paul:
If you mean to instruct others in these fine points, ''it is not necessary to accept the apparitions at Fatima or any reported apparitions as genuine in order to fully practice one's Catholic faith. No apparition nor any message that purpotedly is received through an apparition is binding on any Catholic,'' no one can blame you. For myself, this was unnecessary. Those things aren't news to me.

What I related was an indifferent attitude even in the sixty's, to religion. If Fatima was not worth the mention even to a native of Portugal, where usually everyone is Catholic; then consider the worldly european states; in which even the clergy had its share of cynicism. Consider America and that burgeoning consumer society of pre-Vatican II. And here we have present-day Catholics laying it all at the doorstep of the Council.

I venture to say Vatican II was constructive for our times. More Catholics have endured against the world's attractions on account of the Council. Men and women that by mid-century were silently losing interest. They were letting go gradually of an anachronistic and intolerant Church. That's only our more lukewarm Catholics!

Protestants and Jews in those days wouldn't touch us with a broom. What chance of reunion? Now everybody has been given a chance. The choice is easier now, I would estimate.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2004.


Joe, you are right on the money!

It is "militant," and they are "secular," and they hate is with an unending passion, as as become so very obvious in this last election.

Gail

-- gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 15, 2004.


The Bishops at the curent conference must address the homosexual issue if the Church is to survive. What can we, the laiety do to get their attention. Here is part of an article in the Washington Times.

The Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of the 2000 book "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," estimates 50 percent of all Catholic priests are homosexual. Psychotherapist Richard Sipe, a former Catholic priest who has written and spoken widely on the priesthood, says 15 percent of homosexual priests are sexually active. If all homosexual clergy were to leave the U.S. Catholic Church now, the church would lose one-third of its bishops as well, added Mr. Sipe, whose new book on priestly sexual abuse dating back to the fourth century, comes out Nov. 15. Father Haley says homosexuality is at the root of the huge priestly sex-abuse crisis in which 81 percent of the cases involved victims who were males younger than 18, according to a USCCB investigation.

-- Joannie (Calerton2@yahoo.com), November 16, 2004.


Laymen shouldn't place too much value on the writings of some few who give us estimates. I think right on the face of it, a declaration like ''estimates 50 percent of all Catholic priests are homosexual,'' --is outrageous. That's one out of two, and making such statements is downright sinful. Nobody knows what number might be homosexual; only God knows.

If we're to accept the judgment of an ex-priest, who is touting his coming book, we plainly don't need priests. And we won't have them, once the canard becomes urban legend. A young man would be crazy to answer God's call to the holy priesthood when he is seen as a 50% chance. One out of two would fall into the queer category just by choosing to serve God. You're mindlessly repeating sheer hate-speech intended to demonize the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2004.


There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is any more common among priests than in the male population at large - 1 to 2%

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.

Eugene,

I am trying to digest your comments. Here is what I think you are saying:

1) European society, in the mid-20th century was indifferent to religion. This indifferentism even infected the Catholic Church and some of its clergy.

2) The Church before the Council was "anachronistic and intolerant"

3) So our prelates convened a Council dedicated to ecumenism to call to Christians to return to the Church.

4) As a result, after 40 years of ecumenism, Protestants and Jews are much closer to reunion with the Church than they were at the mid- 20th century.

5) In addition, "more Catholics have endured against the world's attractions on account of the Council."

5) He who questions certain fruits of the Council lacks faith, or perhaps his vision is clouded by evil designs of the enemy. (although any good will he suggests should not be impugned)

Does this about sum it up? Could you elaborate on how more Catholics have endured the attractions of the world because of the Council? Also, regarding Protestants and Jews: are you saying that Protestants and Jews are closer to the Church today or are you merely saying that the way has been paved for their return whether or not they choose it?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 16, 2004.


We had a divide in the mid 20th century, Catholics of sincere faith, others anti-clerical and worldly. Our clergy was coddled and self-absorbed, especially in the richer Catholic countries.

This was being reacted against by anti-clerical Catholics well before the 2nd Vatican Council. ''

''--2) The Church before the Council was anachronistic and intolerant"--'' In heirarchical circles at least. Not the faith, but our authorities.,/i> --See the old 40's film, ''Keys of the Kingdom,'' starring Gregory Peck.

''As a result, after 40 years of ecumenism, Protestants and Jews are much closer to reunion with the Church than they were at the mid- 20th century.'' It may well be. I didn't say that was a RESULT. Just probable. Mainly they aren't as alienated, IMHO. Everybody acknowledges that, Brian.

''--who questions certain fruits of the Council lacks faith, or perhaps his vision is clouded by evil designs of the enemy. (although any good will he suggests should not be impugned)''.

First he ought to KNOW what the fruits are. Just to lament what's been happening over the last 50-60 years ought not mean it's fruits of ecumenism. We don't live in a Catholic vacuum in such a way that all evils trace back to Vatican II. The devil does, in fact try to subvert good things. We have to be cautious about any hint of a possibility of assailing our bishops and the Pope. This would give Satan infinitely more than he has ever hoped for.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2004.


First he ought to KNOW what the fruits are.

Eugene,

I WANT to KNOW! What are they? Jews and Protestants aren't as alienated as before. Ok, I won't argue with that. But why are they not as alienated? Is there more? What about "more Catholics have endured against the world's attractions on account of the Council?" I would like to hear more about this.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 16, 2004.


brian,

for one, if the mass was in latin, i dont think my dad would have converted. without my dad's converting, i probably would never have been to a catholic church until i was already solidly in the protestant camp and i might not have been a catholic today. the fact that the general person can come to mass and understand and participate has been a great advantage for the church.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 17, 2004.


"the fact that the general person can come to mass and understand and participate has been a great advantage for the church."

Are you presuming that the "general person" didn't used to understand and participate?

"First he ought to KNOW what the fruits are."

"I WANT to KNOW! What are they?"

Me too! What are they?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 17, 2004.


Are you presuming that the "general person" didn't used to understand and participate?

yes, i am presuming that, unless you want to show me a statistic that proves that a majority of people on the earth in the 1950's and 1960's happened to speak enough latin to participate in the mass. since i strongly doubt that was the case, then yes, the general person on this earth wouldnt know enough to even begin to participate in the mass.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 17, 2004.


My understanding is that Europe was beginning to lose its Christian identity decades before Vatican II.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), November 18, 2004.

Of course it was. Just as Mass attendance in the United States was falling off drastically before Vatican II. It was precisely because of problems like these that Vatican II was convened.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.

My goodness, here we go again. For you younger folks who were not THERE,how many of us have to tell you for you to believe that prior to Vatican II the churches were jam packed full of people every Sunday..WE UNDERSTOOD THE LATIN MASS and had no problem with it at all????? To listen to this rhetoric one would think we were all standing about the churches wandering around saying to one another, DUH we don't understand what this mass is all about..somebody help us! Of course if you weren't Catholic and you came into the church and sat down, you would be mystified..until an usher handed you a missal..gee, right there would be a translation from Latin to English. The Homily wasn't in Latin. Statistics??? I don't have a pocket filled with cold statistics. I have my own eyes and ears and memories. I was THERE. Churches were FULL, now they are NOT. Lines for confession were so long you went home for supper and came back on a Saturday evening..where are they now? WE understood the Latin mass..when I was a child I understood it..all of my friends did..it was a "given". This isn't rocket science guys.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004.

Thank you Lesley. I was hoping that someone who had first-hand experience would respond, and you did it beautifully. To say that Catholics didn't used to understand the Mass is an insult. To address the "participation" issue, I would ask this: If a Catholic quietly worships and prays and prefers not to sing the folk songs and remains kneeling during the "sign of peace", is that person "participating" or not?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004.

You're welcome Nick..it IS an insult, even though it isn't meant as one. I am not against Vatican II..I am heartily against the misinterpretations of it which, IMHO, directly contributed to the emptying of the churches across the USA. Again, I WAS THERE.

When you had priests announce at mass that "confession is no longer required, just confess directly to God and your sins will be forgiven".. When you had construction crews come in and tear out the old altar and then all the people came in for mass one Sunday and gasped (literally) WITHOUT WARNING to see the priest facing the congregation and the Latin was gone while we fumbled around trying to follow the "new mass" in English..

When you had (in the Cathedral in Boston) the choir chucked out and electric guitars plugged in..all in the same week as the above, my grandmother nearly fainted dead away.

The very next month, she was told the "ladies sodality was now disbanded" as "inappropriate"..no rosary beads at mass, thank you very much.

So, in the flash of an eye, no confession, no rosary beads, no altar, no ladies sodality meetings and no Latin mass,no choir, and rock guitars with amps at the 9AM mass. Two months later, the priest announced they had made a "mistake" about confession..it was "In"..BUT, they weren't SURE it was still a needed sacrament before Holy Communion, they'd "check on that and let us know." .

No more 12 hour fasting before Communion..it was now OK to attend other religion's weddings and even services! WHOA.

Do any of you younger people have any idea how these things were communicated "back in the day" ????

Entire congregations felt like stunned cattle stuck in chutes. You could talk with 20 priests and get 20 different answers concerning what was the "new rule" about this or that out of Vatican II.

It was NOT Vatican II that stood the church on its ear..it was the implimentation of Vatican II..a major mess of miscommunication which continues to this very day. If not, why are we STILL talking about it? Why are there bishops who refuse to follow the POPE's directives and priests who refuse to follow the directives of their Bishops and people who refuse to follow anybody at all????? Because the original MISINFORMATION has never been corrected with any authority. And until it is, the arguing and debating and useless finger pointing will continue. Vatican II is not the issue.It is the failure of the individual clergy to properly implement Vatican II which was/is the issue. Until a person can enter ANY Catholic Church in the world and recognize the worship service as IDENTICAL to a Catholic service anywhere else, as they USED to be able to..this will continue.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004.


Just as Mass attendance in the United States was falling off drastically before Vatican II. It was precisely because of problems like these that Vatican II was convened.

Statistics??? I don't have a pocket filled with cold statistics. I have my own eyes and ears and memories. I was THERE.

Well first of all, I am very, very glad you are here to share your memories Lesley. Secondly, I wonder if Paul has any statistics to back up his claim. There are statistics to the contrary. According to a Gallup poll in 1958 (mere months before Pope John announced his call for the Council), 74% of Catholics attended Sunday Mass. By 1994, attendance had dropped to 26.6%, according to a Notre Dame University poll. A 2000 poll by Fordham University came up with similar results, 25% mass attendance.

Now we've been down this road before with polls. Paul believes that their methods of polling produce dubious results. But if he claims that mass attendance was going downhill during that period, he is himself relying on polls or perhaps just a hunch. So, if Mass attendance was falling drastically right before the council, either the Gallup poll was drastically incorrect or Mass attendance in the mid 50's was "drastically" higher than 74%. Which is it?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 18, 2004.


Well Brian,

A poll can be designed to show anything you want to show. Since I don't know the details or methods of the polls taken by these universities, I can't comment on them directly. Were they conducted by personal interviews? By stopping people on the street? By random phone calls? By mailed questionnaires? By questionnaires filled out by students during a class on "the psychology of religion? What was the size and demographics of the sample? "Catholics" is a very large population. A poll of a few hundred who claim to be members of that population is essentially meaningless, even if conducted by strict statistical norms. Were they polls of college students? Certain age groups? Ethnic groups? Geographical groups? Was any effort made to ensure that respondents were practicing Catholic? Or actually Catholic at all? I don't know. And therefore I never accept such polls, on religious beliefs or any other subject, as valid unless I fully understand such background information.

In any case, I certainly recognize that the decrease in Mass attendance continued after Vatican II. However, what you would need to assess the significance of that 74% figure is, in addition to the same information mentioned above, the results of a similar poll 30 years earlier.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.


Right Paul. However, what you would need to assess the accuracy of the statement: "Mass attendance in the United States was falling off drastically before Vatican II," is..........something. Do you have it?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 18, 2004.

i might not have been a catholic today.

the fact that the general person can come to mass and understand and participate has been a great advantage for the church.

Actually, your personal experience aside paul, adult baptisms began to decline precipitously once Sacrosanctum Concilium introduced the vernacular into the Liturgy. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think its enough to give pause before saying it "has been a great advantage for the church" as well as intimating that conversions have flowed henceforth. Looking at the data, one can just as easily (or perhaps more confidently) say that the Mass in Latin had been a great advantage for the Church.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 19, 2004.


I think the lady's witness about how Vatican II reforms were implemented (or not) is a testimony not of the council itself - less than .001% of American Catholics beginining with the bishops seemed to know what it was "about" - but a testiment to failed leadership.

The Church "in the good old days" was definately hierarchical - the bishops and priests pretty much ran the "show" and everyone knew their places...so well, that even in the absence of leadership on the top, things would keep going... and thus, IMHO, I think that many on the top took too many things for granted (like prayer and holiness), didn't do their homework (like Latin, and Philosophy), and thus were not ready and willing to step up the plate when the council arrived.

The struck out- they didn't lead. They weren't reading ahead and absorbing the council first. They let the "theologians" and New York Times do all the interpreting for them. New magazines and pop psychologists ran amok - a classic example of a power vacuum - in the absence of any real shepherds, people will step up and seize control.

The Church wasn't more solid than the men running it - and based on the history it was more facade than real. Yes, the good ladies in their sodalities were sincere as were many...but the bishops? The generation of missionary bishops that got the Church established in the face of frontal opposition in the 1840's and 1920's had died off to be replaced by functionaries, comfortable in the status quo - training in business administration, not philosophy and theology.

Bishop Sheen was impressive - and an exception - he studied philosophy and theology - not business admin. Look at all the good bishops today - the stars aren't the ones who work in committees and excell at the USCCB. No, they are the types of characters that stand alone and don't mind getting bad press.

They are the ones who know the faith better than the so- called "theologians" (OK, I've a philosopher's bias against theologians...many never studied logic or metaphysics first... thus their interpretations of the word and theory of alot of revelation is woefully superficial and contradictory.)

America needs holy and intelligent and courageous clergy and bishops. We don't need smarter theologians and certainly not more awe of the New York Times and anonymous hacks like "Fr. X" writing "from Rome".

Think about it: a complete idiot like Fr Curran had bishops running for cover in 1968. Why? Lack of leadership, lack of intellectual and spiritual courage.

The failure of the Church to stand up for marital fidelity and sexual restraint in 1968 led to the haphazard and feeble attempt to stall the abortion crisis...

While we're been blessed with a holy and brilliant Pope, we are still waiting for the bright young and generally holy priests' corps to mature and get ordained bishops - and then lead us.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.


Oh yeah Joe.. I watched the mass on EWTN today and was thrilled to pieces to listen to the very young priest as he talked about St.Cecelia..the patron Saint of liturgical music..he spoke of how important it was to ALL of the church to have the Our Father sung in LATIN in all of the masses all over the world..why? So that as ONE church, we have a connection to our past which everyone can experience together and share as one.."as it used to be"..WHOA..He mentioned another part of the mass as well, but I forget which, so I won't misquote him.

He read directly from a Vatican document that he said was G.E.R.M. which recommended that catholics make an effort to listen to Gregorian chants..that certain pieces of music encouraged people to better worship God.

The BEST part was that this mass was a COMBINATION of Latin and English..I was blown away..a real blend of "old and new" which was one of the most beautiful masses I have ever seen in my life. I have to say it almost made me happy to be disabled so I was stuck here in the house to see it. The priest also said how wonderful it is to SING the Our Father in Latin and to KNOW that St.Augustine and St. Francis and St.Benedict all sang the same words..as did Padre Pio and Mother Teresa and so many THOUSANDS of people who came before us. What a wonderful celebration of the mass it was. To draw ALL of the church together as ONE..oh my what answered prayer that would be indeed. Saint Cecelia, pray for us.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 22, 2004.


I love Gregorian Chant! Here is a site where you can listen to samples of it, and it's gorgeous: http://w ww.christdesert.org/noframes/chant/chant.html.

As for the mass, what I would love to see it the old mass to return but translated into the vernacular (at least in part). Latin was good for a time when most people actually knew Latin, but now it is a dead language. I have heard you say that one might read the missal with translations and know what's going on. Well...

Perhaps for cradle Catholics who have known the mass all their lives, this would work. I am a convert however, and it took me six months to finally understand the missal (the missal in English, at a Novus Ordo mass - and how much morso would it be in a foreign language :-( . I am a bit of a slow learner when it comes to these things, I will admit. However, I cannot imagine a Protestant coming to a fully latin mass and being drawn in by the gospel. As a Protestant I would have thought the following about this situation: (please forgive the generalizations)

1. No wonder Catholics don't know their faith, they don't even understand what's going on in church!
2. No wonder they are not saved and do not know the gospel or how to live holy, moral lives -- how could anyone who did not understand the service?
3. Catholics don't know the Bible because the Scripture readings are all in Latin and the church discourages them from reading the Bible. This must be how they hide all those unbiblical doctrines from the people.

Now before you think I am tossing out the Latin mass completely, I'm not. I do wish to recover the mass that has been said over the centuries, to gain a connection in that way with Catholics of the past. However, I think it is crucial that people understand the mass. Latin-mass-only cannot be the true doctrine since many around the world are illiterate, or barely able to read even their own native language, let alone understand another. Christ's priority of concern for the poor tells me that He would want the message to be accessible to these people first and foremost.

I will end by saying that I am currently attending a morally liberal parish since I have no other options due to lack of a car. I decided to pray for a revival and for the souls there. If it meant that there would be no more false teachings and irreverence, I would trade this vernacular mass for an orthodox and reverent Latin mass any day.

However, we must not make the mistake of saying all the false teachings and irreverence are a result of the lack of the latin mass. To make a comparison, I heard someone say that all of the divisions in Protestantism are a result of the fact that most people no longer use the King James Bible. Ludicrous, especially since the divisions existed even before the KJV was written! Likewise, irreverence and false teachings for sure existed even before the institution of the Novus Ordo.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.


Emily..the entire mass wasn't in Latin..and historically, the gospel readings and the "sermon" was always in whatever language the people spoke where the mass was being said. So if it was 1493 and you were in Spain,you heard the gospel in Spanish and the "sermon" in Spanish. If you were in France, you heard French. Catholic children learned Latin via the priests..poor children, rich children..everyone learned what the words of the mass meant. They may not have known how to read, but they knew exactly what the priest was doing and saying during the mass. When you attend mass now, you say the Our Father..you know the words. Would you not know the words if you heard it sung in Latin as the Pater Noster? Could you not learn it? That's the point. What Protestant doesn't know the Our Father? and if you take 2000 years of Catholic tradition and history of using Latin & re-apply it to pull the church together..what a wonderful thing it would be. The church never hid anything from the people by using Latin..and it is not a "dead" language at all. My grandson's school teaches Latin starting in the 3rd grade. I studied Latin from the 5th grade all through high school. My youngest son took 3 years of Latin in college. In the early church, people spoke either Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Arameic. as the centuries advanced, Latin was not forgotten..Latin was still a required university language in the 20th century! Many, MANY Protestants were taught, or heard, or believed that the church's use of Latin in the mass somehow kept the people from knowledge of the mass..that is so untrue. Catholics learned from their mother's knees about the mass..and if Protestants were so in the dark because of Latin, there wouldn't have been any conversions from any Protestants (or anybody else) in the entire history of the church until after Vatican II.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 23, 2004.

and if Protestants were so in the dark because of Latin, there wouldn't have been any conversions from any Protestants (or anybody else) in the entire history of the church until after Vatican II.

Yes! This is a point I made earlier to little paul. I understand why Emily is saying what she's saying, but the fact is that the Church in the U.S. was converting way more people during the days of the Latin Mass. Here are the numbers:

1930..........38,232

1940..........73,677

1950..........119,173

1960..........146,212

1970..........92,670

1980..........81,968

1990..........?????

2002..........79,892

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 23, 2004.


I think that people who have never participated in a Latin mass misunderstand what it means..as in Emily's post..if the gospels were read in Latin, of course people wouldn't "hear and understand " them..but the gospels were only given in Latin in times when the WORLD spoke Latin.. In the Latin mass, the exchanges between the priest and the people are in Latin..yet they are the SAME exchanges that we say now.. "Dominos Vobiscum".."May the Lord be with you." "Et cum spiritu tuo." "and with your spirit also" (also with you) or how about? "Kyrie Eleison".."Lord have mercy." "Christe Eleison"..."Christ have mercy." How long would it take someone to figure out what these words meant if they attended mass every single Sunday with this simple translation right in front of them? Again, this is not rocket science. It is simple repetition. The readings from the Holy Gospels have ALWAYS been in the vernacular of the people listening. That's why missionary priests quickly learned to become fluent in the languages of "foreign" countries.. They accompanied explorers, celebrated mass, learned the language of the people, said the mass in Latin and the gospels in the vernacular. All over the world, people converted to Catholicism and had no problem knowing what the mass was "about" in Latin for centuries. It wasn't until the 1960's when somehow Latin was thought to present some kind of problem. EVERYTHING that I have read says that the Latin mass is to be provided freely..yet it is not..I personally feel that if it were, so many people would prefer it that those clergy in the church who oppose it would have to back off..and they don't want to..I don't know why. Vatican II did NOT end the Latin mass..people misinterpreting Vatican II did that and are still doing it.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 23, 2004.

Lesley, sorry. I used the term "gospel" from my Protestant days in the broader sense meaning the salvation message, not referring to the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.

Brian, once again I’m afraid you have fallen into the logical trap of saying that because two things occurred over the same time period, then one must have CAUSED the other. I think it’s extremely unlikely that using or not using Latin in the Mass affected how many people converted to Catholicism. I can think of at least 3 other far more plausible reasons why the no. of conversions to Catholicism in the US decreased after 1970:

- changing theological emphasis led to less emphasis on converting Protestants (who are the source of the vast majority of US conversions), and less emphasis on the need to convert to the Catholic faith before you die (so fewer deathbed conversions)

- changed rules and attitudes on mixed marriages made it less likely that strong pressure would be brought on the non-Catholic partner to convert before marriage would be approved.

- Changing demographics. In the “baby boom” years there was a higher proportion of adolescents and young adults (the age when most conversions occur)

I agree we should make more use of Latin, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see a wholesale return to Latin Masses, and most certainly not to the pre-1962 version. Regardless of which language the Mass is said in, the changes to the text and rubrics of the Mass were made for very good reasons. True Lesley, V2 did not “end” the Latin Mass, but it certainly encouraged vernacular Masses. Most dioceses provide Latin Masses for those who want them. I see no sign that there is a massive unmet demand for Latin Masses among the faithful.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 23, 2004.


"..Most dioceses provide Latin Masses for those who want them?"

The "spin doctor" at work.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 23, 2004.


Once again, I guess I have been living in the wrong places in the past 9 years..Philadelphia PA..one Latin mass in an entire city..North Central Jersey..none. St.Louis, MO..one Latin mass in an entire city..NE Alabama ONE Latin mass in a hundred mile radius..and is that because the Catholics in those geographic areas don't want more Latin masses? nope.. It's because the bishops (at the time I was there) didn't want them.

My understanding of Vatican II was that the mass was to be said in Latin as a preference, BUT that the vernacular was to be encouraged IF THE PEOPLE WANTED IT..exactly the opposite of what actually happened. We were told in the '60's it was not a choice at all..no Latin was to be permitted..period. This was so rampant that the Pope issued a directive in 1983 stating to the bishops to offer the Latin mass for people who wanted it..yet, many do not..How sad. Eventually, as people my age get a few more years on them, the folks who remember the Latin mass will all be dead...you younger folks who have never even experienced one will have no idea what you are missing, and 2000 years of tradition will finally be gone for good. Pax Vobiscum.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 23, 2004.


David, I really don’t know what your problem is. If you have any evidence that my statement is “spin” rather than fact; that is, any evidence that people, not just a handful of maverick whiners, but groups of people sufficiently large to be worthwhile saying a special Mass for, are demanding a Latin Mass from their bishop, and he is refusing to provide it – SHOW US THE EVIDENCE, or else admit that YOU are the “spin doctor”.

Lesley, read the documents! V2 said the vernacular was to be the PREFERRED option, not just given to those who demanded it. And although I was pretty young when the changes came in, older Catholics have told me it is absolute rubbish to say that the changes were just sprung on congregations without any warning. Not only was there months, and in some cases years of advance warning given, but the V2 resolutions themselves were hardly unexpected. Many of them had been predicted, called for, demanded, even illicitly put into practice, many years before V2. An old Irishman told me that in supposedly “conservative” Ireland, many parts of the Mass were said in English even in the 1940s! As soon as the Council finished in Dec 1965, there was an intensive series of lectures, pamphlets, books and other measures to educate the faithful about the coming changes and the reasons for them. It’s true that a few conservative bishops who were less than happy with the Council outcomes didn’t “push” this education very much. But if any Catholic found the changes suddenly sprung on him without warning, he had only himself to blame, for not making any effort to participate in this education or maybe for not bothering to turn up for Mass for several years. The changes didn’t happen all at once but were gradually phased in over many years. I remember the grumbles because of this “phasing in” procedure, that people had to buy several new Missals over a period of several few years, because each one was out of date after a couple of years. For years, every second homily was about announcing which changes would be next, why they were being made and how to handle them. But some people just blocked their ears because they didn’t want to hear it, These people alienated themselves, and now they try to pin the blame for their alienation on the (mostly deceased) priests and bishops who generally did their best to educate the faithful.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.


Brian, once again I’m afraid you have fallen into the logical trap of saying that because two things occurred over the same time period, then one must have CAUSED the other.

And once again I'm going to hear how because two things occurred over the same time period it is probably a complete coincidence.

I think it’s extremely unlikely that using or not using Latin in the Mass affected how many people converted to Catholicism.

Because????

I can think of at least 3 other far more plausible reasons why the no. of conversions to Catholicism in the US decreased after 1970

Theories! Yes, thank you. Its one thing to say its just a coincidence but another to try and figure out why its a coincidence, instead of just saying "its the sixties" or "it began long before" or something similar. I appreciate that Steve--seriously. - changing theological emphasis led to less emphasis on converting Protestants (who are the source of the vast majority of US conversions), and less emphasis on the need to convert to the Catholic faith before you die (so fewer deathbed conversions)

Yes, very possible. Shall we thank ecumenism and the "spirit of Vatican II?

- changed rules and attitudes on mixed marriages made it less likely that strong pressure would be brought on the non-Catholic partner to convert before marriage would be approved.

I don't know that there were rules against marrying a non-catholic before 1970. So I don't know if rules changed, but attitudes--yes, they changed. They changed alot. I am sure this affected conversions to some degree. Marriages in general declined as well. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000.

- Changing demographics. In the “baby boom” years there was a higher proportion of adolescents and young adults (the age when most conversions occur)

This doesn't apply completely because the statistics presented in my post above are adult conversions only, not total conversions. There are separate stats for adolescents and infants.

I agree we should make more use of Latin, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see a wholesale return to Latin Masses, and most certainly not to the pre-1962 version.

Methinks you needn't worry.

True Lesley, V2 did not “end” the Latin Mass, but it certainly encouraged vernacular Masses.

Completely untrue. It permitted the use of the vernacular, but did not encourage whole masses in the vernacular. I'm not sure if any bishops at the Council imagined in their wildest dreams that masses would be wholly in the vernacular and that the Latin Mass would be all but wiped out in the near future. Sacrosanctum Concilium stated: 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.

Most dioceses provide Latin Masses for those who want them.

Perhaps most offer them. But some 60 U.S. dioceses do not offer them. And of those that do, most offer Latin low masses on every third Sunday at 6:30 am in a rotating parish Here in my state, The Diocese of LA offers Latin Mass. Out of well over 1,000 masses each weekend at most 3 of those are Latin. That is not to mention how many thousands of weekday masses are offered with no Latin.

I feel very fortunate to have a parish completely dedicated to the Latin Mass in my Diocese of Sacramento. Bishop Wiegand allows them to say daily masses, weddings, confessions, funerals--the whole nine yards. But it is still almost a two hour drive one way for us and many cannot afford such a trip and many others live even further away.



-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 24, 2004.


Lesley, read the documents! V2 said the vernacular was to be the PREFERRED option, not just given to those who demanded it.

Wrong! I'd be interested to hear which V2 document you recommend she read that says vernacular is "PREFERRED." Firewood Steve.....firewood.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 24, 2004.


“once again I'm going to hear how because two things occurred over the same time period it is probably a complete coincidence.”

Exactly. You’re catching on to logic Brian. It is ALMOST ALWAYS a complete coincidence that two things occur at the same time.

“I think it’s extremely unlikely that using or not using Latin in the Mass affected how many people converted to Catholicism. Because????”

That’s a very cheeky question, since you demand “theories” (or what a medico would call “plausible mechanisms”) of others; but you haven’t been able to provide even one possibly plausible reason why not having Latin Masses would discourage conversions. While Emily and the Pauls have given you very plausible reason why Latin Masses would DIScourage conversions.

You could with equal logic argue that it was the other way around, that lower numbers of conversions caused the dropping of Latin. (I am not arguing this, as I said the two phenomena are independent.)

"“changing theological emphasis led to less emphasis on converting Protestants …” Yes, very possible. Shall we thank ecumenism and the "spirit of Vatican II? "

Yes, but hey, you say that as if it’s a BAD thing. On the whole I’d say it’s better to concentrate on eventually bringing entire denominations of millions of people into the true Church than laboriously converting them one by one.

“I don't know that there were rules against marrying a non- catholic before 1970. So I don't know if rules changed” I think you’re old enough to remember that the rules changed.

“I'm not sure if any bishops at the Council imagined in their wildest dreams that masses would be wholly in the vernacular and that the Latin Mass would be all but wiped out in the near future.”

So let me get your theory straight. All the world’s bishops agree at the Council that certain things are wrong and not to be done, then for some reason all their priests start doing exactly those things the bishops have condemned, and the bishops don’t lift a finger to stop them? Is that it? You don’t know bishops very well.

Thanks for the fascinating statistics about how many Latin Masses are said in various places. Obviously the few dioceses that don’t have them have no demand for them, otherwise you would have said so. It must be an interesting experience saying your confession in Latin.

“I'd be interested to hear which V2 document you recommend she read that says vernacular is "PREFERRED."

I guess you skipped over that part of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private. This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments”

You still haven't found that firewood Brian.

You don’t seem to understand that Sacrosanctum Concilium, like the other Council documents, did not attempt to lay down and detail every possible change which could be implemented and condemn all other changes. It merely laid down norms or principles to be followed in drawing up new rites.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.


Steve..It is unfortunate indeed that you choose to not believe me when I tell you (and others) with all honesty what I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. The changes were NOT phased in, nor were they gradual at all.

and as far as the Latin mass being offered freely? In Philly when we lived close to there 5 years ago, Bishop Bevalaqua (?sp) was petitioned over and over and over again for Latin masses and refused over and over and over again.

In New Jersey..churches requested to say Latin masses..refused.

as of 2002, there were only 192 churches in the entire country where the Latin mass was available ONCE A MONTH. Now if people ASK and the Pope tells us we can have the Latin mass, why is it not available? There is only one reason. The individual bishops don't want it. And if you take it a step further, why don't individual bishops want ANY Latin masses? the answer? I have no idea which has any positive thoughts that go with it.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.


Steve

What is active participation? Am I somehow participating less if I go to Mass on holiday in Spain because I do not know the language?

Furthermore a Mass does not require the presence of a congregation at all! This is Eastern Orthodox theology.

I beleive you may too be putting a spin on V2 docuemnts that do not align with Catholic teaching.

Hugh

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), November 24, 2004.


One question to anyone. If the vernacular Mass was given to encouage attendance, how is it that the attendance has fallen so very drastically.

Some Catholic prefer the old Mass for whatever reason. Why are these bishops so adament about not offering it?

-- Senor (Latin@frommanhattan.com), November 24, 2004.


Steve, the solution for many people where Latin mass is not available? They attend SSPX chapels. I think that instead of encouraging schism we should encourage Latin mass to be available more for those who desire it. I myself would like to visit or perhaps attend one, if only for the reverence, higher likelihood of doctrinal accuracy, and finding others who are like-minded in their Catholic faith. Not understanding most of the mass would be a down side, and this is my biggest concern, especially regarding latin- mass-only proposals. However, I do think it should still be an option.

History question: My RCIA teacher said that the Latin mass is only a few hundred years old, that it began with Trent or sometime around there. Is this accurate? If so what was before that, perhaps a mass in Latin with a different format? (Hence the name "Tridentine")? Has the mass been in Latin over history since the apostles, do we know this for sure? Thanks.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.


Thanks for the fascinating statistics about how many Latin Masses are said in various places. Obviously the few dioceses that don’t have them have no demand for them, otherwise you would have said so. It must be an interesting experience saying your confession in Latin.

**** Brian does know that in many areas Bishops refuse the Latin Mass. I will have to scold him for not writing down all his knowledge because he should know better by now. You for one will think you have something on him. ;o) LOL As for confessing in Latin? What the heck are trying to say here Steve? Do you think we confess in Latin or are you trying to make a funny? We confess in our own language. Where we go you could confess in Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and English. Might have missed one because most of the priest there speak at least three languages.

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail. com), November 24, 2004.


Ah, the old latin mass debate. Prefering the Tridentine myself, and being fortunate to have one within a half-hours drive, my two cents:

The change from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo didn't cause a decrease in vocations. Mainline Protestant churches were also seeing a decrease in attendance, and also complain about it, so it seems to be more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else -- something about the pre-ww2 environment into the 60's caused a lot of falling-away from the church.

OTOH, one thing that DOES seem true is that diocese (sic?) that hold to orthodoxy consistantly produce more priests than ones that don't. Orthodoxy is a good thing.

Having my druthers would be the old mass structure in the vernacular with the readings from the new mass, which cover dang near the whole Bible over a three year span. That would IMHO be the best, with the CHANCE of this happening being slightly less than winning the lottery three times.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 24, 2004.


Frank said: Having my druthers would be the old mass structure in the vernacular with the readings from the new mass, which cover **** near the whole Bible over a three year span.

Frank, that's what I'd like to see too!! Except maybe a change in version of the Bible for the readings. A little Latin would be ok, as long as it was understandable to everyone.

Frank said: That would IMHO be the best, with the CHANCE of this happening being slightly less than winning the lottery three times.

LOL yeah it is sad...

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.


"The change from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo didn't cause a decrease in vocations."

not totally true, imho, inasmuch as there was a mass exodus of priests, nuns, etc from the Church and Her seminaries at the time. this is history, not speculation. whether or not VII also accounts for today's events is another thing.

there might be many factors eg one i think of is the way in which Paul VI tried to have a foot in both camps, with pro VII ecumenism but balancing that out with restatements of traditional Catholic social ethics: a sort of proactive sitting on the fence. neither side got what they wanted.

sadly, that holds true today also - a Pope that some of the Church actually consider too conservative, some consider modernist/ liberal/ univeralist, and the rest, the Papolatrists, consider just perfect.

"Having my druthers would be the old mass structure in the vernacular with the readings from the new mass, which cover dang near the whole Bible over a three year span. "

maybe this time the Vatican would get the translation of "pro multis" right......

......point being the Mass in Latin is immutable, and the dead language itself will never evolve. moving into the vernacular, you take risks.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 24, 2004.


Emily..again..the mass is the SAME..have you not been to enough masses by now to recognize when certain prayers are said? This si not written in a "tone"..just facts. You WOULD understand everyhting because it is the SAME..when the priest looks at the people and says "Pax Vobiscum", he's saying "Peace be with you." at the same place in the mass where you are used to hearing the English words. When the people respond with "Et cum spiritu tuo." It again means, "and with your spirit also." The entire service is identical. (I am NOT speaking here of the pre-Vatican II Latin rite)..

Emily, do you get cable? Watch the mass on EWTN and you'll see exactly what I'm speaking about.

And, if people who want to attend a Latin mass go to one celebrated by those who are in schism from the church..woe to them. The solution isn't to tear apart from Mother church..the solution is to pray that the church in it's wisdom heals itself from within with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.


Lesley said: the mass is the SAME..have you not been to enough masses by now to recognize when certain prayers are said?

Actually I have attended mass at various parishes depending where I am (due to being in college and switching colleges). Part of the problem for me in learning the mass is that all of them were a bit different. They say different things at different times or places and that's why I had trouble learning the missal. Plus all the flipping back and forth was confusing, because I didn't know where to go next. It doesn't help that my current parish is liberal and changes around the liturgy even more. Also, I attended an Episcopal church for 2.5 years before becoming Catholic, and having learned all of their liturgy (my Episcopal parish's liturgy booklet was a lot easier to use than the Catholic missal), I got confused with the slight variations from Episcopal to Catholic.

Lesley said: You WOULD understand everyhting because it is the SAME..

Well if it actually was all the same, and not changed around like I have experienced at Novus Ordo masses, then that would be better. I would like to try a latin mass but that is not currently an option for me due to lack of transportation. Please don't think I'm putting down the Latin mass, I just have concerns and know only about it was I've heard from others (both for, against, and neutral on the latin mass issue). My position is that it should be available but not the only option.

Lesley said:(I am NOT speaking here of the pre-Vatican II Latin rite)..

Of what are you speaking, then? I'm confused.

Lesley said: Emily, do you get cable? Watch the mass on EWTN and you'll see exactly what I'm speaking about.

Oh, I wish I could :( My college provides cable but not the EWTN channel.

Lesley said: The solution isn't to tear apart from Mother church..the solution is to pray that the church in it's wisdom heals itself from within with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I agree, Lesley. I was not advocating schism, and I hope that was clear in my post. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.


Emily

http://www.sspx.co.uk/articles.php?articleid=49

this link represents a point of view. that's all.

the truest answer to your question is that the **Mass of Ages** is the consolidation of all orthodox regional variations of the orthodox Mass.

its age follows.

you will never, ever regret going.

lokk at a list of Saints, going back through that period time - and you are at the Mass that they were at. the same Mass. the same Orthodoxy.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 24, 2004.


Ian, again as I said, I would like to go to a Latin mass but I do not currently have the option. I will only attend approved Latin masses.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.


"......point being the Mass in Latin is immutable, and the dead language itself will never evolve. moving into the vernacular, you take risks".

The Latin text itself is immutable, but certain Latin words, just like certain English words, have multiple meanings. If you look in a Latin to English dictionary, you will find that "pro" means "before; in front of; in the presence of; for; on behalf of; in favor of; in the service of; on the side of; just as; the same as; in proportion to; according to; in comparison with; by virtue of; in the name of"; while "multus" means "many; much; great; numerous; abundance; fullness; completeness; all; considerable; extensive"; not to mention "tedious; long-winded; thick; loud; and heavy". Therefore, any combination of a meaning of "pro" with a meaning of "multus" is a gramatically correct translation of the phrase "pro multis". The Church alone can discern which of these many possible correct translations most accurately conveys its own teaching.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2004.


Paul

you are digging your own grave.

happy to explain why.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 24, 2004.


But you haven’t been able to provide even one possibly plausible reason why not having Latin Masses would discourage conversions.

How about this: The Novus Ordo Mass is more banal, less reverent, and subject to innovation and fabrication than the Old Mass. It is more people centered than God centered IMHO. "Participation" is so emphasized that there are scarcely any moments reserved for silent prayer and contemplation. Scores of beautiful prayers were eliminated from the Missals. It lacks the depth and richness of the Latin Mass....

"Yes (we should thank VII for less emphasis on converting protestants), but hey, you say that as if it’s a BAD thing. On the whole I’d say it’s better to concentrate on eventually bringing entire denominations of millions of people into the true Church than laboriously converting them one by one.

I know. What am I thinking. Less empasis on converting Protestants is probably a GOOD thing. (sarcasm) Well, The Church in the Western world had better hope for future conversions as you predict, because the here and now, as far as conversions is concerned, is not looking too good 40 years after this changed theology.

I think you’re old enough to remember that the rules changed.

Well, since I was only 5 years old when Pope Paul's Matrimonia Mixta was written, you'll have to trust me when I say I don't remember reading it in first grade. However, I still don't know what rules regarding conversions before marriage were abrogated. My methodist grandfather was not forced to convert before marrying my Catholic grandmother after World War I (and he never did). My mother was not forced to convert before marrying my father (but she did, Thanks be to God.)

So let me get your theory straight. All the world’s bishops agree at the Council that certain things are wrong and not to be done, then for some reason all their priests start doing exactly those things the bishops have condemned, and the bishops don’t lift a finger to stop them? Is that it?

Yeah, pretty much, except it was often not real clear what was condemned and what was accepted due to vague and ambiguous phrasing in certain places in the Council documents. As a result bishops were given ALOT of leeway to interpret things to their liking. Few people dispute this. The beat goes on to this day.

Obviously the few dioceses that don’t have them have no demand for them, otherwise you would have said so.

You're kiddin' me, right? Its absurd that despite the Holy Father's exhortion to the world's bishops to make the availability of the Latin Mass "wide and generous," some 60 dioceses in the US don't offer it at all. The SSPX ought to send thank you notes to the Bishops of those dioceses. Many bishops who do offer a couple of Latin Masses per month apparently have a different definition of "wide and generous" as well.

Me: I'd be interested to hear which V2 document you recommend she read that says vernacular is "PREFERRED.

Steve: I guess you skipped over that part of Sacrosanctum Concilium: "27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

I was hoping that wasn't what you were referring to Steve, because once again you are WRONG! This paragraph notes that the the Mass is an action and devotion of the Body of Christ and is preferred to the private action and devotion of the priest and acolytes where the faithful are not present. IOW, the communal celebration is preferred to private celebration. It has nothing to do with vernacular. If it did, it would say so because the words "vernacular" and "mother tongue" are used elsewhere in SC.

You still haven't found that firewood Brian.

Au contraire my friend, the woodshed is filling up fast. :-)



-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 24, 2004.


Wow, looks like I opened a can of worms.

“It is unfortunate indeed that you choose to not believe me when I tell you (and others) with all honesty what I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. The changes were NOT phased in, nor were they gradual at all.”

I may not have been as old as you and Brian, but I was there too, and I witnessed with my own eyes and ears a very careful and cautious phasing in over several years. In fact I think it actually became a problem with people of my generation, who had only ever known continuing gradual changes in the liturgy as long as we could remember, that in the late 1970’s the changes suddenly stopped and some became frustrated by this. Up until a few years ago, when my mother finally threw them out saying no-one could possibly be interested in them anymore, my father had a complete collection of missals, pamphlets and missal-inserts detailing all the changes in the Mass that occurred over that period of about 10 years, together with detailed written explanations of why they occurred. As I said the people were WELL prepared if only they bothered to listen. Ironically, some of the non-listeners were occupying themselves with their own private devotions even while the priest was explaining about the measures to encourage active participation of the faithful!

“Bishop Bevalaqua (?sp) was petitioned over and over and over again for Latin masses and refused over and over and over again. In New Jersey..churches requested to say Latin masses..refused.”

As I said to David (followed by deafening silence), SHOW US THE EVIDENCE of this supposed huge demand for Latin Masses which the evil bishops are callously refusing. I talk to a lot of Catholics, and outside this forum, I don’t recall one person who said there are too few Latin Masses provided, though some say there are too many, or that there shouldn’t be any.

“What is active participation? Am I somehow participating less if I go to Mass on holiday in Spain because I do not know the language?” (Hugh)Yes of course you are. It would be absurd to claim that you are not. In fact the STRONGEST argument for Latin Masses is that they enable travellers to foreign countries to have Mass in the same language they have at home.

“Furthermore a Mass does not require the presence of a congregation at all!” This is why the document says “as far as possible”. It doesn’t object to a priest saying Mass in Latin by himself.

“I beleive you may too be putting a spin on V2 docuemnts that do not align with Catholic teaching.” I see, so logically the last 4 Popes and all of the world’s bishops, who unanimously approve Mass being normally said in the vernacular, must be also "spin doctors" who are not aligned with Catholic teaching. How absurd. “If the vernacular Mass was given to encouage attendance, how is it that the attendance has fallen so very drastically.” (Senor) It wasn’t, it was introduced to encourage active participation of those who do choose to attend.

Emily there is nothing about the Latin language which guarantees “a higher likelihood of doctrinal accuracy”. Both the Latin and English texts of the Mass have been thoroughly checked for doctrinal accuracy by the highest authorities before being approved.

“the Latin mass is only a few hundred years old, that it began with Trent or sometime around there. Is this accurate? If so what was before that, perhaps a mass in Latin with a different format? (Hence the name "Tridentine")? Has the mass been in Latin over history since the apostles?”

The Apostles would have said Mass in Aramaic or Greek. Mass was said in Greek in Rome until the 4th century, and there are still traces of Greek in the “Latin” Mass (Kyrie eleison). There were Masses in Latin and many other languages, with many variations in text, from then up until the council of Trent in the 16th century, when most (not all)of them were suppressed. From then until 1962 there were FEW (not “NO”) changes in the text, a historically very unusual situation during those 400 years.

“Do you think we confess in Latin or are you trying to make a funny?”(Jalapeno) Well that’s what Brian appeared to say: “I feel very fortunate to have a parish completely dedicated to the Latin Mass in my Diocese of Sacramento. Bishop Wiegand allows them to say daily masses, weddings, confessions, funerals--the whole nine yards.”

“the Mass in Latin is immutable, and the dead language itself will never evolve. moving into the vernacular, you take risks.” (Ian)

A common misconception. Latin has changed quite a bit since the death of the last person who spoke it as a mother tongue, and it will continue to change in future. The vernacular versions are approved by the Church, which our Lord has guaranteed will never fall into doctrinal error, so we are NOT taking risks about doctrinal accuracy.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.


“The Novus Ordo Mass is more banal, less reverent, and subject to innovation and fabrication than the Old Mass. …It lacks the depth and richness of the Latin Mass”

Brian, you’re confusing Latin Masses with Tridentine Rite Masses. Obviously the same Mass in 2 different languages has the same depth and richness. As I said the text and rubrics of the former Tridentine Rite Mass were changed for very good reasons, and there should be no going back to it. OK, so you have criticisms of the current Mass in some respects in your opinion. I fail to see why any prospective convert would share any of your opinions, or that if they did it would influence their decision to convert.

“I still don't know what rules regarding conversions before marriage were abrogated.”

I meant the rules regarding mixed marriages. It is common knowledge that mixed marriages could have no Nuptial Mass or any other trimmings but could took place only in the sacristy with no ceremony (an extremely powerful motivator for brides who had always dreamed of a “proper” church wedding. Yes I know that’s not the way we should approach marriage, but it’s a fact that’s what many people do.) Every possible pressure was brought to bear to convert the non-Catholic partner. It was painfully obvious in later years that most of these “conversions” were purely nominal.

“it was often not real clear what was condemned and what was accepted due to vague and ambiguous phrasing in certain places in the Council documents. As a result bishops were given ALOT of leeway to interpret things to their liking. “

I repeat, you say this as if it’s a bad thing. As I said the documents set out norms and principles, they didn’t contemplate trying to be rigorously proscriptive. The Council documents emphasized that each bishop has his own Episcopal authority, which he should share collegially with his brother bishops, he is not just a functionary of the Pope or the Curia.

“Its absurd that despite the Holy Father's exhortion to the world's bishops to make the availability of the Latin Mass "wide and generous," some 60 dioceses in the US don't offer it at all. “

Sorry Brian but with the shortage of priests, no bishop is going to arrange Latin Masses attended by 2 or 3 people just to be politically correct. I repeat AGAIN, show me the evidence that there is a massive unmet demand for Latin Masses. You obviously can't.

"27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible” … you are WRONG! ... It has nothing to do with vernacular. If it did, it would say so”

“Active participation of the faithful” in a Mass in a language they do not understand, is obviously practically impossible. I repeat again, the document does not attempt to spell out every detail. I’m sure the Council Fathers would be horrified that people would one day nitpick their carefully worded document in this way and dismiss it as “vague and ambiguous” and not "condemning" enough.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.


Do you think we confess in Latin or are you trying to make a funny?”(Jalapeno) Well that’s what Brian appeared to say: “I feel very fortunate to have a parish completely dedicated to the Latin Mass in my Diocese of Sacramento. Bishop Wiegand allows them to say daily masses, weddings, confessions, funerals--the whole nine yards.”

***VBS :o) I can see how YOU would have come to that conclusion. I guess you must not know that most Bishops will not allow weddings, daily masses, funerals, first holy communion etc even by TLM priest that are Diocese approved. Now you know. Bishop Wiegand is the best and speaking of him..he needs all of your prayers. He is needing a liver transplant soon. Please pray for his health. TIA

Sorry Brian but with the shortage of priests, no bishop is going to arrange Latin Masses attended by 2 or 3 people just to be politically correct. I repeat AGAIN, show me the evidence that there is a massive unmet demand for Latin Masses. You obviously can't.

***Show me where there isn't Steve? Where are you getting the number of 2 or 3 people? With our The families that I have met who are "traditional" seem to have very large families so there are many of us out there. Where we go to the Latin Mass in Sacramento we have over 250 families attending. We are one of the smallest families there with our 5 children. The largest family has 13. Pretty awesome I must say. There are more of us out there and until you go to a Latin Mass you will never know the true number. Four years ago I would have argued the same as you.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.


With our The families that I have met who are "traditional" seem to have very large families so there are many of us out there.d

***Bad habit of never proof reading yet I teach my children to not only double check their writing, but go over it three times. LOL Should read, The families I have met who are traditional seem to have very large families and there are many of us out there.

Not that it really matters. ;o)

Should also add, Will let Brian answer being he is so much better at all of this than I.

God Bless.

-- will try to proof read in future..yea right (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.


Vatican II came The New Mass. While this was popular because of the use of the vernacular instead of Latin, it has been subjected to innovations, plus many more. Some people complain about these innovations, but even though a Catholic writer might say that changes to the Mass make the Mass invalid or illicit , there is no one who has any authority to correct abuses except the pope. Even though he is aware of these abuses, he either can't or won't do anything about it. I guess he feels a disobedient Catholic is better than an ex-catholic.

-- Charles (proferrer@aol.com), November 24, 2004.

Steve, here's some evidence: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=2045

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.

Steve said: Emily there is nothing about the Latin language which guarantees “a higher likelihood of doctrinal accuracy”. Both the Latin and English texts of the Mass have been thoroughly checked for doctrinal accuracy by the highest authorities before being approved.

Sorry for the confusion, Steve. I was referring to the general sense I've gotten interacting with those who attend the Latin mass. I post various Catholic forums, and of all the Latin mass attendees I've seen in those forums, none have expressed moral views that are contrary to Church teaching (save for some who approve of schism, except that many don't believe they are is schism).

This is contrary to some of the Novus Ordo attendees who express morally relativistic views; of the various parishes I've attended (all Novus Ordo masses), many have expressed similarly morally liberal views. (eg. I've heard that the following are acceptable or even encouraged: contraception, legalizing abortion, homosexual marriage, ordaining women). Not all of them of course, but on the whole, all of the Latin mass attendees I've met seem more devoted and adhere to more orthodox moral values.

I don't think it's related to the use of Latin in itself, but the fact that those types of people are more attracted to the Latin mass for some reason. Perhaps it relates to the fact that many there have similar views regarding morality. Or that they just want to attend a mass that's consistent with the others of its kind, which I admit is a draw for me.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 24, 2004.


Here is what I ran into much too often.

From parish to parish, from week to week in the same parish or even from Mass-to-Mass on any given Sunday the liturgy is reshaped, reworked and otherwise "monkeyed with" in ways that fall well outside the range of legitimate diversity and available options. So you cannot always be sure of what you will get at any particular parish. At the 7 a.m. Mass, for instance, Father Garcia offers a straightforward expression of the Roman Missal: nothing zany, just the Mass as Paul VI envisioned it. But pop in at the Noon Mass and Father Bob will show you a "good time." Lay people sometimes give the "homily," members of the congregation gather around the altar for the Eucharistic prayer, hold hands and sway together at the Our Father and generally do whatever the parish liturgist directs them to do, whether or not it fits with the rubrics. (We will not even mention the shenanigans at the Sunday evening "youth" liturgy.)

Of course, Akin's book will not single-handedly end liturgical abuses such as these.

-- just engaged (sweetheart23@yahoo.com), November 24, 2004.


Emily, so glad you posted that. :o) I have to say in all honesty what blew me away about the Latin Mass was the prayers. I could not understand how they could have removed such beautiful prayers and worship to our Lord. Why didn't they leave these prayers? Why remove them? What did the people gain from their lack of knowledge of these prayers? These prayers move your soul making you see how you must worship and praise God who has done so much for all of us. The whole way of worship with the Latin Mass is so moving. My five kids who are ages 10-17 years will tell you the same. They will also seek the Latin Mass after leaving our home. They have also been altar servers for the Novus Ordo for years and now will be serving the Latin Mass when approved. All would rather attend the Latin Mass even being a 2 hour drive from our home. I wish everyone in the world had what we have. It almost seems as if you've stepped back in time when going to St. Stephen's. All are dressed up in their best for Sunday Mass and all seem to hold the same values. Not all are on the same page, but all of us grow differently and not always at the same time. The morals that are taught here and what is preached should be in EVERY Catholic Church.

God Bless,

Arlette

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.


Steve

if you have time, could you please explain this comment:

"A common misconception. Latin has changed quite a bit since the death of the last person who spoke it as a mother tongue, and it will continue to change in future."

Latin, whilst it was spoken, did develop - but it effectively died out somewhere around the start of the Middle Ages - let's say 1,500 years ago. thereafter, it was used by the Church in liturgy, by academics/ universities, and by diplomats as a commonly shared language.

in each case, it will have been used in a technical sense - meaning that many of the "tranformations" seen in live languages, which one might consider as populist slang, did not occur.

the Queen of England, if you will, will never utter a single word that has not been in the dictionary for generations. the man in the street will.

the biggest change to Latin may well have been the addition of words to reflect new inventions and ideas.

i would be quite confident that a modern Latin-English dictionary would be virtually identical to a 200 year old dictionary in these sense that the Latin words would have retained their meaning.

of course, how modern English now expresses that meaning would have changed a bit. eg Nowadays, hilaris <> gay, hilaris = cheerful. proving the point.

and the thought of that language developing today simply astonishes me. how can it? only the Church uses it now. and in a Mass the priest will never need to refer to Compact Disc or nuclear fusion or bubblegum or stereo or the like.

and even if you can prove that Latin might in some way change, it is always going to change at a much, much slower rate than the spoken word.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 25, 2004.


Steve..what would satisfy you? A certified letter from the various archdioceses stating, "yes,Steve, we confirm that parishoners have requested masses in Latin and we decided not to permit them.Lesley is not lying, distorting or exaggerating the facts."

What would satisfy you regarding what occured in Boston after Vatican II as far as how and when changes were implemented, since you obviously do not believe me?

I have nothing more to offer you. It never occured to me that I would need "proof" of these things to give to someone years later in order to be credible. Perhaps someone else will come along who was actually THERE and can verify my telling..oh, but that would not be "proof" either would it? They also would have no documents, tapes, registered papers, videos, satellite survailance, or sound bites to link up to the forum as "evidence" of their truthfulness.

One believes what they choose to believe.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 25, 2004.


Steve,

You are the "spin doctor".

SHOW me the evidence to prove your ludicrous claims. In " Steve's world" you believe whatever you want.

What is going on with these staticics?

Here are Jones's grim statistics of Catholicism's decline: [ copied from Pat Buchanann web-site]

-- Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

-- Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

-- Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two- thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

-- Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

-- Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two- thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven.

The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

-- Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million -- from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones' statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

-- Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

-- Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

At the opening of Vatican II, reformers were all the rage. They were going to lead us out of our Catholic ghettos by altering the liturgy, rewriting the Bible and missals, abandoning the old traditions, making us more ecumenical, and engaging the world. And their legacy?

Four decades of devastation wrought upon the church, and the final disgrace of a hierarchy that lacked the moral courage of the Boy Scouts to keep the perverts out of the seminaries, and throw them out of the rectories and schools of Holy Mother Church.

Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway.

Jones' statistics tell us the price of appeasement.

In "Steves world" homosexuals should allowed to be ordained Catholic priests and there is a Latin Mass celebrated for anyone who want to participate in one.

Something going on here, but I sure don't know what, but it doesn't look to promising.

May God bless His Church.



-- - (David@excite.com), November 25, 2004.


Excuse my ignorance Jalapeno but what is a “TLM priest”?

“just engaged”, if you come across abuses of the liturgy, the thing to do is not to have the Mass in Latin instead of English, you should take it up charitably with the priest concerned, the parish priest, and if the abuse continues, with your bishop. Or if you don't have the guts to do this, just go to another parish. Maybe people who go to Latin Masses are generally more morally straight and the priests preach better and are less likely to allow liturgical abuses. I don’t know. In fact if a priest changed the words of Mass in a language no- one in the congregation understands, probably no-one would notice anyway. And of course in the vastly larger population which choose to go to vernacular Masses, naturally there will be some small number of parishes/people where abuses/immorality/bad preaching occur.

Jalapeno, the prayers are just the same whether they are in Latin or English. Like Brian you are confusing the perfectly acceptable Latin Mass with the discredited old Tridentine Rite Mass.

Ian, it’s true Latin changes far more slowly than “living” languages, but it does change because it too is “living” to some extent, just from the fact that (albeit few) people use it. You suffer from the delusion common to monolingual people, that every word of every language has one and only one exact equivalent word in every other language which always reflects the same meaning, regardless of context. Anyone who knows even a little of a second language can see that this is clearly false in the case of common basic words like “for”, “many” and “all”, as Paul has illustrated.

As for “getting the translation right”, you are forgetting that Latin is not the original language. Jesus at the last supper spoke in Aramaic, and the Gospels were written in Greek (possibly based on earlier Aramaic works) before being translated into Latin. The idea that the words of the Mass must be said exactly as written and even in a particular language, for transubstantiation to occur, runs very close to crossing the border from religion into superstition. The “words of institution” (“Take this, all of you and eat it…) are not a magic formula which a wizard has to say exactly right to make the magic trick happen. (In fact this is the origin of the magicians’ magic words “hocus pocus” – they are a mocking corruption of “hoc est corpus”). The Church in fact has even recognized as a valid celebration of the Eucharist, the rite of the Assyrian Church of the East, whose Mass omits the “words of institution”.

Lesley, I did not mean to imply you are a liar. As you say people “remember” what they choose to remember. I know I was there and I saw and heard gradual changes with plenty of advance warning. They were the subject of many discussions at my house at the time.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for evidence that people are demanding Latin Masses and being refused. No, not a signed declaration, but maybe even just a media report of some protest delegation to a bishop who had refused to allow a Latin Mass? I’m starting to strongly suspect (especially given the “evidence” in the link which Emily provided) that what some of you REALLY mean is that some bishops allow the Latin Mass but won’t allow the discredited TRIDENTINE RITE Mass.

David, I am at a loss to know what are my “ludicrous claims” you are referring to. The shortage of priests etc is not news to me, in fact I mentioned it above. It seems that like Brian, you don’t know enough Latin to know the fallacy of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

Never fear, the Church still resists the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and still remains a moral beacon to mankind. I think the increase in the number and bitterness of the attacks on the Church by “the world” and even by individual Catholics (from left and right), is evidence that the Church continues to do so.

If you think there is something wrong with “appeasement” you are way out of step with Catholic teaching.

And would you please apologize for your unfounded calumny against me, “In "Steves world" homosexuals should [be] allowed to be ordained Catholic priests”. Never have I argued for this, in fact quite the opposite.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 25, 2004.


Excuse my ignorance Jalapeno but what is a “TLM priest”?

***LOL Didn't we already go over this before with the NO Mass? TLM being we are speaking about the Traditional Latin Mass can only mean just that.

Jalapeno, the prayers are just the same whether they are in Latin or English. Like Brian you are confusing the perfectly acceptable Latin Mass with the discredited old Tridentine Rite Mass.

***hmmm did I say they are not the same or did I ask why they removed them? I am a cradle Catholic Steve and did not know these prayers existed until a few years ago. I can guarantee you most Catholics also do not know of these prayers because they were REMOVED!!! You can not pick up the Novus Ordo missae and find them in there. They are gone! Removed! Understand? What did Catholics gain from having this done?

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), November 26, 2004.


“What is active participation? Am I somehow participating less if I go to Mass on holiday in Spain because I do not know the language?” (Hugh)Yes of course you are.

Steve

That is complete nonsence, show me ONE doctrine of the church which supports this.

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), November 26, 2004.


Hugh:

Do me a favor, drop me a line: sempertrad at yahoo dot com.

Question for you totally unrelated to religion.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 26, 2004.


Steve

"Ian, it’s true Latin changes far more slowly than “living” languages, but it does change because it too is “living” to some extent, just from the fact that (albeit few) people use it."

++++++Steve, that's just silly. virtually nobody speaks Latin. nobody. can you show me some words that have entered the Latin dictionary in the past 100 years other than the ones i have mentioned (technologyrelated)?! show me changes in grammar?! anything?!

"You suffer from the delusion common to monolingual people, that every word of every language has one and only one exact equivalent word in every other language which always reflects the same meaning, regardless of context."

++++++i gave you an example that proves the contrary. again, nowadays, hilaris <> gay, hilaris = cheerful. proving the point. 100 years ago, it would have been correct to translate "hilaris" as gay or cheerful or jolly or .... the Latin has stayed the same. English has moved on.

and how you can say that there is something systemically deficient in those whom you describe as "monolingual", which i am not for the record, is just beyond me. the majority of the world's population are monolingual.

you must also read Paul's post again an dyou will see that his error is translation out of context. more below.

"Anyone who knows even a little of a second language can see that this is clearly false in the case of common basic words like “for”, “many” and “all”, as Paul has illustrated.

+++ Steve, "multi" has always, since the times of Classical Latin and before, been used to describe "muchness". not "totality". "muchness". when it describes a number of items, it means "many": always has; always will; for ever. show me a Bible that translated the Last Supper as being "for all".

Paul's error is in using other meanings of muchness out of context. if used, eg, in the context of a speech or a journey, the word could be translated as longwinded, or whatever. perhaps Paul suffers from some advanced variation of the delusion you mention?!?!?!!?

"As for “getting the translation right”, you are forgetting that Latin is not the original language. Jesus at the last supper spoke in Aramaic, and the Gospels were written in Greek (possibly based on earlier Aramaic works) before being translated into Latin."

+++++relevance? i did not forget this. i am acutely aware of it. i think the relevance might be in yr next sentence - but you are presuming.

"The idea that the words of the Mass must be said exactly as written and even in a particular language, for transubstantiation to occur, runs very close to crossing the border from religion into superstition."

+++i never actually said this, did i? i was arguing for the retention of orthodoxy through language. that's all.

the basic accusation is that the Church has changed the Bible's words. and it certainly seems to have. again, look in all the Bible versions and prove me wrong. look at KJV which is based on entirely diffeent soutrces from the Vulgate (Sinaiatic (sp?), i think but also others).

if this was an error, the Church would surely have corrected the New Missal. it didn't.

""The “words of institution” (“Take this, all of you and eat it…) are not a magic formula which a wizard has to say exactly right to make the magic trick happen. (In fact this is the origin of the magicians’ magic words “hocus pocus” – they are a mocking corruption of “hoc est corpus”)."

++++ i didn't actually say anything of the sort. that does not mean that i wonder. but i did not make this point.

anyways, your approach is dangerous. is Consecration with seemingly **deliberate** Biblical mistranslation effective??? you tell me.

" The Church in fact has even recognized as a valid celebration of the Eucharist, the rite of the Assyrian Church of the East, whose Mass omits the “words of institution”. "

++++ see above

SUMMARY Steve, the original question was: did VII cause the decline in Church going or would it have happened anyway?

we are now discussing a different question - concerning liturgy.

in response, it seems that the language and the rubrics of the Puis V Mass ensured orthodoxy at Mass for centuries and centuries. so, did the liturgical laissez faire that followed VII create difficulties and risks? my answer to that is an emphatic yes.

in my current Parish, it most certainly has: when i go NO i see a personalization of the Mass, diverting attention away from the Holy Sacrifice to the priest, the individual and the congregation? sporadic rounds of applause. countless Special Eucharistic Ministers. lot's of swaying and hand holding. the Sign of the Peace is without question the most popular part of the Mass. it has eclipsed the Eucharist.

the Latin Mass, which i attend in an adjacent Parish, leaves absolutely no doubt why we are there. no doubt at all. 1,000 years from now, that same Mass will be saying exactly the same thing. and 1,000 years after that. and for ever.

what will the NO Mass be like 50 years from now?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 26, 2004.


Ian..I concur that when individuals in the clergy made the decision that it was OK to have various "versions" of the mass, and that, as Emily posted, one can attend Catholic masses here and there and they ARE DIFFERENT, there is a problem.

Catholics have an identity crisis where they had none before. Growing up Catholic from 1948 until Vactican II, it was simple..the rules were identical in any parrish in the entire world. (Steve may not believe this as I have no "proof").. 1. The masses were identical..everywhere.Mass was in Latin, gospel readings and homilies were in the vernacular. 2. People fasted except for water 12 hours before Communion. 3. "Confession" was REQUIRED prior to receiving Communion. 4. One knelt to receive the Body & Blood of Christ. 5. Music during the mass was INTENTIONALLY music to inspire one to contemplate the AWE and MAJESTY of Almighty GOD. 6. 100% of the focus of the mass was directed upon the Eucharist, including SILENT prayer before and after mass.

Does this mean that the PEOPLE involved were "perfect"? No. Were there priests who muttered? Yes. Were there lay people who dozed off? Probably. But I can tell you that in my entire memory, nobody was "chatting", chewing gum, laughing, or socializing.. Did we have the "warm fuzzies" as I experienced in Protestant churches? Absolutely not. Nobody EVER turned to me and gave me a happy smile and a hug and said "Praise the Lord, I'm so glad to have you here today!" It wasn't something you expected..you weren't there to meet and greet people AT THE MASS..you were there for the "SOLEMN celebration of the MASS"..there were plenty of "social" opportunities available via the parrish to chat and get to know people..Mass wasn't one of them. So here we are in 2004..the mass has been changed substantially..everything is in the vernacular. And so then WHY, if it's all GOOD does there remain such a vast difference from then to now? Where is the Catholic "identity"..these changes were supposedly to UNIFY the church. The church is NOT unified. SOMETHING is very wrong. When you lose your identity, your past, you lose a great deal. The power of the church has always been to stand FAST to the TRUTHS, in spite of what modernists want. The church doesn't cave into the fact that "every other religion NOW says divorce is OK"..it's STILL not OK..Abortion was wrong in the 17 th century and it still is. So, perhaps nothing was "wrong" with the Latin mass either. What would happen I wonder if the churches hierarchy decided to "go back to basics" and say, "The Latin mass is now THE mass." Would all of you young people immediately fall into line and bow to the wisdom of the church? Serious question..Would you?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 26, 2004.


Steve,

I don't feel I owe you an apology!

I rember back in June some of your comments were against throwing out pervert priests. I can rember the thread if you want me to show you?

God bless you and yours.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 26, 2004.


It’s obvious we need to define our terms, both for the benefit of my interlocutors and of those reading this thread, many of whom are by now probably thoroughly confused.

“Latin Masses” (LM) have been permitted everywhere ever since Vatican II as an option for those who want them. The text and rubrics of a Latin Mass are exactly the same as those in English or any other language, only the language is different.

“Tridentine Rite Masses” (TRM), or as the Church officially calls them “the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962” are Masses celebrated according the discredited text and rubrics which were used just prior to Vatican II. The council identified various deficiencies, tautologies, wrong and misleading emphases, and departures from the Church’s Tradition, and endorsed the creation of a commission to draw up improved texts for the Mass and other sacred rites to correct these problems, which was duly done. Pope Paul VI endorsed and formally proclaimed these as the ONLY permissible text and rubrics to be used for the Mass, and banned use of the discredited Tridentine Rite. A tiny minority led by an old reactionary Frenchman named Lefebvre illegally continued to use the TRM and later started their own schismatic church with their own illegally ordained bishops and priests in open defiance of Pope John Paul II. The Lefebvrists sneeringly dismissed the currently approved Catholic Mass as “Novus Ordo” (‘New Order”) or “NO Mass”.

A few years ago JP2 initiated discussions with the Lefebvrist church to try to bring them back to the true Church. The Lefebvrists stated that they would return to union with the Church if they were allowed to use the TRM. The Pope, although reluctant to permit any use of a rite which had been discarded decades earlier for very good reasons, agreed as a concession to the Lefebvrists to grant an indult (IOW a special permission) for the TRM to be used under certain conditions in the few places where there was call for it. JP2 called for bishops to make the TRM available widely and generously to those who want it. And so they did. The Pope plainly did not intend that the bishops should meet every demand by every TRM fanatic to have a TRM within spitting distance of his house. In many parts of there world the demand for TRM is negligible or non-existent.

Unfortunately JP2’s generosity was not reciprocated. The majority of the bloody-minded and headstrong Lefebvrists refused to honor their promise to return to the true Church, and upped their ante to demand nothing less than that the whole billion-strong Catholic Church should throw out its own liturgies and adopt the discredited and long- discarded Tridentine Rite. This of course the true Church will never agree to. No doubt the limted indult for the TRM will soon be withdrawn as it has failed to serve its purpose, and the Church will return to the status quo which prevailed for decades where only the Roman Rite as currently approved was used by Roman Catholics, as this is an important sign of the Church’s unity.

Some ignorant or lazy secular journalists use the terms “Latin Mass” or “traditional Mass” when they mean the Tridentine Rite Mass. But there is no excuse for a practising Catholic to do so. The discredited, banned (or allowed under a restricted indult) Tridentine Rite Mass is NOT “the Latin Mass”. It may be “traditional” in the secular sense of “the way it was when my grandaddy was a boy”, but it is certainly NOT Traditional as the Church understands the term – the Tradition of the Apostles handed down and developed through the centuries by their successors. The TRM is most UNtraditional in that it incorporates many novelties not used by the early Church and which have now been discarded, and it omits some important parts of the early Church’s Mass.

As JP2 put it in "ECCLESIA DEI", “The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(Vatican Council II. Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020)."

“Ecumenism” does NOT mean, as has been repeatedly implied here, changing and compromising Catholic beliefs and practices to make them more like those of other religions. On the contrary, ecumenism demands fidelity to who we are and what we do, because without doing this there can be no genuine dialog with others. Ecumenism is not just an optional extra for those who are enthusiastic about it. It is essential that every Catholic be an ecumenist.

As for the decline of the Church’s influence in Europe, this is a trend which has been happening for at least 200 years and can hardly be blamed on ecumenism, V2 or any of the other usual late-20th century whipping boys brought up here. Granted the jailing of the Swedish Protestant preacher who dared to criticize homosexuality in a sermon preached in his own church building to his own congregation, is a horrific abuse. But compared to what happens to Catholics and other Christians in many parts of Asia and Africa, European Christians have it easy. I would rather see less hand-wringing about the Church’s declining influence in Europe and more vehement protests about the violent persecution of millions of Christians on other continents.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.


Jalapeno, there is no such thing as a “Traditional Latin Mass priest”. A priest is a priest. Any validly ordained priest can say Mass in any language his bishop or superior allows, although as I mentioned the Church strongly prefers that Masses be said in the vernacular of the community in which they are offered. As for the “REMOVED!!!” prayers, as I mentioned, they were removed for very good reasons.

“What is active participation? Am I somehow participating less if I go to Mass on holiday in Spain because I do not know the language?” (Hugh)Yes of course you are. Steve That is complete nonsence, show me ONE doctrine of the church which supports this. (Hugh)

LOL! The Pope doesn’t bother to proclaim a doctrine about something that is simple common sense. Show me one doctrine of the church which supports your silly idea that you can participate just as actively in a Mass in a language you don’t understand!

Ian, I agreed with your point that Latin changes slowly. Now you deny that it changes at all!

I certainly did not say "there is something systemically deficient" about being monolingual, nor did I say that you are monolingual. The majority of the USA’s population may be monolingual, but in the rest of the world most people speak at least 2 languages. I just pointed out that the logical error you made is one that is commonly made by monolingual people.

“show me a Bible that translated the Last Supper as being "for all"”. Ian, unlike some Churches the Catholic faith is not based on anyone’s translation of the Bible, but on the Tradition handed down from the Apostles to the Pope and bishops. If you seriously think that the Pope and bishops are in error concerning a doctrinal point expressed in their officially approved liturgy, be honest and stop calling yourself a Catholic, because you are not. My Bible does say "Many are created" - obviously it means "All are created".

“your approach is dangerous. is Consecration with seemingly **deliberate** Biblical mistranslation effective??? you tell me.”

Under what authority do you take it on yourself to accuse the Pope and bishops of “mistranslation” and doubt the “effectiveness" of the consecration? The Pope and bishops have told me they are “effective” and I believe them. Why don’t you? If you demand (impertinently and needlessly) that the Church give you logical reasons for its texts, it has even gone to the trouble of providing them for recalcitrants like you. See

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=58517 and

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=59199

“when i go NO i see a personalization of the Mass, diverting attention away from the Holy Sacrifice to the priest, the individual and the congregation?”

Unless your parish is EXTREMELY unusual, what you “see” is probably mainly to do with the jaundiced eye you look at it with. I’ve certainly never seen “lots of swaying and handholding” at any Mass.

“the Sign of the Peace is without question the most popular part of the Mass.” And you know this – how? You did a survey asking everyone "vote for your favorite part of the Mass"? LOL! “ it has eclipsed the Eucharist.” I’m willing to bet you can still see some evidence of the Eucharist.

“the Latin Mass,[I assume you mean the TRM] which i attend in an adjacent Parish, leaves absolutely no doubt why we are there. no doubt at all.“ Yes apparently because you are more attached to a particular liturgical form than to the Church itself and its living growing tradition.

“1,000 years from now, that same Mass will be saying exactly the same thing. and 1,000 years after that. and for ever.” Sorry, Ian it won’t, as I said it will likely disappear completely in a little while.

"what will the NO Mass be like 50 years from now?” No idea, except that I know the Mass will continue to live and grow with the Church’s living and growing tradition as it has for 2000 years and will continue til the end of time.

“individuals in the clergy made the decision that it was OK to have various "versions" of the mass” (Lesley) If they did then those individuals should be brought into line, the solution is not to introduce ANOTHER TOTALLY different version.

“one can attend Catholic masses here and there and they ARE DIFFERENT, there is a problem. Catholics have an identity crisis where they had none before. … The church is NOT unified. SOMETHING is very wrong.” Yes and it was the TRM fanatics who caused the problem by insisting on being allowed to have a totally different form of the Mass from the one 99.99% of Catholics happily use.

“Growing up Catholic from 1948 until Vactican II, it was simple..the rules were identical in any parrish in the entire world.” And it was the same for decades after V2 until the TRM fanatics spoiled it.

“Nobody EVER turned to me and gave me a happy smile and a hug and said "Praise the Lord, I'm so glad to have you here today!" That’s very sad, and perhaps explains your attitude.

“When you lose your identity, your past, you lose a great deal.” That’s one reason why V2 restored the liturgy to the way it was in the early Church, restoring what had been discarded and discarding the pointless accretions, and preferring Mass in the vernacular as it was throughout most of the Church’s history.

The power of the church has always been to stand FAST to the TRUTHS, in spite of what ANY self-important indicidual wants, whether he calls himslef a modernist, a tradionalist, or any other misleading name.

“ The church doesn't cave into the fact that "every other religion NOW says divorce is OK"..it's STILL not OK..Abortion was wrong in the 17 th century and it still is. So, perhaps nothing was "wrong" with the Latin [presumably Tridentine] mass either.”

Nobody is suggesting the TRM was morally wrong as abortion and remarriage of divorcees are. But it was certainly liturgically and pastorally wrong, and so was changed, just as the Church has always changed its liturgies to suit changing pastoral circumstances.

What would happen I wonder if the Church’s hierarchy decided to "go back to basics" and say, "The approved current Roman liturgy (in Latin or vernacular) is now THE mass." Would all of you old people immediately fall into line and bow to the wisdom of the church? Serious question..Would you?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.


Jalapeno, there is no such thing as a “Traditional Latin Mass priest”. A priest is a priest. Any validly ordained priest can say Mass in any language his bishop or superior allows, although as I mentioned the Church strongly prefers that Masses be said in the vernacular of the community in which they are offered. As for the “REMOVED!!!” prayers, as I mentioned, they were removed for very good reasons.

***Steve, I want to see how much you really know. Which prayers were removed and why? I want the name of the prayers and if you don't have the names then I will know you are just saying whatever to just argue about it.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.


“I remember back in June some of your comments were against throwing out pervert priests.”

David, you remember wrong. What I said was that it is not possible to “un-ordain” someone who has been validly ordained, but that any priest who commits acts of sexual perversion should be removed from active ministry. There are probably a large number of priests of homosexual inclination, who were ordained due to the fact that, as you pointed out, John XXIII’s direction not to ordain such was not widely known. Most of them are no doubt sexually chaste and it would be practically impossible to identify them and pointless to suspend them, as well as impossible to un-ordain them. The prudential decision not to ordain those of a homosexual inclination is a matter of minimizing risk. Where the possible risk has failed to materialize, it would be extremely unjust to “throw out” priests who have given decades of chaste and faithful service to the Church. The Church does not condemn, indeed she warmly applauds, those of homosexual inclination who live chaste lives of service to God and to others. On the other hand the Church does condemn homophobia as a sin.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.


Jalapeno, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t really know very much. However I do know that Christ appointed the Pope and bishops to provide me the sacraments, and to teach and guide me in the faith, and guaranteed they would remain free from doctrinal error. I’m not “just saying whatever to just argue about it”. I’m merely repeating what the Pope and the bishops have told us. If there are particular prayers which you think are beautiful and which you feel strongly should be included in the approved Roman liturgies, you should ask your bishop or an expert liturgist if there’s any reason why they cannot be.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.

“the language and the rubrics of the Puis V Mass ensured orthodoxy"(Ian) Er no, it didn't, that's your fond imagination.

"for centuries and centuries" Technically this phrase is sort of true as the TRM lasted (though NOT without changes) for 2 centuries plus 2 centuries, total 400 years.

"did the liturgical laissez faire that followed VII create difficulties and risks?...in my current Parish, it most certainly has: when i go NO i see … countless Special Eucharistic Ministers”.(Ian)

COUNTLESS?! You must have some massive parish Ian. Do you have ten fingers? Maybe you could try taking your shoes and socks off and counting them on your toes as well? And they’re called “ministers of Holy Communion”. The point is not how many there are but whether they're doing their job properly. If they are, there are no "difficulties".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.


"..David you rember wrong."

Sorry Steve but I rember what you posted! Chances are I can rember what you said better than you can 6 months ago. :-)

"..it would be extremley unjust to " throw out" priests who have given decades of CHASTE..."

Was the gay priest that sexually abused "T" chaste??? See how you "spin things"? Didn't you brag about the advice this sick pervert priest gave to "T" the young semiarian after he sexually abused him and used him as a love toy? Is this your idea of giving decades of chaste service?

Maybe you're the one who rembers wrong?

-- - (David@excite.com), November 28, 2004.


My goodness Steve. You sound so angry. I am sorry. A few things: The beautiful mass I was referring to a few posts back which was in LATIN was on EWTN, and was the "New Mass." I had clearly expressed that it was this mass which was one which MIGHT bring unity to the church, with SOME of the liturgy in Latin, and SOME in the vernacular. Also, you mentioned that for most of the history of the church the mass was in the vernacular. Since the mass was said all over the known world in Latin from the year 399 until 1972, I don't understand this statement. And , it was the NEW mass, in LATIN, which we folks had asked for in Pennsylvania, and Alabama, and New Jersey, and Boston ..and the bishops said "NO". Until I turned on EWTN I had never witnessed the "new" mass in Latin..it was, as I've said..beautiful. Finally, I'll state my own position again. What the CHURCH says is what I believe and what I follow. The CHURCH says her people may have the mass in Latin or the vernacular. I merely wish the bishops would also follow the rules. Meanwhile, I pray for unity, watch EWTN, and humbly apologize if my attitude about anything caused you to become angry. It was not my intent.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 28, 2004.

Lesley, I don’t know why you think I am “angry”. (How would you describe our friend “David excite”?) I apologize if I have inadvertently implied that you are one of those who say “Latin Mass” when they really mean “Tridentine Rite Mass”. Yes I agree the Latin Mass can be beautiful and I have sung in Latin at Masses in my parish. Yes the Mass was said in the vernacular for most of the Church’s history. It was only in the late 17th century that Latin was made compulsory. Yes it is a concern if a large group of Catholics have requested Latin Masses and bishops are refusing to provide them, but as I said I have never heard any mention of this happening outside of this forum. I’d like to take your word for it, but I’ve seen that I can’t just take your word for it about the vernacular being introduced suddenly and without any warning.

David you are the champion spin doctor and a homophobe to boot. When I say chaste I mean chaste, and I have never claimed any sexually abusive priest is chaste. You only embarrass yourself by making such outrageous accusations against me.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.


Correction before anyone jumps on me: "the late 16th century"

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 28, 2004.

"..(how would you describe our friend David@excite..")

Steve please don't try and pit me against Lesley!( because I refuted you) I am not involved with what she posted to you about your "anger". I agree with her but I would rather you not try and drag me in to it.[ See how you are "spinning the comment about yourself spin doctor? :-0]

-- - (David@excite.com), November 28, 2004.


David, you “refuted” me!? LOL! You couldn’t “refute” your way out of a wet paper bag with a machete. You are obviously an angry and confused young man for some reason. It is YOUR memory which is faulty, or else you are being deliberately extremely uncharitable and unChristian, because you made the exact same accusation a couple of months ago, that I “bragged about the advice this sick pervert priest gave to "T" the young seminarian after he sexually abused him and used him as a love toy”. I repeat for a third time, I had merely reported that T told me HE found the advice useful. If it makes you happy I’ll say “My friend T must obviously be a wicked liar because no homosexual could possibly ever give any good advice about anything.” Is that sufficiently homophobic for you, Dr Spin, MD (Honors)?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 29, 2004.

To clarify: The Catholic Mass historically was said in Latin from circa 200 AD everywhere in the world until after Vatican II. Steve is absolutely correct in saying that it was in the 16th century that the Trendentine mass was made obligatory. As a matter of historical fact, it was at the Council of Trent where this was done. The Council did not institute the Latin mass at that time however. Latin had been used at every mass as the exclusive language for centuries already. What the Council of Trent did, was to establish the Trendentine Mass. A different FORM of the mass, but still in Latin, and make THAT form obligatory. I have very little computer skills, so I apologize for not being able to cut and paste links, etc. Yet if one does a simple online search on the subject of the history of the use of Latin in the Catholic Church, one will readily come up with correct historical facts. One must also be prepared to ignore the rhetoric one will find on sites put up by folks fallen away from the church. If someone cannot find the info even still, contact me and I will e- mail the references to you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

make that "TRIDENTINE" please

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

Steve

thanks for the obvious time and effort. you haven't convinced me on any point - but i suspect that is mutual.

at the Pius V Mass i attend (about 30 people usually), i was once the youngest adult (mid-30's) - if looks are anything to go by! in the small space of the last 6 months, we have been gifted a youg lady who comes by herself, a young couple (who are now in regular attendance), and parents with a young family (3 kids).

my kids. their kids.

small beginnings.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 29, 2004.


Steve,

That was cute :-)

But you're putting the spin on it AGAIN.

You don't get(sexual) advice off of someone that raped you or abused you sexually. This is common sense and what is, or was wrong with some of the seminarys. Stupid mistakes like this are what cost the Church hundreds of millions of dollars.

And again please keep me out of it when someone is refuting you and talking about your anger problem[s]. There was no need to ask about me. She was talking to you.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 29, 2004.


David “keep me out of it”!? LOL! It was you who put YOURSELF “into it” with five separate unjustified attacks on me in this thread alone, before I “offended” you by asking Lesley if she finds ME “angry” how would she describe YOUR vicious outbursts. I was speaking to her, not you, and asking her to reply to me, not asking her to speak to you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 29, 2004.

Ian said: Pius V Mass

Is that sedevacantist? Or am I wrong? I know of St. Pius X, but what is Pius V?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.


The Society of Saint Pius V (SSPV) is sedevacantist. I don't know if that was what Ian was referring to or if it was the name of the parish.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 29, 2004.

On second thought, Ian could be calling the Tridentine Mass "Pius V mass." Some people think that this Mass was introduced by Pius V, but he actually merely codified it after the Council of Trent with Quo Primum, hence the name "Tridentine." But Tridentine is a misnomer because it implies that the Mass began just after the Council of Trent, but actually was already in use.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 30, 2004.

Brian, the Tridentine Rite Mass is also sometimes called the Pius V Mass as Ian has done. A form similar to (not the same as) the Tridentine Mass was in use prior to the Pius V's directive after the Council of Trent, but it was only one of many different approved forms.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 30, 2004.

Brian

your last post seems a fair summary.

i don't know for sure, but i suspect that the sedevacantists use Pius V Mass.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 30, 2004.


Jalapeno, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t really know very much.

***Steve, you didn't upset me in the least. I knew in my heart that you would not be able to answer. If you knew ALL the PRAYERS that I am in possession of from the Tridentine Latin Mass, you would know where my heart is and you would not state what you just did.

I’m merely repeating what the Pope and the bishops have told us. If there are particular prayers which you think are beautiful and which you feel strongly should be included in the approved Roman liturgies, you should ask your bishop or an expert liturgist if there’s any reason why they cannot be.

****If it was that easy they would not have removed them. I have far too many for them to ever just add. All this saddens me because I am a big sinner and to know these prayers existed on accident due to my part only saddens me. They are beautiful, and I will take the time to type them all out if some one wants. Home schooling 8 children has been some what of a challenge. Please pray for me. I need the prayers far more than you will ever know.

TIA

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.


Here are two links to show the type of Mass my family attends. It is not the Novus Ordo Mass said in Latin either. Steve, it will not die out as you believe. The majority of people who attend are young families with a bus load of kids. ;o) I will take the time and write out all the prayers that I find not only beautiful, but humbling before Christmas.

Fraternity of Saint Peter

Whatever Happened to the Traditional Latin Roman Rite?

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.


Jalapeno, thanks for those links! The FSSP page with Gregorian chant and their CD section had just what I've been looking for! Thanks for linking to that :-) I think I am falling in love with the Latin. This music is so heavenly.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 01, 2004.

Just been to visit my parents. They had told me that for the last year or so the 1962 Mass had been provided as an option in their parish, so I thought I would go along and check it out while I was there. But guess what? They’ve discontinued it because after the initial novelty wore off, hardly anybody was coming to it!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 05, 2004.

Now there's a paradox!

Latin was a short- lived novelty. (You can't make up stuff like that.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2004.


C atholics Finding Comfort in the Old Mass

Guess the novelty doesn't wear out every where. Not sure where you are from Steve, but it is growing where we are. We just might get the same mass 25 miles from here. Yippee if we do! :o) I will still post the prayers as promised before Christmas. Too many have been missing out. Emily, the more you go the more you will want to go. There is such a night and day difference that you will only want to be where you feel others are on the same page and with the same respect.

God Bless,

Jalapeno

PS too bad your parents threw out what they had Steve.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


But guess what? They’ve discontinued it (TLM) because after the initial novelty wore off, hardly anybody was coming to it! Wait, I've actually heard of this sort of thing before. About 35- 40 years ago, certain novelties began to be introduced in the liturgy and mass attendance started dropping and then a new rite of mass was introduced and the decline continued. The difference is the Mass wasn't discontinued; many thought it was just a coincidence.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 06, 2004.

No, I didn’t make it up, Eugene. That’s the reason that both my parents and the parish priest told me when I asked why the parish had discontinued the 1962 Mass.

Jalapeno, my parents didn’t "throw it out", they had no say in it. In fact they told me they had never even bothered going to it in the year or so it was there. They said “We got enough of it when we were young.” This surprised me a bit, as not only are they both quite devout, often attending Mass on weekdays, but my mother especially is quite conservative by nature, a bit like some post-ers here. She not only was reluctant to accept the changes in the liturgy when they first came in, but is usually opposed to anything new such as new educational and political systems etc. I remember thinking how bizarre was her comment on the metric system “Why do they have to make everything EASIER?” She thought the younger generation should have to work just as hard as she did at math etc.

But thinking about it now, her lack of desire for the new-old 1962 Mass makes sense in this light. She has grown used to the idea of “active participation” in the Mass, and with the current Mass you stick out like a sore thumb if you DON’T actively participate. You have to actively WORK at it.

Now I’m sure all you good folk here who go to the 1962 Mass do so with intense and rapt concentration and attention throughout. But in the old days (and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same applies to the 1962 Mass attendees today) there were many among the large number of attendees who spent their time daydreaming. Some spent it in private devotions – good in their own right to be done when in private, but inappropriate at the time when the whole community comes together to pray as one.

Brian, the difference in my parents’ parish was that the decline in attendance at the 1962 Mass was precipitous, not gradual as has occurred at most Masses in the US over the last few decades. The parish can only offer so many Masses each weekend. There was a handful of people coming to the one 1962 Mass, and much larger congregations at each of the 3 regular-rite Masses. Even those who did attend the 1962 Mass were mostly from outside the parish. The parish priest was in a position where he had to drop one Mass. Which Mass would YOU have dropped if you were the parish priest charged with giving the best spiritual care and provision of the Mass to ALL his parish?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 06, 2004.


Jalapeno, my parents didn’t "throw it out", they had no say in it.

***I did not mean they "threw it out". I thought you said in an earlier thread (not this one), that at one point they had all these books/missals, but no longer did. Many people threw things out and by saying what I did, I did not mean it in a negative way. My own mother threw all of her things out. At first she was not sure what to make of my direction, but she can only go by judging how my children behave. Not to brag, but she is very proud and has told me she wishes she would have done things differenlty. She is happy with my family all of her grandchildren. She is in awe as to how they do not act like the majority of children their age, and as to how they pray. People who are not Catholic will tell me about my children in a very positive way. We are still very involved with all the sports being we have some pretty athletic kids (now I am bragging...LOL). My children make me proud every day and I thank God for giving me such wonderful children and the grace to raise them.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


Steve,

I understand what your priest did. If only a few people were showing up, it is perfectly understandable to discontinue it. I was just yanking your chain a little since you seemed to take delight in pointing out that the Latin Mass was cancelled.

I will reiterate, however, that alot of the 1962 Masses are offered as low masses only, at inconvenient times. Iow, not alot of effort goes into making it a palatable option. Sometimes this is by necessity due to priest shortages, churches etc., but I maintain that sometimes this is by design. Iow, Bishops on one hand can tell the Holy Father or the CDF that they are abiding by his directive to give the Latin Mass "wide and generous application," while on the other hand not really supporting it. Even in our diocese where Bishop Wiegand has been very generous in regards to establishing an Ecclesia Dei community, this community and the parish dedicated to Latin Mass (1962) is not to be found on the diocesan website nor in the diocesan newspaper.

But in the old days (and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same applies to the 1962 Mass attendees today) there were many among the large number of attendees who spent their time daydreaming.

Yes, I'm sure you may be correct about the old days. By the fact that today's attendees choose to seek out this Mass, it is a more reverent atmosphere, most likely, than the old days. But if you think there aren't a lot of people daydreaming in the Novus Ordo masses then you yourself are dreaming. Does reciting responses by rote preclude one from daydreaming? Have you ever recited the Our Father or Hail Mary with less than perfect concentration (unintentionally of course)? Have you ever sung a song without really thinking about the lyrics?

She has grown used to the idea of “active participation” in the Mass, and with the current Mass you stick out like a sore thumb if you DON’T actively participate.

I don't get why you think this. If I don't recite the responses, nor the prayers, nor sing the hymns, I don't think anyone other than perhaps one person on each side of me will notice.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 07, 2004.


I'm with Steve on this one.... the priests who say the 1962 Mass TODAY know what they are doing and tend to be serious priests... ergo, their Mass is reverant, the homily well thought out and all the bells and whistles are carefully employed.

But we are talking bell curve minority here. In 1961 we had 800 million Catholics, half a million priests and the majority were just as boring as the majority are today: hasty Masses, thoughtless homilies, rushed ceremonies, etc.

After all - if you PRESUME that all those priests were great guys and holy men how do you explain the appalling loss of the culture and rise of atheism in the modern times? If the Tridentine Mass was such a catalyst of holiness (by rite and not sacrament) then how do you explain such a colossal loss of faith in so few years? Holy, convinced apostles don't leave the priesthood when given a couple more freedoms... holy committed laity don't suddenly start contracepting because the Mass is now in English.

Reverence and great theology are not confined to OR magically produced by any rite. The priests who ran from their priesthood or got lost in the culture weren't great holy men in the 1950s who were corrupted...they probably just were coasting on cultural fumes to begin with. Kick away the props and they fell like rocks.

Again, the bell curve... we are talking statistically, not anecdotally. You will always have your grandmother and Uncle's story and good old Fr Murphy and O'brien. You are Catholic today thanks to a true-believer. But if all had been true-believers, rather than cultural Catholics, we would not be having this argument.

If the Pope ordered on pain of excommunication that all Latin rite diocesan priests immediately start using the 1962 rite, we wouldn't instantly have conversions and holy priests. We wouldn't have instantly reverent masses and informed homilies. We'd have a Latin version of what we suffer through today!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Joe,

If one would suggest the state of the Church can not be ascertained with comparison to culture. Or if one were to suggest the state of the Church not relevant to popularity...

-what left to blame? Liturgy? Bishops?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 07, 2004.


I loved the Mass in the 50's and I love it today. Whoever goes looking for God is not troubled by externals. It's unfortunate that today some externals are turn-offs. Guitars & tambourines rather than the organ. Even the hymnal is often banal compared to the older songs of praise, a lot of them in Latin.

The vernacular liturgy has been overall a great success, however. There definitely is better participation by the faithful than there seemed to be in my youth. Our main participation during the old Latin liturgy used to take the form of meditating on the great devotion of our priest & the altar boy, while waiting for the homily; -- A sermon which incidentally, was never in Latin. It was in the vernacular ! ! !

Boy, they were usually fine sermons, too. They aren' topped today. That's because sin was very often the main subject. Or the ineffable HOLINESS of God. Fire & brimstone or the lives of our saints. Great material. No happy talk, like we get today.

I began to appreciate even the happy talk, though, upon reflection. Jesus Christ was still our Lord and Mary remained our Blessed Mother. In fact, they appeared much closer to me, after the Council. More accessible and human. As I was saying; who goes looking for God isn't disappointed today. And we are better united in Holy Mass, despite a number of silly details, like hand- holding and raising window-sills (Orans) during some parts. We look at each other, even if it's often just to disapprove.

I'll tell you one innovation haven't heard regretted even ONCE, by our tradionists. The newer fasting period prior to Holy Communion. One hour? Water is permitted. In my youth, forget about it, no food or water from the midnight on till Holy Mass. Priest as well. A congregation of thirsty, hungry Catholics sitting as Steve says-- in silence. Some of us day-dreaming. How true. But it was glorious, for the few of us who loved Latin (I still do.) And for the sheer wonder of the ritual. It was always HOLY; no doubt about it. Just like it still is in English or Spanish, to me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.


The easier laws of fast and abstainance are one of the reason for laxity in other matters, like birth control, abortion etc. Easy salvation is a myth.

I obey the 3 hour fast before communion, meatless fridays, abstainance before holy days and during lent. It is only a small pittance to offer Our Blessed Lord, but it strengthens the will against sinning too easily.

-- Barbara (Googie@aol.com), December 07, 2004.


It's kind of funny, but I've had a different experience in a Tridentine mass where I attend recently. The old pastor left, and the new pastor didn't know the rite, but the bishop *made* him learn it due to community demand (not that many people actually ATTEND weekly, but they want it there LOL!

Anyway, it's kind of funny (to me) to see a priest with worse pronounciation in Latin than I've got, and the choir finishing long before he finishes, but there you go. When the guy first came, I thought it would really be a profound experience for him, the chance to re-examine his faith in a whole new way, but overall, I don't think he likes it much, and sure doesn't seem to have zeal for it, mainly putting off the mass onto the other priest there. I guess the moral is the rite of mass is great, but the clergy are more important.

OTOH, I had to attend a Sunday mass at our "other" church due to my work schedule, and they had bell-ringing on the entance ( a woman had two bells over her head and preceded the priest and altar boys during the entrance hymn) a bunch of weird music, etc. and I really didn't like that either. Oh well, the moral is quit judging masses I suppose, it seems a lot easier to get into sin that way than otherwise.

Finally, I ALSO was at a mass at said same church where the priest didn't say the Creed after the homily. I asked him about it afterwards, thinking "enough is enough" and that I'd have to write a letter to the bishop, etc., but when asked he said, "I didn't? I must have forgot." A lapse I can understand as human, just so long as its not a deliberate attempt to corrupt the mass. My dislike of the mass had caused me to pre-judge him though, thinking it more likely that it was deliberate rather than a slip. That is the trouble one can get into judging others!

It's a crazy world, that's for sure.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 07, 2004.


Just a minute; the bishops could impose even harder precepts on our faithful. You mean that would make us all MORE faithful? One hour fasting leads to laxity?

You kind of remind me of a stranger who came here and claimed Jesus Christ had hardly suffered on the cross as much as Catholics think. Only for three hours; not as bad as starving to death or being buried alive. And he meant it.

We fast before our reception of Communion for a more obvious reason than strengthening the will. You are thinking of penance, associated to the Communion fast. It wouldn't apply, even if it expresses your willingness to suffer for him.

A fast of one hour prior to Holy Communion really IS very undemanding; but it may be that more of the faithful come to receive Jesus that way. They have practically no excuse, as they once might have had.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.


Jalapeno, yes I said my mother threw out the old missals and explanations of the phasing in of the new liturgies. But that’s not the reason my parents don’t go to the 1962 Mass today. I’m sure they could buy a 1962 Missal if they wanted to. Basically my father only kept them for so many years because he’s a hoarder. He also kept the last 20 years of used checkbooks until my mother lost patience and did a cleanout.

I think you have every right to brag about your children’s devotion to their faith. My wife and I have failed in that respect. Our kids are aged from 16 to 23 and not one goes to Church. One is cohabiting, and one is a militant atheist. I expect you’ll say this is because we are “liberal” and/or don’t go to the 1962 Mass. But there are quite a few people in my parish who are if anything more “liberal” than us, and their kids, the same age as ours, are still avidly practising their faith.

Yes, Eugene, it’s the attitude that we bring to Mass that matters, not what form the liturgy is in. It is still THE MASS. Yes Brian there are daydreamers at the normal modern Mass, but when they are asked to respond in English there is more likelihood of their being brought back to attention rather than if they were listening to nothing but a long Latin monologue without being required to make any response.

Barbara, the changes to the fast and abstinence laws weren’t for the purpose of making things easier. If anything they were intended to make things harder. The Church decided to treat the faithful as adults instead of little children who have to be told detailed rules because they don’t know what’s good for them. Each Catholic has to decide what is the most appropriate means of self-denial for himself. People remain perfectly free to use the old rules if they find them more appropriate for self-denial, for strengthening their will against sin and for growth in faith. People who prefer fish to meat found the “meatless Fridays” not a self-denial at all, but a self- indulgence.

Moral matters like abortion and contraception are fundamentally different from the Church’s DISCIPLINARY rules on fast and abstinence. A few decades ago virtually all NON-Catholics disapproved of abortion and contraception. They haven’t changed their minds because the Catholic Church permits meat on Fridays. Any Catholic who changed their mind on contraception and abortion because of this must have mistakenly thought that fasting and abstinence were MORAL matters. My mother relates a sermon by a priest many years before V2, about a woman who bought a meat sandwich and took one bite, then suddenly remembered it was Friday so she threw the rest of the sandwich in the trash. The priest thundered that her waste of good food was a far bigger sin than eating the rest of the sandwich.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.


I obey the 3 hour fast before communion, meatless fridays, abstainance before holy days and during lent.

Meatless Fridays are still in effect (Canon Law 1251), but you may substitute in whole or in part an act of penance for fasting and abstinence according to the Local Bishops Conference. (Canon Law 1253).

The fast before communion was changed from Midnight to Mass in 1953 to three hours and in 1973 to one hour. Even though it is a mere one hour, we can still do the traditional fasts as Barbara does. In fact Pope Pius XII urged us to do that after he changed it to three hours:

We earnestly exhort the priests and faithful who are able to do so to observe the venerable and time-honored form [from midnight] of the Eucharistic fast before the celebration of Mass and the reception of Holy Communion (Indulta a Constitutione Apostolica "Christus Dominus" Extenduntur, March 19, 1957).

That being said, I also think what Eugene said is correct. Surely, many more people broke the fast and thus abstained from communion back in the day than do so now. So on the one hand it may bring more laxity and irreverence to the Eucharist but on the other hand more people present themselves for Communion.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 07, 2004.


A good sandwich! Why would it need to be thrown away? I would've saved it for Saturday. More and more we're presented with these extreme Catholics who throw out the baby and the bathwater. It's no wonder militant secularism has got a toe-hold in Christian countries. Look who's trying to preserve the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.

We will never have unity within the Church until we stop bickering among ourselves as to which mass wins some sort of prize as the "best" mass. ANY form of the Sacred Mass is beautiful..and that includes the Tridentine mass AND the "New Mass" in Latin or the vernacular, or a combination of the two languages.

What divides us is the position which some Catholics take that it is OK to ignore the Church's teachings on ANY issues simply because they don't like them. People who claim to be Catholic and support a pro-choice position, or use contraception, or think it's OK to skip weekly mass, or to receive the Eucharist in mortal sin, or to divorce and re-marry, or to "do" a myriad of other things which are clearly against Church teachings. Or those folks who call themselves Catholics because they subscribe to the "big " issues but feel they have "personal choice" on "smaller" things which go against Church teachings..scattering of human remains, participating actively in other religious services, skipping mass on holy days of obligation, refusing to use a saint's name for baptism, etc. etc. So many other things arise where people say "I'm Catholic BUT.." When Holy Mother Church GIVES a choice, wonderful..when she does NOT, there should be no problem with submitting our will to that of Almighty God, for it is NOT a bunch of people making the "rules" for us to follow, it is God Himself speaking through HIS Church.

Folks seem to have forgotten that.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


I expect you’ll say this is because we are “liberal” and/or don’t go to the 1962 Mass. But there are quite a few people in my parish who are if anything more “liberal” than us, and their kids, the same age as ours, are still avidly practising their faith.

****You are wrong. I don't know you well enough or your whole family life to judge you or make that type of statement. I have never said that the Latin Mass is the best way or the only way to go either.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


A good sandwich! Why would it need to be thrown away? I would've saved it for Saturday. More and more we're presented with these extreme Catholics who throw out the baby and the bathwater. It's no wonder militant secularism has got a toe-hold in Christian countries. Look who's trying to preserve the faith.

Well this particular example of extreme Catholicism was from the 50's, so I don't get your point. Are there alot of Catholics today who would throw out a good sandwich? I doubt it. I wouldn't either. I'd say an extra rosary or give it to an atheist.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 07, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ