Posted on 03/07/2005 10:01:29 AM PST by Cato1
Where are you figures to disprove them?
We can argue about some minor points, but not about the fact that just after the Council there was an enormous exponential increase in the number of child sex abuse cases reported throughout the 60s and 70s and much of the 80s. Your original claim was that the Council had nothing to do with pedophilia. The graph shows it had much to do with it. It took decades for the postconciliar American Church to get a handle on the problem. Look again at the graph. It is not until almost the end of the decade of the 80s--in 1987--that the rate of reported incidents subsides to the highest level of the 50s.
Hi, Sink. Welcome back. "Normative Mass" again is it? When did they find the signature of Paul VI on the introductory document? In fact, it was never promulgated by him. Nor was the old Mass ever abrogated. Just a few sleight-of-hand tricks by modernists--par for the course these days.
"Ninety-nine percent of Mass attending Catholics in 2005 would not choose to attend a Tridentine Mass on a regular basis."
As one who worked for a number of years in the market research field - that's the poll & survey business - for a nationally known pollster orgaization, your argument has more holes then swiss cheese.
Even assuming that you are correct (which may well not be) you leave out one tiny detail: they are going to a NO mass. Unless they are automatons, they would nto be pew sitting of a Sunday morning if they did not want to be there.
So, you respondant base for your "survey" is skewed - to say the least. You are ignoring the elephant in the living room - namely all those masses of people who have voted with their feet, and either go elsewhere on Sunday (other then a NO church), or who just stay home.
If one were to conduct a national survey - having a very large respondant base, which includes both regular NO churchgoers, those who go to some other type of church (Catholic or Orthodox), and those who stay home - you will get quite a different answer.
I will not hazard any wild guesses, but it would be a reasonable assumtion that those who would identify themselves as being Catholic - and continue to identify themselves in this manner - would probably have a majority in favor of the return of the TLM.
One must logically assume that if they consider themselves Catholic, yet do not attend the NO - then they must have some objection to some or all of its aspects. Conversly, it is reasonable to assume that those who do attend the NO must if not "like" it, at least accept it to a greater or lesser degree - else they would not go.
One must also clearly understand that the percentage of Catholics who attend mass on Sunday has dropped to a fraction of what it was 40 years ago - despite a rise in the numbers of those who would claim to be Catholic.
Compared to 40 years ago, there are many tiems fewer masses being offered. In in those being offered, in all too many cases the number of empty pews is on the rise. And the heads which fill them are increasingly bald or white haired. DUe to population shifts, there are some areas which have seen a type of "false growth"......which in reality is just due to migration of pelple from one locale to another. BUT - nobody has replaced them in the churches which they abandoned.
SO.......back to your thesis: you say 99% of those who go to mass would choose not to attend a TLM on a regular basis. Maybe so. But right now there are more Catholics either going elsewhere on Sunday or staying home, then attending the Novus Ordo Missae.
The major problem with your thesis, my friend, is that it ignores the elephant in the middle of the living room...............
You spent an entire post fulminating, but you come back to agreeing with me.
But right now there are more Catholics either going elsewhere on Sunday or staying home, then attending the Novus Ordo Missae.
True. But, there's no evidence Catholics who are bass fishing on Sunday mornings would give up bass fishing for the TLM.
I will not hazard any wild guesses, but it would be a reasonable assumtion that those who would identify themselves as being Catholic - and continue to identify themselves in this manner - would probably have a majority in favor of the return of the TLM.
That's a hazardous guess, since there are millions upon millions of Catholics who are completely unfamiliar with the TLM.
Yep. Missal of Paul VI, 1970. We've had three GIRMs since 1970, and not a single peep out of the Vatican about the Mass of Pius V, except that it should be more widely available (a position with which I agree).
But, there's no indication that the TLM will replace the Mass of Paul VI, anytime soon.
Five candidates to the permanent diaconate program, and one candidate to the priesthood.
I recruit, aggressively, to the vocation for which there are the most candidates.
How can it be normative if it was never officially promulgated and the Tridentine Mass was never officially abrogated? There was no papal signature. That is a fact. Can Curia cardinals decide such things? I don't think so. Somebody goofed.
Anyone who reads my post with an objective mind will se that I not only diasagreed with you, but that I clearly showed why you were wrong.
And as to those millions of people.............most of them are unfamiliar with the Novus Ordo as well, as they have given up on the faith - because it was not being taught or practiced by the clergy.
Since the "hold" the Church traditionally had on people has been lost in the 1st and 2nd world - now to two going on a third generation - in business terms, you and your NO buddies have "lost your client base".........and you aint getting it back!
If the parents are not interested in what your NO churches are offering, it is highly unlikely that they will impress it upon thier children. Thus, you have a multi-generational loss, from which you will not recover.
The NO establishment is like a corner bar - or any other busniess for that matter - which has lost its client base: you must start over. But in order to do that, you must come to terms with what you have done wrong. And you must make a whole new business plan. You dont need a gimmick, or a new coat of paint: you need to rethink....everything.
Either that or close your doors. For you cannot continue as you are - you will soon run out of customers.
Once they have been exposed to it, the young hunger for the "meat" of Catholicism: Tradition.
And that, my friend, is not to be found at St. Michael's - or the NO church in general.
"I recruit, aggressively, to the vocation for which there are the most candidates."
.....and there was only one candidate for the piresthood?
It would seem that you recruited for the vocation which is of least use to souls, or to the Church in general - as deacons cannot say mass or absolve sins, confirm, annoint the sick & dying......
What you have done in mangerial terms is over recruited for a non-critical function, and not even tried to recruit for a critical but understaffed function.
Nice work!
But we don't have it on Fridays. ;-)
If you review the thread, American Colleen pointed out my error to me much earlier and I conceded such. I must admit that I could have made a complete fool of myself calling an Episcopalian friend high up in the Gallup organization. I also have to admit that I suspected that there was something gravely wrong with the poll if it purported to be reflective of contemporaneous Catholic attitudes.
That having been said, it is a shame that most Catholics do not know what they are missing in having the Tridentine unavailable. I say that, as you know, as one who has no trouble attending Novus Ordo Masses or being eager to protect the sensibilities of those who prefer it so that they will not suffer what Tridentine Catholics suffered in the 1960s and 1970s.
In any event, welcome back and know that, however much some of us may disagree with you, your contributions and those of Robert Drobot and those of my pal ninenot were missed during the hiatus. God bless you and yours.
Five thousand. But we've got five mature men entering formation for the permanent diaconate, which is a "vocation" that we pray for in the Church.
I'm not done. There's a Tongan elder who's been waffling, and I've laid down a challenge to him to be a sacramental leader to his community by becoming a permanent deacon (he's got six children).
BTW, the one candidate for the priesthood is a 42 year old widower, who was moaning and groaning about what God wanted him to do next. I asked him if he'd ever considered becoming a priest, since he'd already had the best wife he could ever have.
He said he hadn't thought of it, but would.
Voila! He'll be in a seminary in the fall, and will take some philosophy courses at the University of Dallas over the summer.
His kids support his decision.
Also, just because I like to tease you does not mean that I do not like you in my own combative way.
Nice work!
How many men have you steered into any of the vocations of Holy Orders, thor?
I'm not a priest, I'm a deacon. You think I'm "non-critical", but I did three funeral vigils this past week, and officiated at two weddings. This week.
You think deacons are useless, I know.
How many men have you steered into any of the vocations of Holy Orders?
No doubt all of us are locked and loaded. Elk, I admire your constancy in standing up for the Church, and our fealty to John Paul II.
The feeling is as mutual as I can express it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.