You and I have exchanged words on this topic to no effect in the past. Let me attempt it again in a bit less hot-head style.
Before the NO was implemented, Mass attendance among Catholics was quite high. In the 80-90 percent range from the figures I've seen. In the aftermath of the reform Mass attendance is now in the 10-20 percent range. It would seem that a fair assessment of the question of a popular "vote" should compare the NO and Tridentine acceptance in a climate where each is fully taught and supported by the Church. In that light, the Tridentine "wins" hands down.
When the NO was implemented, no vote was taken or considered at the time. What do you suppose the results would have been if they had? I'd wager Church-goers would overwhelmingly reject the NO in favor of the Tridentine. Do you disagree?
Should what you desire come to pass, that NO is abolished and Latin re-instated, that would not re-instate your 80-90% attendence of pre-Vatican II. What has happened is much deeper than language and ritual changes. Humanism has crept into the church, and man has, in a sense, made himself God, or has established independence from God. There needs to be a real repentance and conversion of heart so that one knows with all his being that he depends on God and that He alone deserves our highest reverence and our worship. Only then will the pews be filled again as they once were.
Yes. In the '50s, the attendance was 80%, which was down from 90% in the '40s. And, in the '60s, it was down to 70%. See a pattern here?
In the aftermath of the reform Mass attendance is now in the 10-20 percent range.
As is attendance at most mainline Protestant Churches, and even old-line Baptist churches.
America is a religious country that doesn't go to church. But, America is more observant than Europe.
It would seem that a fair assessment of the question of a popular "vote" should compare the NO and Tridentine acceptance in a climate where each is fully taught and supported by the Church. In that light, the Tridentine "wins" hands down.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.
When the NO was implemented, no vote was taken or considered at the time. What do you suppose the results would have been if they had? I'd wager Church-goers would overwhelmingly reject the NO in favor of the Tridentine. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.
Do you remember the atmospherics at Tridentine Masses? I remember that most women said the rosary during Mass, and there were zealots who made the stations during the celebration. Why do you think they did this?
They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.
The Spirit has spoken. I'm all for a liberal application of the Indult.
But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.
You imply here that the Novus Ordo is responsible for the decline in faith? I wholeheartedly disagree! Dusty Rose spoke of humanism in his #37 post. I will say secular humanism and modernism have taken their toll on Christianity. These problems were present in the later half of the nineteenth as well as the entire twentieth century. Proportionalism and consequentialism grew out of a Legalistic (nominalistic) morality. The Holy Father addressed this issue in Veritatis Splendor to the chagrin of the majority of contemporary moral theologians. Coupled with awful catechesis and UNCHECKED and UNMANAGED dissent(the bishops opened the barn yard gates and let every predator run fancy free) people lost faith. Bring back the Tridentine Low Mass or High Mass with all its latin and you'll not improve attendance one iota. Go back to the basics and you watch. Where people are being taught proper catechetics, there is great renewal. And this is all in a Novus Ordo environment. I have my disagreements with certain things in the NO and a lot of agita over the way some priests celebrate it (down right sacrilegious) but I wouldn't want to go back to the Low Mass.
When the NO was implemented, no vote was taken or considered at the time. What do you suppose the results would have been if they had? I'd wager Church-goers would overwhelmingly reject the NO in favor of the Tridentine. Do you disagree?
YES!
What makes Latin more reverent than English?