To All My Friends Who Attend The Mass Of Paul VI
AKA: the Novus Ordo 'New Mass'
One doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to figure out that the vast majority of folks who visit The Lair are either Traddy Catholics or those who would classify themselves as Conservative Novus Ordo. And I really do consider the latter to be sincere in the shared struggle we all face - just trying to be good, faithful Catholics as best we can.
And with this post, I'm not trying to alienate or piss off anyone who regularly attends the New Mass.
With that said, take a peek at some of this article from The California Catholic Daily; (Emphasis mine)
“They stopped believing”
Survey finds Americans change religions often, says Catholics typically leave Church because of loss of faith
Washington, D.C. -- A new survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Americans change their religious affiliation early and often, and the reasons they give for changing -- or leaving religion altogether -- differ widely depending on the origin and destination of the convert.
Key findings include:
Many people who have left the Catholic Church say they did so because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. This is true for half of Catholics who have become Protestant as well as two-thirds of Catholics who have become unaffiliated. Many fewer say they left because of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
In contrast with other groups, Americans who have switched from one Protestant denominational family (e.g., Baptist, Methodist) to another tend to do so because of changes in life circumstances, such as marriage or moving to a new community. This is stunning. It should come as no big surprise when Protestants switch from one denomination to another, especially in light that just about every Protestant denomination can be summed up in the following three sentences:
Salvation by faith alone.
Personal interpretation of Sacred Scriptures.
Rejection of Papal supremacy.
Presbyterian to Methodist... Episcopalian to Lutheran... in essence, no real difference. They still believe the same basics, the only change is the spelling of their particular denomination.
But look at why Catholics are leaving -- They're rejecting core Catholic beliefs. Allow me to say that once again, but with greater emphasis. THEY'RE. REJECTING. CORE. CATHOLIC. BELIEFS. Any red flags being raised yet?
And with all that in mind, here are a few stats I've pulled from Pat Buchanan's 2002's article Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II by Kenneth C. Jones;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. I think Buchanan put it best; 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. I've heard it so many times: "Catholics won't attend the Latin Mass because they don't understand what's being said". So why is it that pre-Vatican II, most baptized Catholics actually attended Mass and adhered to the very basics of Catholicism, but the same simply cannot be said post-Vatican II.
And as far as the whole English vs Latin debate is concerned, anyone else recall the following passage from Sacred Scripture; They hear, but they don't listen. Could it be because there's 'something' about the Latin Mass that the New Mass is lacking? Or could it be because the New Mass has such a different emphasis than the Latin Mass?
Honestly, I don't understand why so many Catholics can't (won't?) come to grips with the fact that this brief flirtation with Protestantism (the 'Spirit' of Vatican II) has been an absolute and utter disaster.
For those who don't attend the Traditional Latin Mass, I ask you with the greatest humility -- take a new look at the Mass that nurtured and strengthened centuries and centuries of Catholic Saints... and take a new look at the Mass that has Catholics leaving The Church in droves.
AKA: the Novus Ordo 'New Mass'
One doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to figure out that the vast majority of folks who visit The Lair are either Traddy Catholics or those who would classify themselves as Conservative Novus Ordo. And I really do consider the latter to be sincere in the shared struggle we all face - just trying to be good, faithful Catholics as best we can.
And with this post, I'm not trying to alienate or piss off anyone who regularly attends the New Mass.
With that said, take a peek at some of this article from The California Catholic Daily; (Emphasis mine)
Survey finds Americans change religions often, says Catholics typically leave Church because of loss of faith
Washington, D.C. -- A new survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Americans change their religious affiliation early and often, and the reasons they give for changing -- or leaving religion altogether -- differ widely depending on the origin and destination of the convert.
Key findings include:
Many people who have left the Catholic Church say they did so because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. This is true for half of Catholics who have become Protestant as well as two-thirds of Catholics who have become unaffiliated. Many fewer say they left because of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
In contrast with other groups, Americans who have switched from one Protestant denominational family (e.g., Baptist, Methodist) to another tend to do so because of changes in life circumstances, such as marriage or moving to a new community.
Salvation by faith alone.
Personal interpretation of Sacred Scriptures.
Rejection of Papal supremacy.
Presbyterian to Methodist... Episcopalian to Lutheran... in essence, no real difference. They still believe the same basics, the only change is the spelling of their particular denomination.
But look at why Catholics are leaving -- They're rejecting core Catholic beliefs. Allow me to say that once again, but with greater emphasis. THEY'RE. REJECTING. CORE. CATHOLIC. BELIEFS. Any red flags being raised yet?
And with all that in mind, here are a few stats I've pulled from Pat Buchanan's 2002's article Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II by Kenneth C. Jones;
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.
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.
And as far as the whole English vs Latin debate is concerned, anyone else recall the following passage from Sacred Scripture; They hear, but they don't listen. Could it be because there's 'something' about the Latin Mass that the New Mass is lacking? Or could it be because the New Mass has such a different emphasis than the Latin Mass?
Honestly, I don't understand why so many Catholics can't (won't?) come to grips with the fact that this brief flirtation with Protestantism (the 'Spirit' of Vatican II) has been an absolute and utter disaster.
For those who don't attend the Traditional Latin Mass, I ask you with the greatest humility -- take a new look at the Mass that nurtured and strengthened centuries and centuries of Catholic Saints... and take a new look at the Mass that has Catholics leaving The Church in droves.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
3:53 AM
24 Comments:
"And with this post, I'm not trying to alienate or piss off anyone who regularly attends the New Mass."
Cavey, don't worry, you're not. It is those moonbats who rewrite the words & rubrics of the Novus Ordo that piss me off.
We won't even go into the piss-poor translation of the NO foisted off onto us by the ICEL.
Vir,
Do you ever go to sleep?
Excellent post!
Cavey,
I will second FAB. Outstanding post, one of your best!
All I can add is: Folks, walk away from the Novus Ordo. It has given us ZERO fruits (except for a large dose of "Backdoor Cowboys and Protestant-Catholics). Come home to the Mass of the Ages, the Mass of All Time.
Semper Fi
Had our dear Msgr preach at 1st communion Saturday evening and say that "those people back then, they said this was the Body of Christ, but they weren't as sophisticated as we are now."
Had to bite my tongue and grip the pew to keep from jumping up and choking the life out of him. How on earth does he continue to be a priest if he doesn't believe the True Presence?
This is the same Msgr who gives instructions during the Mass to the hundreds if not thousands of Extraordinary Ministers where to stand with the "breads" and the "wine."
Last time I attend that farce, I can tell you that. My son will never know such a worthless priest if I can help it.
Easy there PreVat2. To say that the ordinary form has produced zero fruits is to say that me and others like me have received nothing from Holy Mother Church and are basically baptized pagans. A very brazen statement.
Vir I think the biggest problem is actually the education the children received. Case in point would be the First Communion classes. Nothing was said about the real presence or sacrifice or anything when I went through it in the early 90's. The reason I understood what it was was my dad taught me and I heard the word "sacrifice" every Sunday before the consecration. Following the words of institution also helped me understand.
I am currently teaching teenagers preparing for confirmation and their lack of knowledge astounds me. They don't even know many of the parables that our Lord taught. Even the protestant rebels know those. Its like dealing with blank slates.
I agree with Buchanan. However I don't think the deformation of the liturgy is the root so much as the culmination of all the problems.
Another here-here! You knocked it out of the park witrh that one VSC. The combination of the NO and our generation of 'identity seekers'trying to put their personal mark on things has been a recipe for disaster. 40 years of hindsight paints a very clear picture. We need to get 'Back to the Future' if we want to get the Church straight.
"Hellllloooo...McFly?"
On one hand Cavey, I sympathize a little with those who want the Mass in the vernacular. In the Orthodox it was always in the vernacular so that the people could understand what's going on, aside from the inaudible prayers. All the Vatican had to do was just allow the Mass to be done in the vernacular, it'd be the same Mass just a different language and therefore it'd still have all the mystery. I'm having the same problem with all these phyletist arabs who want a DL in all arabic, all of the time and more than half the congregation doesn't speak arabic! Latin at least is spoken and written like it sounds. They just want to preserve "arabness".
On the other hand, the heretics didn't just want the Mass in the verncular. That was a red-herring. They wanted to destroy the Faith and you start with the Divine Liturgy. The Novus Ordo is the key to that. It was designed to destroy the Church like the radical left are currently destroying our country.
You dont piss me off sir, I love your page. Yet, your logic seems quite off. There are certainly a heck of a lot more to the loss of faith that which mass one attended.
How about that? You instead ruffled the feathers of one of your Protestant readers(though I am looking into Catholic doctrine, have to know it to say I agree or disagree). My issue is with your summary of Protestant denominations. In some sense, you are accurate, but between some denominations (Assemblies of God and Baptist, for example) will not talk to each other under any circumstance, their enmity has grown so great. I do acknowledge though, that there is far less change between most of the Protestants than there is in abandoning Catholicism.
Now to address your 3 sentence summary: many would indeed say the first is true (though I am baffled at the idea of faith that does not change you, it strikes me as useless); I despise that second statement, as it ultimately denies absolute truth; I don't know, I'm inclined to believe you are in the right here (a big part of why I'm looking into the doctrine).
Oh, we've got more than our share of faith being undermined. We have no sense of history, and popular pastors accepting abortion, we lost the fight on divorce ages ago, and a wide rejection of the Bible as true. These afflictions tear at my heart; God have mercy.
Novus Ordo or not, that vision (Pius XII??) of Satan being given 40 years to do what he wills keeps playing in my mind.
I'll say it again: there's more to this than NO. After all, the NO predominates in Africa and the Phillippines which don't have these problems.
Don't forget the influence of material satisfaction, which (in the West) is very influential. In fact, there's a long post on Ignatius Insight from Fr. Jaki which references the "here and now only" eschatology.
48none2 and others,
Always glad to meet another bloglodyte, and I do understand and apppriciate what you're saying, guys.
But I ask you to look at it from this perspective... I'm sure you all remember the none too old saying; "if you worship like a Protestant, don't be shocked when you end up believing as a Protestant".
If the liturgy is grounded in concrete (and is equally concrete in it's understanding of worship and who exactly God is), the the faith of the people will be equally solid. Liturgy that is grounded in quicksand will end up as my posting has already pointed out.
And Dad29, I must disagree with your position re: Africa and the PI. Things are starting to get pretty fouled up there, as well. Just not as quickly as N. America and W. Europe.
Anyhow, I knew this posting might get passions kicked in... I'd just personally like to thank everyone for this not getting nasty. Keep the good comments coming in, gang!
Oops, I almost forgot....Byronfrombyron, welcome aboard. Keep digging, searching and asking questions. God will point you in the right direction.
I'm glad you're here.
We attend the VBS (valid, but stupid) Mass almost exclusively, but I agree with what you've written. When we get a chance, we drive 2 1/2 hours each way to go to the TLM. We are getting a new priest 1 July, and are very excited because he just HAPPENS to be the ONLY priest ordained in our diocese since VII to say the TLM!!! How cool is THAT!!
Access to the TLM is very limited. I would have to drive 250 miles. The Novus Ordo Mass is 0.8 miles away.
I agree with the Orthodoxy Cavey that it is not (just) about Latin. For example, the Old Catholics originally had the Latin Mass in the vernacular. The other thing that made the TLM so sacred was the rigorous rubrics that are lacking in the Novus Ordo Missae. Those rubrics prevented clerical grandstanding.
That said, I believe I posted a remark in the Cave some time ago about the Anglican Use of the (modern) RC liturgy. I have a DVD of the AU mass celebrated at Our Lady of the Atonement RC Church in San Antonio, TX. It is very sacred in its incorporation of the Anglican ethos in RC worship. It is not merely a reformed Novus Ordo, but it is not perfect either--insufficiently Anglican!
Not everything in Anglicanism is Protestant. On the other hand, most of the "Anglican ethos" in worship comes from the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite mass of King Henry VIII's time.
Regarding the three Protestant characteristics, I too must respectfully disagree with the list, at least in part. For example, many Protestants--certainly the Evangelical, non-liturgical folks--believe in JUSTIFICATION by faith (alone), rather than salvation by faith. The "alone" part comes from Luther's mis-translation of St. Paul. And not all evangelicals believe in the doctrine of the Eternal Security of the Believer.
I can understand that many Protestant denominations, including but not limited to the mainline ones, are going down the same "completely secularized" route that too many Catholics are going. At least many of the Evangelicals and Baptist congregations are pretty much preaching a moral theology (apart from divorce and birth control, depending upon the particular congregation) much the same as Catholic moral theology. Deo Gratias!
Nevertheless, it must be asked: "Will the Son of Man find any Faith when He returns?"
I just have to thank God that He has given me the opportunity to worship Him in the Sunday TLM.
I mostly attend Novus Ordo, because the TLM is not as accessible. I seriously have no idea what the "fruits of Vatican II" are supposed to have been.
"...I seriously have no idea what the "fruits of Vatican II" are supposed to have been."
I think they (The fruits of Vatican II" kept many dissenters employed.
The wife and I go to a NO Mass partly due to the behavior of our two autistic sons, aged 5 & 4.
My memories of the TLM (I'm 56) and comments here and on other blogs lead me to believe their boisterous behavior would give us a lot of grief in a setting where hearing a pin drop is considered too much noise.
"Protestant Lite" or not, the NO seems more forgiving of noisy children who CANNOT be quieted (no, it's not a matter of discipline either. Just try caring for even a mildly autistic kid sometime.)
Novus Ordo or not, that vision (Pius XII??) of Satan being given 40 years to do what he wills keeps playing in my mind.I think it was Pope Leo XIII that had a vision that God allowed Satan free reign on earth for 100 years or for the Twentieth Century. I am not exactly sure which. This is why Pope Leo ordered the prayers to be said at the foot of the altar after (low) mass which of course include that beautiful prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. Or so I was taught in Catholic elementary school during my altar boy training. I don't know about the 40 years bit.
Objectively I completely agree with you VSC, No one can argue against it.
The Lex Credendi that is expressed in the NOM is deficient period, and it's not just the pathetic excuse of a translation that we have in the English, the Latin is also deficient. (Valid, but for sure deficient)
VSO is right, we could have avoided all this mess by allowing the TLM to be translated into the vernacular. (There were selective indults granted over the centuries, but much too lazy to look them up)
God willing I'm going to try and get TLM's offered by my house so I don't have to travel as far from my house.
Thanks be to God for Our Pope who freed up the Mass of the Saints
Excellent Post once again.
While liturgical abuse in the NO has certainly played its part in the loss of faith by so many, it is but one element among many. Other factors include, but are not limited to: “Spirit of Vat II” liberalism; open dissent by clergy and laity to Humanae Vitae from 1968 onwards; bad/incomplete catechesis by clergy and laity already weak in their own faith; material prosperity leading to lack of reliance on God and…the work of the Devil…! The list is not exhaustive.
To me the biggest factor in the decline of the past 40 years was open dissent by members of the hierarchy, theologians, priests, nuns and ‘educated’ Catholics. This was unprecedented prior to Vat II. The bad example – scandal, really - this set was an open invitation for the ‘ordinary Catholic’ to start questioning everything - and they did! It was open season on the Truths of the Faith.
Was there dissent before Vat II? Of course - and we have the heresies to prove it. But dissent was contained and dealt with firmly. Dissenting theologians and other clerics were censured or removed so as not to infect the faith of the people. And if a priest or bishop himself had doubts or lacked faith, he was careful not to impose his failings on others for fear of giving scandal.
All that changed with the ‘openness’ of Vat II - and came to a head in 1968. To anyone who lived through those years, this was shocking. Pope Paul VI was vilified - not just by theologians but by bishops, Cardinals and National Episcopal Conferences. Papal Infallibility was questioned, the authority of the Successor of Peter was undermined and things went downhill from there.
But is this really unique? The Holy Father once remarked that after most Major Councils of the Church there followed decades of turmoil and confusion. Remember too that the Great Schism lasted about 40 years…and the Church survived that as She will survive this and the future trials that will inevitably come.
When the clergy have rejected core Catholic beliefs then of course the laity will do so as well.
After all the priests cannot pass on the faith if they do not have it themselves.
Only difference is the laity aren't getting paid to keep been Catholic unlike the clergy.
So the laity who lose the Faith leave while the unbelievers in the clergy hang around and pretend or brazenly admit it while refusing to give up their priestly privileges.
Can't believe people don't see the "fruits" of Vatican II all around them--that's about all that's left in our local parishes. Well, fruits AND nuts, I suppose.
GOR makes excellent poitns and I agree. Unfortunately, I think maybe Christine either was born after or at least very young during Vat2 so she doesn't know how devout the old Mass was or how strongly most people knew and believed the teachings of the Church.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home