Karl Keating's E-Letter of August 14, 2007

[dts]

The USCCB list of changes is clearly biased toward the New Mass. It is a shame that there wasn't a more honest presentation.

As someone who attends both masses, it is like night and day. The new mass is definitely a new creation that cannot approach the reverence and dignity of the old mass externally speaking.

As apologists to Protestants, I understand some of the favoritism that Catholic Answers shows for the new mass. It is easier to introduce Protestants and others to the new mass than it is the old mass. The new mass differs very little from a Protestant service on an external level. However, easy shouldn't necessarily be the goal here. The old mass far surpasses the new mass in reverence and in directing the believer's senses and thoughts to the heavenly banquet and sacrifice.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by tee_eff_em

I'd like to see some justification of those data (because I have my suspiscions about them ), or I shall feel free to discount them. tee

Me too. But also in light of the same drop in theological knowledge that's occurred in Judaism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy as secularism and individualism has risen.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by westlch

Karl is also misleading when he describes the changes Mass in the 1960s as simply the latest version of changes that were happening throughout the centuries following Trent. Indeed, none of those previous changes were seen as revolutionary because they were small and evolutionary, never effecting a wholesale change in the liturgy. In other words, when (say) Blessed John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the canon, the Mass would still remain recognizable to anyone throughout history. Surely no future pope would describe the Mass with that minor change as being a New Mass.

Karl, despite his tremendous contributions in the defense and spread of the Faith, has always had a hard time with the traditionalist movement. I'd hope that with the release of Benedict's motu proprio, he would reexamine his positions on the LM and recognize those areas that the traditionalists were right. Thank goodness the traditionalists stuck to their principles and defended their rights as Catholics, especially during those heady days of the early 1970s when it looked like Catholicism was truly turning itself upside down. Karl usually appreciates, in his writing, such decent and loyal Catholics. I'd love an e-letter in which he does it again, with a focus on the life and contribution of Michael Davies.

You're painting too broad a brush stroke. Karl and CA never have criticized the LM and "Traditionalists" per se. What they and I have criticized are Schismatic Traditionalists who have put the LM on par with the original deposit of faith given to us by Jesus and the apostles and who ignore the apostolic succession authority of the Papacy.

[Leeta]

The Prayer to Saint Michael may be said after the Mass. It is not obligatory in the extraordinary Mass, but the reading of the last Gospel is obligatory after the blessing.

It is much easier to learn the scripture texts in the extraordinary Mass because they are heard or read much more often. The ordinary Mass has such an awful English translation that many times I don't want to listen because of the arbitrary interpretations and scientific translations which are passed off as Holy Scripture because it is such a scandal. The USCCB needs to apologize to John Wycliff and Martin Luther for the Church's critique of their vernacular translations of the Bible.

That is a prime reason I attend the extraordinary Mass because of the accuracy of the scriptural texts.

The Bishop's should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the little ones to have a stumbling block placed in their way due to the sorry translation of the texts.
Here are two notable ones I heard. "The sperm of David" from the prophecy in Isaiah and the "eclipse of the sun" that supposedly occurred when Jesus died on the cross (read every Palm Sunday)!

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by dts

The USCCB list of changes is clearly biased toward the New Mass. It is a shame that there wasn't a more honest presentation.

As someone who attends both masses, it is like night and day. The new mass is definitely a new creation that cannot approach the reverence and dignity of the old mass externally speaking.

As apologists to Protestants, I understand some of the favoritism that Catholic Answers shows for the new mass. It is easier to introduce Protestants and others to the new mass than it is the old mass. The new mass differs very little from a Protestant service on an external level. However, easy shouldn't necessarily be the goal here. The old mass far surpasses the new mass in reverence and in directing the believer's senses and thoughts to the heavenly banquet and sacrifice.

You're overstating things here a little bit. Given that the new mass was the mandated mass for parishes since CA's inception, it is normal that CA would defend and explain it (as any faithful Catholic should). As you're seeing with a recent eletter, you'll see more defense of a mass that is now allowed in all parishes.

I'm not sure what you mean by the new mass differing little from Prostestant services only on an external level. But I think a Prostestant service and a Catholic Mass are night and day different. Merely speaking the same language does not make a similarity.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Leeta

The Prayer to Saint Michael may be said after the Mass. It is not obligatory in the extraordinary Mass, but the reading of the last Gospel is obligatory after the blessing.

It is much easier to learn the scripture texts in the extraordinary Mass because they are heard or read much more often. The ordinary Mass has such an awful English translation that many times I don't want to listen because of the arbitrary interpretations and scientific translations which are passed off as Holy Scripture because it is such a scandal. The USCCB needs to apologize to John Wycliff and Martin Luther for the Church's critique of their vernacular translations of the Bible.

That is a prime reason I attend the extraordinary Mass because of the accuracy of the scriptural texts.

The Bishop's should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the little ones to have a stumbling block placed in their way due to the sorry translation of the texts.
Here are two notable ones I heard. "The sperm of David" from the prophecy in Isaiah and the "eclipse of the sun" that supposedly occurred when Jesus died on the cross (read every Palm Sunday)!

Me thinks you judge too harshly. While your criticism is spot on, I disagree with your judgements. The impression I get from your comments is that the USCCB either purposely translated wrong or with total disregard for accuracy (similar to the definition of malice).

How about being more charitable to our Church leaders- The USCCB made mistakes, The USCCB should reexamine, or The USCCB should seek greater guidance in how to teach the "little ones."

[pprimeau1976]

My thumbs up to Karl on this last E-Letter. I personally wish that the devotions of the past would return, but done so after mass has ended. Parishioners at one church that I attend recite the prayer to St. Michael after Mass has ended. To me, it is much more meaningful for the prayer to be said when it isn't part of any rubric.

[Potato1]

The anti extrordinary form bias in this letter was surprising to me. But I felt it was apparent to anyone who read it so hopefully people will take it for what it is, an advertisment for the ordinary form.

The bias of the bishps however did not surprise me. I wonder how this is being recieved elswhere, like Brazil, Italy, spain, ireland......

[pprimeau1976]

Originally Posted by Potato1

The anti extrordinary form bias in this letter was surprising to me. But I felt it was apparent to anyone who read it so hopefully people will take it for what it is, an advertisment for the ordinary form.

The bias of the bishps however did not surprise me. I wonder how this is being recieved elswhere, like Brazil, Italy, spain, ireland......

If you view this and also view Karl's July 17th E-Letter, how can you say that he is anti-EF?

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by tee_eff_em

Sadly I have not that work at hand, nor does my library appear to have a copy. Can you tell me: What populations were surveyed? In particular, regarding "34% believe in the Real Presence":

Is that 34% of self-identified Catholics?

or

34% of Catholics who regularly attend Sunday Mass?


tee

The statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt, but here are some links: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._16233123/pg_8
http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/AB...Eucharist.html

Note that I could find nothing to substantiate the 95% prior to the new mass figure.

[dts]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

You're overstating things here a little bit. Given that the new mass was the mandated mass for parishes since CA's inception, it is normal that CA would defend and explain it (as any faithful Catholic should). As you're seeing with a recent eletter, you'll see more defense of a mass that is now allowed in all parishes.

I'm not sure what you mean by the new mass differing little from Prostestant services only on an external level. But I think a Prostestant service and a Catholic Mass are night and day different. Merely speaking the same language does not make a similarity.

I hope I am overstating and that we will see more defense of the Old Mass by Catholic Answers.

At many of the new masses I attend, there is little to no reference to the Saints and the externals differ little from a Protestant service. My evangelical friends would be quite comfortable attending and participating if we didn't tell them they were in a Catholic Mass.

By externals, I am acknowledging the real presence as a legitimate difference between the Mass and Protestant services. Since you claim there is "a night and day difference" otherwise, what do you think they are?

[Potato1]

Originally Posted by pprimeau1976

If you view this and also view Karl's July 17th E-Letter, how can you say that he is anti-EF?

Maybe Karls isnt ut this current letter was. How can you not see the positives for the of far outwieghed the positives for the ef. True, karl was just going on the bishops newsletter, (should have been titled "Unfair that we lost a little of the most important things to us...... powers and flowers" Even the letter you pointed out had a very cynical ring to it. (it was just a dream)

Why are people so defensive on the MP? In my diocees it will probably not be offered anywhere.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by dts

I hope I am overstating and that we will see more defense of the Old Mass by Catholic Answers.

At many of the new masses I attend, there is little to no reference to the Saints and the externals differ little from a Protestant service. My evangelical friends would be quite comfortable attending and participating if we didn't tell them they were in a Catholic Mass.

By externals, I am acknowledging the real presence as a legitimate difference between the Mass and Protestant services. Since you claim there is "a night and day difference" otherwise, what do you think they are?

When I go to mass, we say an act of contrition that has "... and I ask Blessed Mary ever virgin, all the angels and saints, ..." and when we use Eucharistic prayer II the priest says "...share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them..." There are clearly references to the saints during mass, but let's not forget what mass is: joining the sacrifice on Calvary of Jesus. There are a lot of other references to joining with the people to worship Christ and extolling those who come in the name of the Lord. These include the saints.

As to your question, here is what I consider the night and day difference: the sacrifice of the mass: http://www.catholic.com/library/inst...f_the_mass.asp

To be fair, when I think of a Prostestant service, I think of a non-liturgical one like Southern Baptist, non-denominational Bible, or Charismatic service. I can see where an Episcopal or Methodist service would be very similar. They're copying a Catholic service so you'd expect that. We shouldn't change to show our differences.

[Bob Rowland]

Tee,

If you closely monitor the respect at most Novus Ordo Masses, you might easily believe that only 34% of those present at Mass show by their actions that they believe God is really there.

When I first entered a Catholic Church (The Golden Cathedral in Panama City, Panama) in 1946 on the way back through the Panama Canal from military occupation in Japan, I was stunned and awed by the unmistakable presence of God and from the silence and respect I saw from those who were in the Church, I could see that everyone there also knew that the Real Presence of God was there. That led to my conversion. Thank God I did not first visit a Catholic Church after VCII.

[tee_eff_em]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

The statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt, but here are some links: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._16233123/pg_8
http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/AB...Eucharist.html

Thanks. I am aware of the latter survey, but have never been able to determine whether it was taken among practicing or merely self-identified Catholics. I still find cause to be dubious of the former ("go to Mass every or almost every week" ??).

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

Note that I could find nothing to substantiate the 95% prior to the new mass figure.

Oooh, I didn't think that statistic was for prior-to-the-current-Mass, but I suppose it could be. I thought it was for those-who-attend-the-TLM-now?

tee