Templar left this as a comment on the post below this one, but I thought it worthy of a real post. What do you think?
Which Mass (OF or EF) forms better Catholics?
Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact; fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a
good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.
Given these alarming statistics and surveys, one wonders why the American bishops ignore the profound crisis that threatens the very existence of the Church in America. After all, there can be no Church without priests, no Church without a laity that has children and practices the Catholic Faith.
Yet at their annual conferences, the bishops gather to issue weighty statements about nuclear weapons and the economy. Then they return home to "consolidate" parishes and close down schools.
As Cardinal Ratzinger said, the post-Vatican II period "has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church." This Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is an attempt to chronicle the continuing crisis, in the hope that a compilation of the grim statistics-----in a clear, objective, easy to understand manner-----will spur action before it is too late.
-----Kenneth C. Jones, January 2003
For reference and to see the statistics on Ordination Fall Off; Parish Closing increases; Decline in Nuns, Brothers and Parochial Schools etc, please go to this website: (It has comparable numbers for the decline in the UK too).
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/statistics.htm
Now, which Mass do you think forms better Catholics?
32 comments:
I am honored to have a comment elevated to a post Father. Thank you.
Excellent post, Templar. And the following question suggested is also worthy of a post:
"Given these alarming statistics and surveys, one wonders why the American bishops ignore the profound crisis that threatens the very existence of the Church in America."
Seriously, Father M, what would be a plausible reason for our bishops' blind eye to the problem?
Henry, I think there are those in the Church, lay and clergy, who think things would have been much worse if the reforms had not taken place. I find that a bit implausible, but there is statistical evidence of a slide already taking place in Europe prior to Vatican II and somewhat in the USA, but the USA has always be tardy in following European trends, such as "secularism" which we seem to be embracing today with a vengeance. I personally believe that if we had just kept the updated 1965 missal and not allowed for all the silly experimentation that was in fact allowed by the hierarchy after Vatican II that we might well be in a better place today, but we won't know that until we're on the other side of the Second Coming. But I think many bishops are in denial about what has occurred and find don't really know how to handle or address it.
Father,
It seems to me you address mainly why the present situation is so bad, in particular, whether it was caused by the newer form of liturgy.
But it could be argued that the liturgy is an effect rather than the cause of the decline of faith and discipline. Or that, whether or not keeping the 1962 or 1965 liturgy would have been better, the 1969 liturgy could still have sustained the faith if it had been implemented properly.
In any event, an independent question is why most of our bishops are in denial about the indisputable collapse of devotion, faith, morality, and worship in the Church -- independent of what the cause may be.
It just seems like at some point the Church in America and Europe has to consider the dilemma between (a) having a bunch of people who claim to be Catholic while not actually believing or living as Catholics, or (b) having a smaller number of very dedicated, believing, and practicing Catholics. It seems like many of the reforms in the Church sought to keep those members of group (a) at least tangentially involved in an effort to perhaps straighten them out later. That choice obviously marginalizes those in group (b) who recognize that pandering to those in group (a) transforms the Church in identity to be more like group (a) itself.
I hope that makes sense. The bottom line is the Church went after the lost sheep and, instead of bringing them back to the fold, the Church became lost (in a sense) herself.
We trust, however, that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church through all this. So, it'll turn out all right (at some point)!
"But we won't know that until we are on the other side", is truthful except for the facts that the statistics from people saying they left the Church directly as a result from the implementation of the new Mass. Most are our parents and Grandparents who do not take part in surverys, they just tell us why they left the Church. TO continue to state it most likely would have happened anyway due to secularism is to fly in the face of everyone who knows someone who left the faith BECAUSE of the new Mass and the way it was implemented. They continue to go unvalidated. Very sad and unfortunate.
I have my "feelings" on certain things that happened to Catholics during the 1960's of which Vatican II certainly plays a huge part, but there was also the sexual revolution and the pill. My parent's generation, those who would be in their 90's and 100's now if living, were very much "discipline oriented, obligation bound and obedient to authority and viewed church leaders as smarter than they." Their children, my age, 50's and older, rebelled against their parent's respect for authority, any authority, but also Church authority, being "duty bound" and basing one's religious observance on "obligation" rather than "feelings." My age group and older became the "me" generation, not because of Vatican II, but because of the secular culture that influenced religious dispositions. Our generation in secular and religious circles were challenged to question everything and everyone. Why go to Mass every Sunday when I didn't feel like it? Why sing only religious music? Why all the formality? Can't we just sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya? Can't we all just be hippies? The drug culture gives us a high that religion doesn't and Harri Krishna is so much more radical than Catholicism. So I believe it's the generation now in their late 50's and older that left the practice of the Mass in rebellion to their parents and this 50's and older generation was very lax in handing on the faith to their children in any "disciplined, organized way at home" allowing the catechetical materials of the 60's, 70's and 80's to deconstruct their children's faith. Their children don't practice because they see no point, there was no substance to what they were taught.
I might add, that my generation of Catholics stopped going to Mass when they bought into the sexual revolution and starting living more promiscuous lives, used the pill and were mistreated in "confession" sometimes chastised and yelled at by the older generation of priests who thought the more authoritarian way of ministry that worked on their parents would work on the children of these parents.
It is more than just the Mass that has resulted in the state of the Church today. Their has been an attack on the traditional orthodox Catholic faith, the Novus Ordo was just the final step in this massive restructuring of the faith. What I mean by this is that in the old faith, the Church applied the sacramental system to not only as an instrument of Grace but as a instrument of teaching. The faith was taught not only by preaching, and catechizing, but by the use of imagery. Go to any Cathedral or Basilica in Rome and you will see the faith screaming at you from all sides, problem is we have lost the understanding, or should I say the form of symbolic teaching was slowly taken away. Our sight is the most powerful sense, while the apostles listened to what our Lord said to them, without observing how our Lord lived His life and the miracles He performed, the faith would have been incomplete. Our Lord used His actions, and performed miracles to teach the faith, the Church of the past understood this more than today. Proof in this is to take any average Catholic or even a well educated Catholic to one of these Basilica and ask them to define the images they see, would they understand the meaning of the Baldachinno, the image of a snake shedding it’s skin, the reason the Baptistery’s, Baptismal tubs and fonts are eight sided, etc etc… unfortunately most would not. The imagery of the Latin Mass, and Church design for that Mass sent strong messages, the alter rails, and alter screens, gave us a better understanding of the separation of the divine and human, the alter was a sacred place, a glimpse of heaven, the alters themselves transmit the message that our Lord is great, beautiful, loving, and we should approach with reverence and love, understanding our unworthiness to even be there, but to be so thankful that God has made it possible for us to approach Him. With the open alter area it send the opposite message that some how we are equal to God, and the divine is no different than the human. In the old Mass we approached our Lord in communion with reverence, we knelt before the gates of heaven, and witnessed our God humble Himself out of love to come down from heaven and became man for our salvation. Kneeling shows respect, honor, humility, and a proper posture in recognizing who God is. Standing and stuffing it in our hand, tends to put ourselves on an equal footing with God, again a wrong signal. If you want to understand why church attendance is down, and that so many Catholics no longer recognize our Lord in the Eucharist, it is because the Church has had those symbols and images of the supernatural understanding of the faith removed from church design. Our worship has had the sacred deemphasized. If we can stand to greet our Lord, it says we are equal to Him, if we kneel we are acknowledging our sinfulness, and our love, and that He is great and good. Just my thoughts and observations.
I suspect the reasons for declining church attendance are far more complex and varied than changes in the liturgy.
With a loss of a sense of community, brought on by (1) the Enlightenment idea of individualism taken to an extreme, especially in our American Experiment; and (2) the exceptional relative wealth and material comfort of Western societies, which enhances the notion of individualism, we have seen a decline in the sense of "community" that must undergird any sense of being Catholic (or Baptist, or Episcopalian, or Methodist, etc).
Robert Bellah and his team produced an extraordinary sociological study that, for my money, is the best "explanation" of what is going wrong in our culture: "Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Committment in American Life."
Another fine survey of how Americans think and, therefore, act, is Louis Menand's "Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America."
Alexander Bain's definition of belief is "That upon which a man is prepared to act." If a person does not believe that he/she is part of a community, that person will not act in/with/for community.
Catholics in the 1940's believed they were part of a community and acted upon that belief - they went to mass, joined sodalities, got "degreed" in the KofC, became Jaycees, Rotarians, Exchange Clubbers, etc.
I don't think they got their sense of being part of a community from the liturgy celebrated at that time, but from a sense of common purpose in the larger society. If anything, the liturgy of the 1940's encouraged individual piety expressed in a room where 500 other Catholics were expressing their religious individualism.
Do we get people back in the pews by celebrating the mass of Blessed John XXIII? No. We get them there by helping them to understand one of the most fundamental human truths - that we are created to live in community. "It is not good for the man to be alone..."
All the more reason the Church should have stood steadfast to what they had through the storm until people camme to their senses again. Now when they do, they come back to Church and find something unrecognizable all too often. Even if it didn't cause it, this discussion helps me to see all the more that the Church should have maintained her course and not cave in to the secular world around it. So even seeing both sides of the arguement, people would have left either way, but what they can come back to is now totally different and often disorienting. It is not like coming home, and how that was good for the People of God is beyond me. The Church catered to one group and then suddenly along with the tides catered to another. The 60's did end and people are looking at things differently now. But they did not end in many Church sectors yet.
Anon - I don't think we have come to a point where we can say "people are looking at things differently now." I think we have become more individualistic in the last 50 years, a trend that will continue unabated for many decades to come.
The polarization we have seen in politics, both civil and ecclesial, is an example of our inability to approach serious questions with a sense of common purpose. A former president of Catholic University described the students there in the 80's and 90's as "Ruggies" - Rugged Individualists. Preppies disappeared and ruggies came along.
If people come back to a church where they can find meaning for their lives, in the material and spiritual senses, they will stay. If we can offer these people what they cannot find elsewhere, that being a sense of holy purpose, they will stay. And they will stay whether the mass is celebrated in Latin or English - or Japanese or Swahili.
Mega-Churches have prospered not because they help people find this common purpose - building up the kingdom of God - but because they cater to individuals wants. People want to feel good, people want to be free from serious moral obligations, people want to be much "freer" (individually) than what they experienced in, say, the Catholic Church. Example: They want to be free to divorce and re-marry.
We shall see...
As we can see, many pressures have been put on society, that have lead to where we are to day. Frajm has probably hit the nail on the head, and pater ignotus also bring to light a valid point about the greed and the “me” (selfish) society we live in today. This is why what the Church let be push forward after Vatican II is confusing to say the least. Obviously their was a need to become more pastoral, but not to the detriment of the souls of the Church. Just when it was necessary to proclaim the truths of Christ, the Church went into a reduction mode, almost like they did not know where they where headed, we lost direction and focus. The liturgy is the first place to start, to restore a proper focus and direction for the Church. The Church must proclaim with all her might and wisdom, in all ways (art, architecture, liturgy, preaching, catechism, living out) the truths of the Gospel as the Church has received over the centuries. The truth cannot be pushed aside for pastoral reasons, doing that is evil and not pastoral in any way. We may loose even more members, but the Pope has already said it is more important to have a holier church than the largest. It is time to prune the branches, both religious and laity. It is obviously clear the Church taken the pastoral aspect to the extreme. Rogue priest, radical laity, who both defy Church teaching without hesitation, which brings, damage and confusion to the faithful. The Church has to put her foot down and dig in for a long battle, she is already under siege from society, and those who attack from the inside need to be brought back or cut loose. She needs faithful, strong, and obedient Saints to win the day. Christ promised we would win, but at what cost, how many souls will be lost, while the Church searches for strength and direction.
Pater Ignotus, I just wanted to post and say that I agree with every word of your post at 1055AM.
I been among your critics here, so I just wanted to say that on this occasion we are in agreement.
Whoops, sorry I meant to say the 1157AM post. The 1055AM post I could quibble with. :-)
I agree with Pater's analysis...however, my impression is that he is comfortable just riding with the social/ecclessiological trend and "let the good times roll," and I am not. Also, calling any but a very select few "rugged individualists" in this culture is a joke. Roughing it for most of these modern day sister boys is when the IPOD won't work or the Playstation is down...well, Starbuck's could be closed, as well...total disaster. Pater, I like it much better when you engage in the type of analytical/philosophical dialogue above rather than going after Fr. or, indirectly, the Pope. You get one "attaboy." But, remember, one "Oh,S---!" erases all the previous attaboys.
With the Incarnation as the fundamental Christian reality, it is precisely in and through the "trends" of human existence that salvation is made known and made present. Think about it: Jesus Christ, our Lord and guide, was crucified, suffering the heinous agony of that terrible execution. It was in and through that human experience, with its terror and pain, that salvation was accomplished.
God didn't wait around for Latin to become the language of the liturgy, or for some clever university milliner to say, "Here, Father, wear this biretta, it will make you look (snicker) holy!" God didn't wait for priests to turn away from their congregations, turn back to them, and then turn away again. For heaven's sake. God works IN human history, as messy as it can be.
You can try to create your "smaller, holier" Catholic Church, but you will fail. History is full of collapsed utopias - Heritage Village USA comes to mind - and they all fell apart for the same reason. They tried to corral grace.
The dictum is: Grace Builds On Nature. When you try to do an end-run around nature and expect it to be "graced" by God, you miss the point. Where we are as a Church, right here and now, is where salvation is being accomplished. Whether the opening song at mass is Kumbaya, Dona Nobis Pacem, or A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, it is in and through the human nature of the congregations and individuals that the Blood of the Lamb is washing away sins.
I am not merely "riding" some trend. I am being saved in the midst of this trend and I am doing my(our) Baptismal duty to share what I have received with others.
pater ignotus, while it is true God works in human history is true, but today human history wants to control God and put Him in the place they want and not accepting where he is. The Church established its worship and understanding by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit can't all of a sudden strip the Church of what it gave to her. Just when I think you get it you say something’s that resonate the problem we are in. You sound relativistic, and protestant, not Catholic. You almost seem to resent the patrimony of the Church. We are Catholic and that means we have traditions and practices that have served the Church well for centuries, we don't do away with what the Lord has given us precisely by working in human history.
Pater, there is this thing called, "Salvation History," which goes on underneath and between the lines of the history we read about and in which we live. History is not redeemed, we are. You may want to give Augustine's, "The City of God," another read. Interestingly, when he wrote it, the Hun was banging on the doors. God works through history, but His will is not predicated upon it. I think you miss the point about the Latin Mass, Birettas, chausables, etc. When we go to Mass, we seek to be raised above the history you mention. Christ, by redeeming us, has lifted us out of book and newspaper history...we do not see it yet, but we will. We remain within it, but are no longer bound to it. You may also want to give the Apostle Paul another look.
Latin, ad orientum, and others of the gifts which the Church has been given can serve to remind us of our "set apartness" and increase in us the contemplative aspects of the Prayer. This is a good thing and I believe we should avail ourselves of it. The Church's future could well be in Her past (see Hosea).
P.I., certainly you jest when you imply that the "unreformed" Latin Mass is not "incarnational." I think that boarders on heresy! Both forms of the one Latin Rite are incarnational, not because of what human beings are doing in worship, including the priest, but because of our risen Lord Jesus who was conceived in the Flesh and became man. What seminary did you go to? All the sacraments, no matter which form, if validly celebrated are actions of God!
Good Father, your lack of sound training in Catholic theological thought, which you have trumpeted here not a few times when decrying the poor education you received at St. Mary's, Baltimore, is showing.
The Incarnation does not exist without humanity or humans. When you say "Both forms of the one Latin Rite are incarnational, not because of what human beings are are doing in worship, including the priest, but because of our risen Lord Jesus who was conceived in the flesh and became man" you are dangerously diminishing, albeit naively, the human side of the mystery of the Incarnation.
You are right until you exclude the absolute necessity of humanity in (1) the Incarnation itself, and (2) the humans, priests and laity, who celebrate the sacraments today.
The mass is an Incarnational event for TWO reasons. Exclude either, and you step away from Catholic Tradition. Reason #1: Jesus took on human flesh some 2000 years ago. Reason #2: The Incarnate Jesus is made present in and through the humans who celebrate the sacraments today.
There is no mass without humans. If the human priest does not say "This is my Body" and "This is my blood" there is no presence of Christ under the forms of bread and wine. The Incarnation, without the priest through whom God acts in changing the elements, is meaningless, at least in terms of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
No, Good Father, there are no sacraments apart from the humans who celebrate them. How is a baby baptized if no one pours the water? How is a sick person anointed if no priest smears oil on head and hands? How is a priest ordained if no bishop lays his hands on the candidate's head?
You are, of course, correct when you say both forms of the mass are Incarnational. But you err by overemphasizing the Divine at the expense of the Human in the celebration of the sacraments.
Both are required; both are essential.
No where in my comment do I deny that Jesus is true God and true man and that the Church is anything other than Divine and human, combined as it is in Jesus Himself. In fact the Church as Cardinal Avery Dulles has pointed out is the Sacrament of Jesus. What I was challenging is your notion that the reformed Mass is more incarnational than the unreformed. It's incarnational or its not, it is superlative and cannot be more than what it is like perfect can't be more perfect. The actions of the Mass are from the Risen Lord who continues to be true God and true Man who has given us the human signs that enable us to worship Him.
Pater, if you want to play theological gotcha',you need to be much clearer yourself. God does not "need" us in the ontological sense. The fact that he chose in his freedom to become Incarnate of the Virgin Mary in no way predicates His choice upon any need for us. Having made the choice, then our participation in the Incarnation is pure gift, nothing more. Now, you come dangerously close to saying that, without humans, there is no Trinity. The Holy Trinity in its three Persons exists from eternity. Had God chosen never to create the world or to enter it throught the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Trinity would still exist from Eternity, in blessed communion all Persons together. So, which are you...Monophysist, Docetist, Manichee...gee, so many choices, so little time.
Heritage USA failed because they tried to corral the Grace of God? If we're talking about the same Heritage USA, which I believe was Jim Bakker's failed Protestant Theme Park, it failed because of his sex scandal; the revocation of his tax exempt status; and hurricane damage to the facility. It didn't fail because they tried to corral the Grace of God, because it never had the Grace of God which comes to us through the Sacraments, which the Protestants lack.
While I certainly do not deny that Jesus was Man and God, I do not buy the notion that God works through nature, human or otherwise. Human nature is sinful, and nature-nature is paganism. God works through his Church, established by his Son, and without which, there is no salvation. His Grace comes to us through the Sacraments provided by the Clergy of his Church and with the exception of the divine mystery of grace received through perfect contrition, only through those sacraments.
We are born to know, love and serve God, and the idea that how we know, love and serve him does not matter is alien to me. It does therefore matter how the Liturgy is said. Poor service to God, like poor service in a restaurant, gets noticed. It is our job to be in this world but not of this world. Or mission is conversion and salvation of souls by bringing them into the Catholic Faith, and making that Catholic Church as pure, holy reverent and orthodox as we can.
The dictum "Grace builds on Nature" means we can change, overcome our sinful nature and accept Christ. It doesn't mean that "in and through" the humanity in the pews that we are saved. It is through the Sacraments, received through the Catholic Church, established by Christ, as the Will of God, that we are saved. Other than opening our heats, minds, and souls to receive that Grace does humanity enter into it.
The mass, having a divine and a human element, can have "superlative" expressions of the Truth it contains. This is the argument you have made repeatedly in banging the drum for the EF mass as a "better" expression of Truth. To argue now that ANY mass is equally effective in making Truth known to the people in the pews is a complete reversal of your EF M.O.
We humans are an essential part of the mass. Without us there could be no mass. To deny the human element of the celebration of the sacraments because you want to emphasize the divine is just plain silly.
Every heresy is a Truth taken to an extreme.
And yes, I do hold that the OF is better at making the mystery of the Incarnation known than the EF.
Pater, I have heard no one argue that the EF is a better expression of the Truth. That is your interpretation of what has been said.
Pater, your statement that in "the Liturgy of the 1940's there were just 500 Catholics each expressing his own "religious individualism" is ludicrous. I know that you know better than that and that your zeal for modernism and post Vat II thinking has fogged your brain. Or, maybe you are really a Baptist masquerading on this blog as a Priest. Also, to compare Heritage USA, for heaven's sake, with any aspect of Catholic worship or community is an insult and another embarrassment coming from a Priest...yeah,a Baptist...no, wait a Methodist...that's it! A Methodist...have you read their revised mission statement lately....
Pin - I compared Heritage USA, an attempt at building a Christian utopia, with any such attempt that may be taken by Catholics today. It is an apt comparison.
Good Father McDonald has consistently argued that the EF is a better expression of Truth of our salvation.
P.I. I have always qualified my remarks concerning the EF and the OF that both are two expression of the one Roman Rite. Within the context of the OF Mass, there are a variety of ways to celebrate it with high solemnity or low solemnity. To say that one OF that is a sung Mass and thus shows greater solemnity and reverence is not to denigrate a daily OF Mass where nothing is sung and it is over in 20 minutes. For Sunday I would prefer the "high" experience. In terms of the rubrics of the EF Mass, I would say that it lends itself to being more visually reverent than the OF Mass. I find it true for me as I celebrate it and I've had numerous parishioners, many of whom prefer the OF Mass say that the EF Mass is more reverent looking when celebrated. Now the advantage I have over you is that I celebrate both and see the benifits of both and do not in any way hinder those who would like the EF Mass from having it although I might prefer the OF for the majority of the time, which we do very wonderfully here and in a most solemn fashion. But both are allowed and be it far from me to impose my preferences on the significant small number who love the EF Mass. I'm happy to allow them to grow in their faith in this fashion or see to it that someone celebrates it for them. Now how about you?
Pater, You are setting up artificialities. No one in the Catholic Church is trying to set up a "Christian Utopia." That is just a stupid statement. No one could possibly confuse a desire and appreciation for the Ef and a return to some of the more traditional forms of worship and reverence for wanting to create a Catholic Utopia. You been keeping Thomas More under your pillow or something?
Pater, would you break down the elements that you see that make the OF more incarnational. As a lay person who grew up with the OF, then experiencing the EF for the first time in 2007, I would disagree with your position. By participating more intensely in the EF because the Mass is being prayed we enter into the mystery of Christ more deeply, experience the incarnation more personally. The architecture of the old Churches expresses the incarnation more fully. The main Alter (Tabernacle in place) the Alter rails give us a sense both visually and spiritually of the divine and human aspects you express. When we receive communion kneeling at the rails before the Alter, an image and profound message is sent, God who reigns in heaven, humbles himself out of love for his creation (man) comes down from heaven to become man. Gives of Himself unconditionally, and call us to receive Him, we being thankful and loving of our Lord kneel before him in humility and gratitude for this great act of love. Catholic teaching tells us the Alter is a glimpse of heaven, in the EF there is a clear divide between heaven and earth. We the faithful are on earth seated in the Nave (ship, the Church) on a journey to obtain salvation and be with our Lord in heaven. When receiving the Eucharist across the rails we can see clearly the relationship between the divine and human. God who lives in heaven comes down to earth to be with us. When I walk into many modern Churches this message is not present. The alter area no longer has the sense of the sacred, and with the tabernacle no longer in the alter area it is not. There is no way on earth one can look at some of these disasters called churches and gain one once of Catholic teaching on the incarnation or much else for that matter. Old churches teach from the minute you walk in, you know where you are, and what it is for, the faith is all around you, sets a mood and tone proper to worship God. A convention room at the Marriott is not capable of doing the same thing. Gee, I wonder why???
Post a Comment