Has the EF become a first-world luxury?

[Brooklyn]

The Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil is an obvious exception, as priests of the Administration, as I understand it, celebrate the EF exclusively. The Administration’s bishop, the Most Rev. Fernando Areas Rifan, may be the only Catholic bishop in good standing in the world who only celebrates the EF?

That is most certainly not true. Cardinal Raymond Burke celebrates the EF. Bishop Athanasius Schneider celebrates it, and I have personally seen others. There are quite a few bishops who celebrate the EF.

 

[felsguy]

I’m honestly not sure why it really truly matters what the laity think about the Mass. Why should the laity be responsible for the actions of the Church? Our job should be to follow Christ and his Church. The laity have no power in the Church. It is the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, whose responsibility it is to lead the Church and the faithful and to uphold the teachings and traditions of the Church.

Why does it matter if the world hates the Mass? The world hates Christ and his Church, so it’s only natural that they would hate the Mass and especially the one which is so radically different than the Masses of the heretic Protestant churches. That the world and maybe even so many Catholics should hate such a Mass should not be of concern to the Church. In fact, maybe it’s a good thing. The concern should be does the Mass present a sacrifice on the altar, one that is central to the entire Mass? Does it enrich the faith and spiritual lives of the faithful? Does it honor God and put God at the center of everything? Does it allow for Orthodox teaching? Does it present the highest amount of reverence possible to God and the most Blessed Sacrament? Is it fruitful?

The OF in its current state goes against everything that Vatican II said should occur. The OF in its current state goes against the history and tradition of the Church and the evolution of the Mass through the ages. Are these things not important to the various folks who applaud the vernacular, communion in the hand, the destruction of church architecture, art, and music, the ignoring of the realities of sin and hell, the preaching of the unorthodox, the radical ecumenism that pretty much tells people that they can be saved regardless of their beliefs, and the general abuses coming from the clergy?

Are these things not important to those who see the general indifference among the laity to all of these things? The fact that a scary amount of Catholics DO NOT believe in the Real Presence? That a scary amount of Catholics DO NOT go to Church every Sunday? That a scary amount of Catholics are in apostasy and believe in things that go 100% against the teachings of the Church? These are not opinions, they are facts. Does this not tell us that the status quo is not good enough? That maybe, while you like the vernacular and the happy Masses that never challenge, that these things are maybe hurting the Church and that every single day we are losing souls to the devil? That all of the **uncalled **for reforms of the post-VII era have led more souls away from the Church than to it? The Church created by Jesus Christ himself of which there is no other means of salvation.

Why is this destruction applauded by people who are faithful Catholics, who go to Mass every Sunday or even every day and pray and love our Lord? Do you not worry about the salvation of others?

I just don’t get it. I struggle to find the fruits OF over the past 50 years.

I always find your posts very interesting. May I inquire if your familiarity with the pre-Vatican II Church is firsthand or second hand?

 

[twf]

That is most certainly not true. Cardinal Raymond Burke celebrates the EF. Bishop Athanasius Schneider celebrates it, and I have personally seen others. There are quite a few bishops who celebrate the EF.

The above bishops only celebrate the EF and never the OF? That is what I was stating. I realize that many bishops celebrate the EF from time to time. The EF is the only form used by the Personal Apostolic Administration.

 

[Aramis]

The Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil is an obvious exception, as priests of the Administration, as I understand it, celebrate the EF exclusively. The Administration’s bishop, the Most Rev. Fernando Areas Rifan, may be the only Catholic bishop in good standing in the world who only celebrates the EF?

Except that he doesn’t celebrate only the EF. He’s required to concelebrate the OF as well - all Roman Rite bishops are, because that’s what the papal masses are.

 

[andrewstx]

Came across this index which lists EF Masses worldwide
honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=PagePrincipalEn

I’ve also tried combing the official websites of FSSP, SSPX and other traditionalist groups to find their locations worldwide.
fssp.org/en/messes.htm
sspxasia.com

Obviously while not fully comprehensive it shows some patterns.

• Most of the places where EF Masses are held regularly (weekly or daily) listed above are in developed countries.
• In most developing countries or countries with a small Catholic population, EF masses are offered only occasionally (montly or more).

What do you guys think??? I think its pretty shocking that in developing countries, there is a stark deficiency in this regard. Why is this so??? Does it cost that much more to offer EF Masses???

I think it should be considered that in developed countries people would have more education and would be more likely to understand the Latin.

Personally I have a degree, but I have had a stroke as well. I would understand little of the Latin myself. Besides there is no EF offered anywhere in my diocese where Spanish iis used nearly as much as English.

 

[GangGreen]

No, it doesn’t.

Please find me where in VII does it say that

1. Latin should be eliminated
2. Gregorian Chant and other ancient types of music should be eliminated
3. The altar should be turned around and priests face versus populum
4. Laity should receive communion on the hand and while standing
5. Altar rails should no longer be used
6. Sacred art should be discarded
7. The propers should no longer be used.
8. Sin and hell should no longer be discussed.

I could go on and on.

None of this has to do with the form of the Mass. If you attended Mass in the OF at any Benedictine abbey of the Solesmes Congregation, and in many other congregations as well (a good example, Monte Cassino abbey in Italy), you would clearly recognize it as Catholic and in line with the history and traditions of the Church: the Propers and Ordinary will be from the Graduale Romanum, all chants going as far back as the 10th century and in most places a cappella. There will be incense at appropriate times (Sundays, feasts), pipe organ only. It will all be very reverent. Why? Because Benedictines take their vow of obedience very, very seriously. I also sing in a Gregorian schola that rotates around various parishes, and the vast majority of Masses we sing at are done simply, reverently and with care and they are always grateful to have a skilled schola to (licitly and validly I would add) acquaint them with the ancient traditional music of the Church. Yes there are some problem spots.

But these problems you point out and that I have also occasionally run into are issues of discipline, not the form of the Mass. If the EF were exclusive, the same lack of obedience will prevail. It’s a product of our times to “do our own thing”. There’s no assurance that the same clergy that disregard the rubrics of the OF Mass would be any more disciplined if they were obliged to say the EF Mass.

I don’t see what your first paragraph has to do with anything. That you can go to the Benedictines that follow tradition with the ordinary form? That’s great. I happy that such places exist. My issue is with the vast majority don’t even come close. That the vast majority of Catholic churches do not have any of those things that you mentioned. Have you not seen or been to a Mass that has an utter disregard for tradition and all that is sacred?

I can agree, that both forms of the Mass can be open to abuse. However, just like everyone here likes to condemn the EF because there were so many abuses pre-VII, yet when the OF has taken abuse to another level why don’t people come down as harshly on it? I keep seeing people saying, well you don’t know what it was like pre-Vatican II when the old Mass was all there was. Yet, these very same people witnessed years and years of abuse under the current form of the Mass and I cannot imagine that it was less so than what they grew up with. Yet, we keep condemning the EF for some reason.

It most certainly does matter what the world thinks of the Mass. Our main purpose on life is to serve and love God with all our hearts, and that includes the duty to evangelize, and grow the Church, not to turn people away and not to worship the worship. Cultural imperialism doesn’t win too many souls these days, in case you hadn’t noticed.

If it mattered what the rest of the world thought of the Mass, then we may as well become Protestants. There is nothing more modernist than what you have just mentioned. Popes, Bishops, Priests, Religious, Laity have given their lives to defend what the Church has established through the ages. If the Church was to give into the whim of men, then we have a HUGE issue. To evangelize and grow the Church does not mean to adapt to the desires of men. Tell me where Christ taught this? Christ said to give up everything and follow him. He said he who wishes to save his life will lose it. Why would the Church follow what men desire? We should be the ones who bend our desires to the Church, not the other way around.

The EF may indeed gain souls perhaps for the reasons you cite. But not everyone, everywhere. In particular in mission territories (I would in fact argue that Western Europe and North America are now mission territories, perhaps even more so than Africa, but I digress) where Latin mixed with uneducated, often illiterate laity, would be an obstacle.

Our purpose as Christians is not to create a small nucleus of euro-centric Catholics and everyone else be damned. Our purpose is to go out and spread the Good News and convert people to Christ. The Mass is supposed to serve that purpose, to be an instrument for the obtaining of Grace and an instrument of our salvation, not the other way around.

In any case I would be careful with your statements, the rules here prohibit pitting one form of the Mass against the other and it would be sad to see this discussion descend into another EF vs OF battle. Both forms are valid: Roma locuta est; causa finita est.

The EF worked for generation upon generation in places and times much less educated than our own. God designed men to seek beauty and things that are holy. These are things integrated into the very soul of man. A mass that is done reverently and well speaks to the souls of people everywhere regardless of if they’re rich, poor, educated, illiterate.

While I personally like the EF more and find it to be a more rich Mass and would prefer it to be THE MASS, I don’t consider the OF invalid. I’m also not condemning the OF if done right. However, one cannot ignore the abuses that have gone on way too long. To ignore these things is something that a faithful Catholic cannot do. How can we answer to God when we turned a blind eye to them?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Using TC Forum to “grandstand”, dictate to others what they should or should not believe and do, call others heretics when the Church does not do so, and preach is an incorrect use of the forum.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I was talking to a priest from India who told me there is zero interest in the EF Mass there.

 

[RPRPsych]

I was talking to a priest from India who told me there is zero interest in the EF Mass there.

This is sadly true. Heck, even English masses are dying out. Not a few young priests and religious can only manage the vernacular (Tamil, in my case), and have very little by way of formation in theology and dogma. A lot of them think “The Celestine Prophecy” and “The Secret” are Catholic books. If asked about the “fruits of the Holy Spirit”, some of them will probably list mangoes and bananas.

As I said, change has to begin at the top.

 

[RPRPsych]

I was talking to a priest from India who told me there is zero interest in the EF Mass there.

Not absolute zero. I know of a couple of places where it’s offered in basilicas, and there’s also a small SSPX presence in my home state, though not near where I live now. I guess it’s a case of “if you build it, they will come.”

 

[Ecce_Homo]

I have yet to see reports of attendance at EF Masses of much more than 150 to maybe an occasional 250. The “demand” is at best scattered, with a few here, a few there. There is a persistent comment to the effect that if it was just offered in each parish, the result would be overwhelming. The evidence is to the contrary.

I just wanted to comment that there are some places where the attendance at an EF Mass exceeds the numbers you mentioned. For example, the FSSP parish (it’s actually a parish) in Dallas has 3 Sunday Masses, and I am told there are about 1000 registered parishioners. Before it was a parish, it was only a small community of about 200, largely because 1) it was not a parish and 2) it was held at a Carmelite chapel with maximum occupancy of approximately 80. Granted, this is probably the exception rather than the norm.

 

[otjm]

I just wanted to comment that there are some places where the attendance at an EF Mass exceeds the numbers you mentioned. For example, the FSSP parish (it’s actually a parish) in Dallas has 3 Sunday Masses, and I am told there are about 1000 registered parishioners. Before it was a parish, it was only a small community of about 200, largely because 1) it was not a parish and 2) it was held at a Carmelite chapel with maximum occupancy of approximately 80. Granted, this is probably the exception rather than the norm.

We are not discussing what is happening in one parish (or for that matter, a handful of parishes) in the US; we are talking about what is going on world-wide. I appreciate the update, but the issue is what is going on in other than what might be called first world countries. My reference has to do with a world-wide look at the EF.

Latin was specifically related to the Roman empire; it was not the first or even the second language of the Church - Aramaic being first and Greek being second.

It took hold primarily in Europe; and only after a number of centuries, when the language was extended elsewhere throughout the world because of missionary work by Roman rite and its exclusive use of Latin, did Latin appear in other countries…

However, the Church did not wait for the Latin/Roman rite to spread around the world; in other cultures, the local languages were used; and the result is a Church with what - 22 rites? The Eastern rite churches use the local language from which they sprung, even though much of that may no longer be the current language (that is, Old Slavonic is not the same as current Slavonic, and for sure current Greek is not koinae Greek - having read the latter and then tried to read the former!).

In the US, the Maronite rite uses a mixture of Aramaic, Arabic, and English.

The point is, as the Church started, Mass was celebrated either in the local language, or a second language familiar to many if not most who were attending.

As the Roman empire expanded, the use of Latin expanded into areas with similar and non-similar languages. But Latin was used by the conqueror, and just as people in Jerusalem understood Latin as well as Greek (having been conquered by both) as well as Aramaic and Hebrew, so people in other parts of the world used a common language for worship - just not Latin.

Latin has nothing in common with Arabic; for that matter, neither does Greek. And neither have anything in common with the tonal languages of Asia. Latin has been used in those countries as the Roman rite made toeholds through missionary work. However, there seems to be little likelihood that Latin will have much if any impact in those countries now or in the future.