Do you believe the Latin Mass..is?

[otjm]

And that’s why right after Vatican II, the first thing they did was to cut the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the second Confiteor, the Last Gospel, and the communion formula, because the Mass was too short?

Wow, you couldn’t think of another reason?

FWIW, I find it strange that someone who held the Baltimore Catechism to a high esteem (in another thread) would stoop to criticize everything else from that period.

Try reading what I wrote, instead of looking for a way to tilt with me - ok? Go back and read my posts; maybe it will be clear; if not, I will try to explain.

 

[tommydude2112]

I think it is gaining popularity as Pope Benedict XVI was a big fan of Latin Mass and encouraged it and I think Pope Francis can only increase this cause

 

[pianistclare]

According to CARA, there were 17,413 parishes in the US in 2013. Out of that, approximately 400 have the EF to some extent. So yes, it is a fraction.

It is interesting to watch the comments by those attending the EF now; consistently the thread of the reverence they see in the priests offering the Mass shows up.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but having started serving Mass in the 1950’s as an altar boy, it was my experience (and that of my younger brothers) that our pastor could say the 6:30 a.m. weekday Mass in about 15 minutes. Not 20, 15. Not what I would call an overwhelming example of the reverence posters now report.

Granted that was but one example, there are plenty of people my age who can attest that matters “back then” had the same human influences they do today. Some were more reverent; some were less. And so it goes.

I can only speak to information from one seminary; but in speaking to seminarians at one, there is little interest in learning the EF. These are young men who might be characterized as the “John Paul 2” priests; they have been brought up in a time where the Pope (and the subsequent one) were working mightily to implement the changes Vatican 2 set forth. Their focus is on the Church of today, not the Church of pre-Vatican 2. That may sound harsh; but we are seeing young men ordained who are reverent in saying the OF (and no, most of them are not particularly in favor of an all Latin OF). Their focus is on the vast majority of the Church today, and moving forward to bring us closer to Christ.

That is not to question that there are well catechized young people attending an EF. But they are a minority of a minority.

What do I mean of that? Again, according to CARA, the age group that has the highest rate of attendance at weekly Mass is my age group; among the 18 to 25 age group, it has the lowest attendance rate. If 80% of that age group don’t even go to Mass on a regular basis, and if there are 400 +/- parishes out of 17,413 with the EF (that works out to 2.297%), then a small part of a small part of the youth are attending it.

None of this is said to denigrate anything; it is simply factual. There is a lot of enthusiasm, and a lot of comments made which do not reflect the facts. Will the EF take over the OF? There is absolutely zero evidence to indicate that. Nor is there any evidence to presume that the EF will simply slide off into history. The groups of priests (such as FSSP) who are dedicated to saying the EF would indicate it will be around longer than any of us here.

The FSSP will grow; but with 244 priests, that is pretty close to the number of Trappists in the US (probably more), a group that is not what I would call large. Again, just some perspective. And my numbers, if someone wants to fire back, are for the US.

Excellent post. Thank you.
My husband, who is from Ireland, says that they always based their assessment of how “good” a priest was on whether or not they could be “out of there” in 20 minutes, and if the homily was 5 minutes or less. And this from holy Catholic Ireland.
If people are really in favor of the EF, that’s great. But I tire of the endless criticism of the OF Mass and we who have grown to love this Mass. If persons truly believe that one way is holier than another, I would be very saddened.
Folks resist change. They want to un-ring a bell. I prefer to worship and permit the Church to guide me as she sees fit. Even the Apostles were entrusted to go out to the Nations, and speak in the languages of various peoples. We don’t know which way they faced, at least I don’t. But regardless, I’m reluctant to claim that they did it wrong.
I wish the faithful of today could get past this issue of pre-VII and post VII.
Can’t we just follow the Gospel?
Partake of the Eucharist worthily. Live the Works of Mercy. Be the hands and feet of Christ?
Can’t we just do that and stop bickering or pointing fingers at each other? It serves nothing,
and the bottom line is, we’re not going to change anyone’s minds. There’s going to be another question like this tomorrow. And the day after that.
But the facts as presented above are accurate. My priest, whom I consider to be very devout, obedient to Pope Francis and his Bishop, and a very spiritual guy, has no interest in the EF. He has no interest in Latin. His ministry is in the OF and English, and often, Spanish. He’s a wonderful person. I have every confidence that his ministry is pleasing to God. And isn’t that the real goal here?
Peace.

 

[ProVobis]

My husband, who is from Ireland, says that they always based their assessment of how “good” a priest was on whether or not they could be “out of there” in 20 minutes, and if the homily was 5 minutes or less. And this from holy Catholic Ireland.

That’s really immaterial. You can’t compare the way Mass was said back then to the way it’s said today. There were constraints back then, Masses were said on the half-hour, some were said on side altars, etc. More priests generally meant more Masses.

The EF’s generally run an hour to an hour and a half today; weekdays about 30 minutes. About the same for both forms. That should be a fair thing to say, coming from someone who attends the Spanish Mass, the EF, and sometimes with the old folks (i.e. English Mass), don’t you?

 

[pianistclare]

That’s really immaterial. You can’t compare the way Mass was said back then to the way it’s said today. There were constraints back then, Masses were said on the half-hour, some were said on side altars, etc. More priests generally meant more Masses.

The EF’s generally run an hour to an hour and a half today; weekdays about 30 minutes. About the same for both forms. That should be a fair thing to say, coming from someone who attends the Spanish Mass, the EF, and sometimes with the old folks (i.e. English Mass), don’t you?

Thanks. You just made my point.
The old way is not necessarily the best way.
People are either devoutly engaged in the Mass or they are not.
It has more to do with the disposition of their hearts and their catechesis than which way the priest faces or what language is spoken.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks. You just made my point.
The old way is not necessarily the best way.
People are either devoutly engaged in the Mass or they are not.
It has more to do with the disposition of their hearts and their catechesis than which way the priest faces or what language is spoken.

But IMO it goes beyond that. Whether one is there or not, the sacrifices are still offered to God all over the world and we should all benefit from that. Obligations are another matter.