***“Amazing that fifty years ago Catholics were a biblically literate and latin literate group. They regularly used toughie words.”
and then came the New Mass, and families disappeared from church and withdrew their kids from Catholic schools and put them in public schools. Now we’re illiterate. No surprise there.***
Actually, that’s not the way it happened. I was there. The New Mass did not cause the Church to lose attendance. It was caused by the shortage of Catholic schools. Immediately after WWII when our veterans returned from overseas, there was an immense shortage of homes. The suburbs expanded almost overnight, often without space for enough Catholic churches and schools.
The result was a whole generation of children, many of whom never received proper education in the Mass. I recall my father advising our Pastor just before the end of the war that it was time to expand the school because there would be an influx of veterans’ children needing a Catholic education. The Pastor just didn’t believe it would happen. It HAPPENED. And it happened all over the country.
The New Mass was a Godsend to the children of the fifties who hadn’t had the advantage of instruction in the Latin Mass. Then came the sixties, drugs, immorality and the “new” sexual freedom. Fewer and fewer young adults and their teenagers attended Mass. Please, blame it on the sixties and the drug culture, and the shortage of Catholic schools in the fifties, not the New Mass.
After twelve years of Catholic school education, including the Latin Mass, I enjoy knowing that any one who walks into my church today can understand what both the priest and the congregation are saying even though most schools have stopped teaching Latin. I do not object to the Latin Mass for those who have sufficient training in Latin. I do think the English Mass attracts those who don’t.
And to do away with Latin is to sever the continuity of the Catholic Church down through the ages. Since the Church is around for the long haul, it makes sense to employ a language that will be the same 500 years from now, when "modern English" will be as incomprehensible to us as Chaucer.
Coming from the Episcopal Church and the majestic, poetic language of Cranmer's prayer book, to say I was put off by the English Mass is an understatement. Not to mention that in places the translation is laughably inaccurate. (How anybody managed to get "and also with you" out of "et cum spiritu tuo" is one of the mysteries of the age).
However, the nuts in the Episcopal Church had done their part to prepare us for the English Mass, by abolishing Cranmer's language and instituting a flat, dead Modern Englishspeak translation that is almost word for word the same as the Catholic version. I think this was a liberal ecumenical plot, but the Lord brings good out of evil.
This renegade Episcopalian thinks that this bishop should go pound sand. If 7 year olds can read and understand the 17th century English of Archbishop Cranmer, they (and their parents) will manage "consubstantial" just fine.
“I do not object to the Latin Mass for those who have sufficient training in Latin. I do think the English Mass attracts those who don’t.”
Attending Mass was the training in Latin that many millions of Catholics had for well over 1000 years.Most of these folks had never seen the inside of a school room.
In the early and mid ‘60s these “children of the fifties” and forties were still faithfully attending Mass. The statistics clearly show that Mass attendance started dropping after the introduction of English into the Mass in the mid-sixties when so many of our pastors and bishops lied to us by saying that Latin had been outlawed.
With the adoption of the Novus Ordo Mass in 1969, the abandonment of Catholic Sacred Music, the physical destruction of our churches (removal of Communion rails, statues, altars, etc.), much of the green growth of young Catholicism was successfully severed from its roots and largely disappeared.
The English 1969 Mass with its banal OCP pop-slop attracts very few.
I would bet that there are more ex-Catholics in my community than there are practicing Catholics.
You wrote:
“Actually, that’s not the way it happened.”
Yeah, actually it is.
“I was there. The New Mass did not cause the Church to lose attendance.”
It’s not the only reason, but it is a major factor - and still is.
“It was caused by the shortage of Catholic schools.”
No.
“Immediately after WWII when our veterans returned from overseas, there was an immense shortage of homes. The suburbs expanded almost overnight, often without space for enough Catholic churches and schools.”
Irrelevant. Ever notice how many families send their kids to Catholic schools but DO NOT attend Mass on Sundays? That’s actually quite common.
“The result was a whole generation of children, many of whom never received proper education in the Mass.”
Again, no. Yes, there was a shortage of Catholic schools. catholics schools back east combatted that by having two different sessions in one day. The diocese combatted that by creating a massive CCD network. Clearly the shortage of Catholic schools was NOT the problem. There were almost no Catholic schools in America before the 1840s yet Mass attendance was DRAMATICALLY higher than today. Your explanation makes no sense. Go to many parishes today and you might discover that the most devout Catholic kids are often the ones NOT GOING to Catholic schools.
“I recall my father advising our Pastor just before the end of the war that it was time to expand the school because there would be an influx of veterans’ children needing a Catholic education. The Pastor just didn’t believe it would happen. It HAPPENED. And it happened all over the country.”
Yes, and thousands of Catholic schools were built in the 1950s and 1960s. And that all ground to a halt shortly after Vatican II. Coincidence?
“The New Mass was a Godsend to the children of the fifties who hadn’t had the advantage of instruction in the Latin Mass.”
Nonsense. If it was a Godsend then that generation would be faithful. That generation, however, is NOT very faithful overall.
“Then came the sixties, drugs, immorality and the “new” sexual freedom. Fewer and fewer young adults and their teenagers attended Mass. Please, blame it on the sixties and the drug culture, and the shortage of Catholic schools in the fifties, not the New Mass.”
I’ll blame all of them - because all were blameworthy in that regard.
“After twelve years of Catholic school education, including the Latin Mass, I enjoy knowing that any one who walks into my church today can understand what both the priest and the congregation are saying even though most schools have stopped teaching Latin.”
(sigh) After twelve years of Catholic school education, you should be smart enough to know a literate person could always know what the priest is saying by looking in his missal!!! Why not spit out some other sill caricature? Here’s what I know: after 12 years of Catholic education and even more years attending both the Latin Mass and the New Mass at the same time, I know that the average Latin Mass goer knows the Mass, the Faith and the doctrines of the Catholic Church BETTER than even many well educated New Mass goers. Why is that do you think?
“I do not object to the Latin Mass for those who have sufficient training in Latin.”
In your missal IT IS IN ENGLISH. You need no training in Latin as all to follow along. Usually it takes a person - new to the Latin Mass - about three visits to figure out what is going on. After that they get it just fine. I have introduced many people to the Latin mass, including whole families, over the last 14 years and they’ve been transformed by it. None of them had significant problems understanding it or getting it. Give them a missal, show them how to use it, and they get it down in just a few visits. It’s really no different for people going to the New Mass. They have to go to Mass several times to figure out what is happening when. The difference is that I can guarantee that a person going to the Latin Mass will learn more and better theology than the person going to the average New Mass. Period.
“I do think the English Mass attracts those who don’t.”
The Latin Mass is attracting a lot of people who have NEVER, EVER studied Latin a single day in their lives. Explain that. Can you?
I think you’re being short sighted. The New Mass - as our pope has admitted - was an inorganic liturgy forcible imposed upon an unprepared laity. It was NOT envisioned by Vatican II, it was asked for by Vatican II, and Pope Paul VI probably knew it was a mistake after he issued it - or so say those who have examined his words and actions in this regard. The New Mass is better than no Mass. That doesn’t mean it is as good as the old Mass. Quite frankly how could it be when it isn’t what Vatican II wanted, it is so poorly translated that it still isn’t even approved by the Vatican and it is known to have helped drop Mass attendance through the floor.
All the training in Latin you need, just $59.95 (postage not included)