Future of Traditinoal Latin Mass (EF) poll

[VetA]

Rory, me lad! If one were to pay a wee bit of attention to the news, one would know that numerous priests have been killed for their faith in foreign lands (Africa and Asia but to name two continents) since the OF was promulgated, and the vast majority of them were saying the OF, not the EF. So, yes, the OF has been something that young men, and not so young men, are and have been willing to give up their lives for.

Given that we do not have a working definition of what the term “Traditional seminaries” means, it is hard to intelligently discuss the statistics as to how many, for example, of the 459 priests ordained in 2010 were from such seminaries. It would make for some interesting information if that could be sorted out.

There are, per the statistics, 3483 graduate level seminarians in the US as of 2010 (presumably the 2009 - 2010 school year). Again, no definitions as to what type of seminaries they are in.

It has been noted elsewhere that the younger priests (and seminarians following them) have a much different agenda that the priests 20+ years older than them - they are often referred to as the John Paul 2 priests; young men who focused on a vocation in response to the leadership of the last pope. They may not be Traditionalists, but neither are they the liberals of the decades before them.

maybe seminaries that teach the TLM?

 

[otjm]

The statistical reality of the present is precisely why I prefaced my own prediction with the observation that, while I believe the long haul will see the disappearance of the OF in anything but a reformed version that is a slightly revised EF, this is incredibly hard to believe at present. Nonetheless, I simply think that, when you remove yourself from the numbers and look at the theoretical abilities of the two liturgies to sustain a revealed religion, there is no conclusion but that traditional worship will beat out manufactured worship any day of the week. We are constituted as a Church by our tradition. As the memoirs and histories of the creation of the NO continue to emerge the picture becomes ever more clear. The liturgists that created the new liturgy were trying to be novel, trying to create rupture, and, as Abp. Marini put it, trying to introduce a new theology. That boat just won’t hold water over the historical long haul.

I have no question that the OF will continue to be modified; how greatly I do not know.

And anyone reading the accompanying letter to SP would see that the Pope envisions changes to the EF. Where they will go, my crystal ball doesn’t say.

However, it has been my observation that the one single issue that had the most impact in the change form the EF to the OF was and remains the vernacular.

Will the OF become the EF? I think there will be some changes that will bring it closer; on the other hand, the EF as it stands is not gaining much traction. and I would be surprised if there were any really dramatic changes to either in my lifetime.

 

[otjm]

Well otjm you said "I detest the term “Modernism” well you shouldn’t it is a heresy defined by a Pope!
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/catmodernism.pdf

I am speechless because if any Catholic looks at the Homosexual priest abuse scandal,vocations numbers,Mass attendance numbers and the problems in the Liturgy but sees nothing wrong you have to wonder do they think this is normal. Wake up! try to save souls not Vatican II. Sorry two generations stopped going to Mass because the Church is not the same PERIOD!!! The mass is different. The language is different. The doctrine is different by omission. Tradition brings out the youth and so does the Latin Mass. The facts are the facts. I have been to hundreds of New Masses and one thing I will say is I never- NEVER have seen it celebrated the same way in two place ever.

youtube.com/watch?v=yWnL_n4Ti5c

youtube.com/watch?v=D0SxB70vLZA

Have you ever hear of the term “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”? The doctrine of both the EF and the OF is the same - transubstantiation. Both the EF and the OF follow the same general format - Liturgy of the Word, Homily, Offering of the Gifts, Consecration, Prayers after Consecration, Communion, Prayers after Communion and Dismissal.

One does not have to work to save Vatican 2, as the last two popes have made eminently clear; it needs completion of implementation but not saving.

The homosexual abuse scandal started well before Vatican 2 was ever conceived; priests who were ordained under the reign of Pius 12th were abusing before Vatican 2 ever appeared. they were the first wave that was caught.

I don’t know anyone on these threads who would not say that there have been no problems in the Church in the last 40 years. Some of us have been around longer than that, and some of us have actually seen the causes of those problems and have enough experience that we are not going to ascribe it to the change of the Mass. We have seen what else caused it.

For your information, the fall off in Mass attendance started in the 1950’s. And contrary to popular urban legend, there was no massive fall-off in attendance once the OF was introduced. It has been gradual since the late 1950’s.

 

[pnewton]

he is referring to the primary author of the Novus Ordo.

But that is not the name of the Mass. Few here are so ignorant to recognize such rhetorical trickery. Truth does not need to resort to such trickery and petty propaganda tactics.

 

[pnewton]

Well otjm you said "I detest the term “Modernism” well you shouldn’t it is a heresy defined by a Pope!

When the term is used as the way defined by Pope Pius IX, no one minds. Unfortunately, here the term is almost like the political term “liberal” and is almost never used properly. It is usually use like a synonym for “modern” and applied to any change, regardless of philosphical underpinning.

I am speechless because if any Catholic looks at the Homosexual priest abuse scandal,vocations numbers,Mass attendance numbers and the problems in the Liturgy but sees nothing wrong you have to wonder do they think this is normal. Wake up! try to save souls not Vatican II.

Saving souls is our primary duty. Rejecting any part of Catholicism is not necessary for this job. You give a false dichotomy, unless you see rejecting this Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church as a necessity to saving souls, in which case you are using a circular logic, i.e., assuming the point you try to make if proving your point.

 

[VetA]

But that is not the name of the Mass. Few here are so ignorant to recognize such rhetorical trickery. Truth does not need to resort to such trickery and petty propaganda tactics.

yeah i know what he was trying to do, but i didnt know if you knew who was the primary author.

 

[pnewton]

yeah i know what he was trying to do, but i didnt know if you knew who was the primary author.

Yes. I have gone through all the facts, claims and speculation surrounding the changes in the liturgy. Several years back when I was first made aware of the position of some groups, I did give them a fair hearing, at least to the best of my ability.