Latin...why?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1619589' date='Aug 6 2008, 05:16 PM']I'd beg to differ. Well, perhaps you personally will understand it everywhere, but 99% of laypeople will understand it nowhere. No matter how great it sounds on paper, it simply isn't practical and it really isn't even right. Latin was instituted as the language of the Church when it was also the language of most Catholics. Today there is no language common to most Catholics, and Latin is spoken by none, so it's perfect when cultural neutrality is needed. But for the daily practice of the faith, we need to use our vernacular languages.[/quote]

Before Vatican II, Catholics knew Latin well enough. Why did we let it disappear? And, according to the Vatican II documents, it was NEVER supposed to disappear from our worship. Pope Benedict wants to start it up again, get Latin back into the way we worship God...vernacular is okay, but after 40 years, 75% of Catholics do not even know what's happening during the Mass (ie. they don't know the Eucharist is Lord. I find this incredibly ironic, seeing that they are supposed to "understand" it better since it's now in their own language.) Compare that with the Mass before Vatican II. My father and mother weren't intellectual scholars, and yet, they prayed and worshipped God for decades in Latin. And I can say pretty much without any need of statistics, their generation of Catholics knew their faith and show the greatest reverence to God during the Holy Mass. How much that has to do with the Latin, I don't know...but Latin sure did the job! If it wasn't broken, why "fix" it? I think you said it best when you said "today there is no language common to most Catholics." What Latin did, was, it kept a language common to us Catholics, and we no longer have that today. Now we are all divided and we worship God in non-uniformed ways...we stick our own language in the Mass, we stick our own "cultural additions." It's just not the same as it was...and perhaps it shouldn't be that way...we should all be uniformed in our worship of God.

[Aloysius]

you don't need to be fluent in Latin to deeply understand the Liturgy in Latin... and it often brings a deeper level of meditation into it when you do not understand it by hearing alone, but rather understand the action going on and follow along the prayers through a missal.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1619631' date='Aug 6 2008, 05:06 PM']you don't need to be fluent in Latin to deeply understand the Liturgy in Latin... and it often brings a deeper level of meditation into it when you do not understand it by hearing alone, but rather understand the action going on and follow along the prayers through a missal.[/quote]
I agree, latin is a beautiful language. When I used to be Catholic, the very few times I went to latin mass were the best in terms of my ability to be deeply connected with what was supposedly happening.

[mortify]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1619739' date='Aug 6 2008, 07:12 PM']I agree, latin is a beautiful language. When I used to be Catholic, the very few times I went to latin mass were the best in terms of my ability to be deeply connected with what was supposedly happening.[/quote]

Friend, you have bigger things to worry about than why Latin is important!

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1619623' date='Aug 6 2008, 07:56 PM']Before Vatican II, Catholics knew Latin well enough. Why did we let it disappear? And, according to the Vatican II documents, it was NEVER supposed to disappear from our worship. Pope Benedict wants to start it up again, get Latin back into the way we worship God...vernacular is okay, but after 40 years, 75% of Catholics do not even know what's happening during the Mass (ie. they don't know the Eucharist is Lord. I find this incredibly ironic, seeing that they are supposed to "understand" it better since it's now in their own language.) Compare that with the Mass before Vatican II. My father and mother weren't intellectual scholars, and yet, they prayed and worshipped God for decades in Latin. And I can say pretty much without any need of statistics, their generation of Catholics knew their faith and show the greatest reverence to God during the Holy Mass. How much that has to do with the Latin, I don't know...but Latin sure did the job! If it wasn't broken, why "fix" it? I think you said it best when you said "today there is no language common to most Catholics." What Latin did, was, it kept a language common to us Catholics, and we no longer have that today. Now we are all divided and we worship God in non-uniformed ways...we stick our own language in the Mass, we stick our own "cultural additions." It's just not the same as it was...and perhaps it shouldn't be that way...we should all be uniformed in our worship of God.[/quote]

From what I've gathered about the culture of the Church before Vatican II, many Catholics were only showing up to Mass, and prayed rosaries during the entire liturgy because they couldn't follow what was happening, and laypeople didn't offer responses at Mass (which is the same today when I attend the local Tridentine Rite... about the only thing laypeople say is "Et cum spiritu tuo"). Most laypeople were going through the motions. Why do you think parishes "featured" 20 minute Sunday masses? Why was Vatican II even convened, if everything was so hunky dorey back in the day? There were clearly problems, hence the council.

Celebrating our liturgies and sacraments in vernacular languages can also help emphasize the uniformity of our worship. Through the variety of language and culture, we know it is the same Mass and the same sacraments in every place and time. Even Jesus spoke in the language of common Jews rather than the language of educated Roman citizens. We are not like Muslims, who believe Arabic is the only holy language. We must treasure our Latin tradition, but we don't need to expect every Catholic to learn the Latin in order to fully participate in a liturgy. It really is best appreciated when discovered rather than imposed, just as everyone here who loved Latin has discovered it on their own rather than having it forced upon them with no breathing room.

I think we should bring back some Latin, but let's allow that breathing room for a layperson or non-Catholic to experience the faith in their own language, and let's keep the translations as faithful to the Latin as possible.

Edited August 7, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Aloysius]

your charecterization of what goes on at a Latin Mass is not accurate. it may appear to be "going through the motions" to one who is used to the Novus Ordo, but people are having deep and intimate encounters with the liturgy there even when they sometimes pray the rosary during it (which is not a recommended practice, but it still connects one to the liturgy as the mysteries you are praying are the same mysteries enacted upon the altar). when I go to a high mass, sometimes I follow along with the prayers at the foot of the altar up to the Kyrie, sometimes I follow along, instead, with the introit being sung over that, and sometimes I just kneel and pray through it with my own sentiments as I know what the priest is saying and am uniting myself to his words as well. every encounter I have with the Latin Mass is intimately joined to the experience of generations of Catholics and not so much ruled over by the whims of today's celebrant, not distracted from by the celebrant's personality, not distracted from by hearing the same easy to understand english words with little indication in them that there are a thousand mysterious ways to connect to each word.

I'm not saying we definitely need to make all liturgies and all parts of liturgies Latin again, I'm saying that your charecterization of what that would mean is absolutely false. I would be in favor of making all the unchangeable parts of the mass in Latin and all the changeable parts in the vernacular...

and Jesus did speak the vernacular Aramaic, but in the Temple he spoke the sacred language of the Jews, Hebrew.

[dominicansoul]

[quote]From what I've gathered about the culture of the Church before Vatican II, many Catholics were only showing up to Mass, and prayed rosaries during the entire liturgy because they couldn't follow what was happening, and laypeople didn't offer responses at Mass (which is the same today when I attend the local Tridentine Rite... about the only thing laypeople say is "Et cum spiritu tuo"). Most laypeople were going through the motions. Why do you think parishes "featured" 20 minute Sunday masses? Why was Vatican II even convened, if everything was so hunky dorey back in the day? There were clearly problems, hence the council.

Celebrating our liturgies and sacraments in vernacular languages can also help emphasize the uniformity of our worship. Through the variety of language and culture, we know it is the same Mass and the same sacraments in every place and time. Even Jesus spoke in the language of common Jews rather than the language of educated Roman citizens. We are not like Muslims, who believe Arabic is the only holy language. We must treasure our Latin tradition, but we don't need to expect every Catholic to learn the Latin in order to fully participate in a liturgy. It really is best appreciated when discovered rather than imposed, just as everyone here who loved Latin has discovered it on their own rather than having it forced upon them with no breathing room.


I think we should bring back some Latin, but let's allow that breathing room for a layperson or non-Catholic to experience the faith in their own language, and let's keep the translations as faithful to the Latin as possible.[/quote]
I somewhat agree with your last sentence, but the rest is mere speculation. I dont' have to speculate how bad things are now. I'm living it. Like I said before, none of what you are saying is happening. I repeat, 75% of Catholics have no idea what is going on during the Mass, and they don't even believe the Eucharist is God. How could the vernacular be helping if this situation exists today? Having had parents who lived through the splendor and beauty of the Church before Vatican II, I know things weren't as bad as you describe. I'm sure it happened, but maybe a very small percentage. At least not in this part of the world.

What the Latin Mass does is it takes us out of ourselves and makes us focus completely and soley on God. We don't have to respond with our voices, because our hearts and minds are responding to God. There is so much more focus on the actual Sacrifice, and less on ourselves. It's like standing at the foot of the Cross with The Blessed Mother and John, who never took their eyes off of Jesus. Not for one moment. The priest is our representative. We don't have to make responses because he is offering up the Sacrifice on our behalf. We just need to be totally present to Christ, as He is totally present to us.

During the Novus Ordo, I don't feel as much like I'm witnessing the Sacrifice on the Cross. Especially with the crazy music and people clapping. I dont' believe we should be holding hands around the Cross and singing happy birthday to people and cheering each other while Jesus is on the Cross. It's almost like all the voices are a noisy gong, a clashing cymbal....

...yet in the Latin, the voice is profound and its meaning far surpasses anything the vernacular translations could ever come up with...

I feel very much like the Latin Mass is a Mass for God. The vernacular Novus Ordo Mass is more for the people.

From what I have gathered, many non-Catholics discovered the True Faith just by walking into a Catholic Church before all the changes occurred. THEY KNEW GOD WAS PRESENT, just by the atmosphere of the Tridentine Mass and the way the people responded to God back then. The response wasn't vocal...it was in their actions, it was in their profound reverence. This doesn't happen anymore, does it? Walking into the Church now a days, you get the feeling you are walking into an auditorium, or a recital hall, or a chat room. God just seems to be ignored.

I'm all for vernacular reverent Masses. Can you tell me where to find one in my neck of the woods, because believe me, those are very few and hard to find. (Believe me, I have searched within 100 miles radius and have not found one in the vernacular that was reverent. I stick to Latin as much as I can get it!)

Edited August 7, 2008 by dominicansoul

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1620222' date='Aug 7 2008, 01:47 PM']your charecterization of what goes on at a Latin Mass is not accurate. it may appear to be "going through the motions" to one who is used to the Novus Ordo, but people are having deep and intimate encounters with the liturgy there even when they sometimes pray the rosary during it (which is not a recommended practice, but it still connects one to the liturgy as the mysteries you are praying are the same mysteries enacted upon the altar). when I go to a high mass, sometimes I follow along with the prayers at the foot of the altar up to the Kyrie, sometimes I follow along, instead, with the introit being sung over that, and sometimes I just kneel and pray through it with my own sentiments as I know what the priest is saying and am uniting myself to his words as well. every encounter I have with the Latin Mass is intimately joined to the experience of generations of Catholics and not so much ruled over by the whims of today's celebrant, not distracted from by the celebrant's personality, not distracted from by hearing the same easy to understand english words with little indication in them that there are a thousand mysterious ways to connect to each word.[/quote]

This is still only your experience as someone who does understand the Tridentine Rite. When I go, I find the priest doesn't follow the missalette, I find it difficult to know what I should be doing or when I should cross myself, and while it's always a mystical experience, I know I'm missing out on a lot because you're apparently expected to just know all this stuff without any help or pointers.

As for your description of the Novus Ordo, that pertains to a poorly celebrated Novus Ordo. Likewise, many Tridentine Masses were poorly celebrated before Vatican II. Fr. Motormouth could get the folks in and out in twenty minutes. How is that glorifying to God? You and I both know that the average Catholic in the pew was not having this deep mystical experience and union with God that you enjoy every Sunday. They were twiddling their thumbs just waiting to get out of there. In this regard, there is still much to be done, and much of it must be done on the local parish level to engage parishioners, and the Novus Ordo needs improvement because of all the problems you mention, but the Novus Ordo can be very reverent just as the Tridentine Rite can be abused.

[Aloysius]

actually, I'd say it's more common for people to twiddle their thumbs in the pews nowadays than it was back then... most people took the mass more seriously back then

things were not perfect back then, but they're even worse nowadays as regards people actually respecting and/or understanding the mass.

the priest doesn't follow the missal? i'm sure that's not true. you likely couldn't follow along, which is okay because it takes a while and at a high mass there are actually a few different paths you can take to follow along (either follow what the choir is doing which is dragging out the changeable parts of the mass or what the priest is doing silently which are mostly the parts that are the same every week, for example)

you're always missing something in the mass, it's just clearer in the Latin Mass that there's always more to be gotten. you have to get ever deeper into the mystery of it. you're not supposed to go to mass and feel like you completely understand it... because you don't and never will perfectly understand it until you get to heaven. there's always more to get, more to understand; and in the Latin Mass that is clear to you.

20 minute masses were not at all common especially on a Sunday, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the language.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']I somewhat agree with your last sentence, but the rest is mere speculation. I dont' have to speculate how bad things are now. I'm living it.[/quote]

I think people in every time tend to magify the problems of their own day over those of the past. Is the Church as bad off as it was at the peak of Arianism? How about when popes and cardinals were throwing lavish parties and had children with various women? There have been much worse periods in Church history. And other things I've described about the pre-Vatican II experience at Mass just comes from people I've talked to who lived back then. Plus, the fact that Vatican II happened tells us all that those "good ol' days" had problems that needed to be addressed. If Catholics were so faithful back then and everything was going so well, why did the Church call a council?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']Like I said before, none of what you are saying is happening. I repeat, 75% of Catholics have no idea what is going on during the Mass, and they don't even believe the Eucharist is God.[/quote]

Where does that statistic come from?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']How could the vernacular be helping if this situation exists today? Having had parents who lived through the splendor and beauty of the Church before Vatican II, I know things weren't as bad as you describe. I'm sure it happened, but maybe a very small percentage. At least not in this part of the world.[/quote]

From what I'm told, every parish had several twenty minute Sunday masses and one sparsely-attended High Mass. Most lay Catholics, as obedient as they have been, were not engaged in the life of the Church. This is why Vatican II was necessary. Obviously, it's still a work in progress.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']What the Latin Mass does is it takes us out of ourselves and makes us focus completely and soley on God. We don't have to respond with our voices, because our hearts and minds are responding to God. There is so much more focus on the actual Sacrifice, and less on ourselves. It's like standing at the foot of the Cross with The Blessed Mother and John, who never took their eyes off of Jesus. Not for one moment. The priest is our representative. We don't have to make responses because he is offering up the Sacrifice on our behalf. We just need to be totally present to Christ, as He is totally present to us.[/quote]

That's awesome if you're at that place in your faith. Not many people are, and without a proper education on the Tridentine Rite and Latin, they simply tune out or don't show up at all.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']During the Novus Ordo, I don't feel as much like I'm witnessing the Sacrifice on the Cross. Especially with the crazy music and people clapping. I dont' believe we should be holding hands around the Cross and singing happy birthday to people and cheering each other while Jesus is on the Cross. It's almost like all the voices are a noisy gong, a clashing cymbal....[/quote]

I've been to some very irreverent Novus Ordo masses, but now you're exaggerating I'd say the music is usually boring and uninspired, I've rarely heard clapping, nor have I seen anyone hold hands outside of the Our Father. Still, the reason you don't feel like you're witnessing the Sacrifice on the Cross isn't because it's a Novus Ordo, but because it's celebrated very poorly. I've been to plenty of incredibly reverent Novus Ordo masses and it's very different from what you describe, and I admit those masses usually opt for Latin to sing the Gloria and Agnus Dei. I like having a little Latin sprinkled in the liturgy to magnify reverence at the appropriate times, but if it's all Latin I'm tempted to tune out if I'm not actively engaged in prayer or meditation.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']I feel very much like the Latin Mass is a Mass for God. The vernacular Novus Ordo Mass is more for the people.[/quote]

Depends on how it's celebrated. What if the priest were to face liturgical east during a Novus Ordo? And if the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross, then I'd say that it is for us. What can we offer God compared to what He offers us?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']This doesn't happen anymore, does it? Walking into the Church now a days, you get the feeling you are walking into an auditorium, or a recital hall, or a chat room. God just seems to be ignored.[/quote]

Modern church architecture and art don't exactly inspire devotion, but isn't this because the designers are disobedient to the Church guidance? Same reason Novus Ordo masses are commonly irreverent. It's not the mass, but obedience (or lack thereof).

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']I'm all for vernacular reverent Masses. Can you tell me where to find one in my neck of the woods, because believe me, those are very few and hard to find. (Believe me, I have searched within 100 miles radius and have not found one in the vernacular that was reverent. I stick to Latin as much as I can get it!)[/quote]

The best Novus Ordo I've experience is at Mary, Queen of Heaven in Hebron, Kentucky (near the Cincinnati airport). Obviously, parishes that offer a Tridentine mass will also have reverent Novus Ordo masses. The local Dominican parishes do a pretty good job. Where do you live, anyway?

[dominicansoul]

I'm actually not exaggerating. I think your claims about the abuses in the past are very very very exaggerated.

Vatican II was called upon by the Pope to bring the Church into the modern world. And like I said...no where in those documents does it kick out Latin...yet, Latin was kicked out and even suppressed all these 40 years, so the vernacular was actually forced upon us whether we wanted it or not!!!

70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST. (I added the 5% to account for the 7 years this was last done by Gallup. This poll was sponsored by St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Church in Vienna, VA)

Specifically,

1) 29% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy
Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and
teachings of Jesus Christ, and in so doing are expressing their attachment to
His Person and words. This is the heresy of Protestant John Zwingli, who
taught the false doctrine that the Mass is merely a symbolic commemoration of
Christ's death.

2) 24% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy
Communion, they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become
that because of their personal belief. This is the heresy of Protestant John
Calvin, who taught the false doctrine that the faith of the recipient
transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

3) 10% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy
Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus Christ is really
and truly present. This is the heresy of Protestant Martin Luther, who taugh
the false doctrine known as "consubstantiation," that the Body and Blood of
Christ coexist with the elements of bread and wine during the Eucharist.

4) 8% of Novus Ordo Catholics hold some other non-Catholic belief.

5) Only 30% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that they are really and
truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
under the appearance of Bread and Wine. This has always been the Church's
dogma regarding the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

GALLUP POLLS: MASS ATTENDANCE IN THE UNITED STATES

According primarily to Gallup Polls in various years, Sunday Mass
attendance among Catholics in the United States has sunk by 400% since Vatican
II. When asked whether they had attended Mass within the past week, the
following percentage of Catholics answered yes:

1958: 74%
1965: 71%, after the Mass was allowed to be said in the vulgar tongues
1968: 65%, after the very words of Consecration were changed
1969: 63%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was first announced
1970: 60%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was introduced
1971: 50%, after one year of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
1988: 48%
1993: 25%
1995: 22%
1999: 19%, after twenty years of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
2001: 17%

Even the Gallup Poll's numbers are challenged as high. Statistician Kirk
Hadaway and a research team counted cars in the parking lot over a period of
several months. His finding: Americans over-report their actual church
attendance by a marked degree by almost twice as much as actual. In two
separate studies on Roman Catholics, he found an even greater disparity between
the numbers reported and actual attendance.

22% OF CATHOLICS, SOME 5,600,000, STOPPED ATTENDING MASS BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES
IN THE CHURCH.
(I know one of these Catholics personally...)

yup. These numbers don't exaggerate....

[quote]That's awesome if you're at that place in your faith. Not many people are, and without a proper education on the Tridentine Rite and Latin, they simply tune out or don't show up at all.[/quote]

yeah...I can plainly see how "educated" Catholics are today about the vernacular Masses....it's in their own language and they are tuned out and don't show up at all.....

[Deb]

I think that if you go to a church that holds hands and sings happy birthday, hmmm, maybe time to change churches.
I do not agree that people do not know what is going on in the Mass. Maybe in your church they don't, but they do in mine.
Our priest put out a nine month cd series over the last year just on the Mass. It was great. Every household got one and it explained every meaning of everything in the Mass. It is not the form of the Mass that is a problem if people are not entering into the Mass, it is the congregation and whomever is leading it.
We need strong teachers and leaders in every parish. If you don't have that, then become one. Maybe everyone needs to learn about the Mass in their own language before taking them to one they don't know.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']Vatican II was called upon by the Pope to bring the Church into the modern world. And like I said...no where in those documents does it kick out Latin...yet, Latin was kicked out and even suppressed all these 40 years, so the vernacular was actually forced upon us whether we wanted it or not!!![/quote]

Then how did we end up with the Novus Ordo in English? I'm reading news stories about the Vatican presenting revisions of the English translation before the American bishops (who, I think, rejected it). I guess the vernacular is being "forced upon" us, but I consider that a good thing overall. However, I don't think Latin should be suppressed. There is a middle ground between those two extremes where I believe the Church wants us to be.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST. (I added the 5% to account for the 7 years this was last done by Gallup. This poll was sponsored by St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Church in Vienna, VA)[/quote]

Is St. Athanasius still a Roman Catholic parish? I couldn't find a web site for them or a reference to the parish on Diocese of Arlington's web site. Although Gallup is reputable and unbiased, I'd still like to know the parish's motives.

I suspect they are not Catholic any more due to the language used here:

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']1958: 74%
1965: 71%, after the Mass was allowed to be said in the vulgar tongues
1968: 65%, after the very words of Consecration were changed
1969: 63%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was first announced
1970: 60%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was introduced
1971: 50%, after one year of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
1988: 48%
1993: 25%
1995: 22%
1999: 19%, after twenty years of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
2001: 17%[/quote]

Regardless of the Rite, the Mass is never a "Worship Service."

Now, the error that could be easily made here is correlating the Novus Ordo with the drop in attendance. Do we have valid reason to believe the two are connected? Are the other reasons why Catholics do not attend Mass as frequently? Have other Christian denomionations also seen a drop in attendance? Has American society in general become more secular?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']yup. These numbers don't exaggerate....[/quote]

They don't exaggerate and they are unfortunate, but they can also be easily misinterpreted. I think there is more for us to consider than the one thing we can least control. Our bishops are in charge of the liturgy. We are in charge of pursuing holiness and helping others do the same through evangelization.

[dominicansoul]

That language is from the Gallup poll not the parish. And as far as I know, not wanting to make judgements on parishes just 'cos they don't have websites...it is a Roman Catholic parish...

I didn't want to change the language of the quote...because it isn't mine to change

And, again, I find it hard to swallow that we are much better off now than we have been before...again...if it wasn't messed up...why "fix" it. The polls show even the drastic drop in Mass attendance. I do blame the vernacular, because it changed the whole face of the Mass...and the way we Worship the Almighty God. With Latin, there was no room for mis-interpretation, or adding personal changes, and just the whole ho-hum attitude of Catholics toward the Mass...

..we are the 25% who have a grasp on what it all means....and although I am not dis-agreeing with everything you have pointed out....I have submitted these points to answer the topics question.

[Deb]

I believe the ho-hum attitude of some Catholics, maybe many, are that they are more into the secular world than the religious and I am not sure that is going to be changed by changing the Mass. That is in the core of a persons heart and soul.
I think it is time to re-catechize all Catholics.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Deb