And you are not.If a business doubles every decade, the stock would skyrocket.
If we had less than 20 parishes saying the Latin Mass by the late 80’s, and now we have over 400, that’s phenomenal growth.
If you took a company with $20 million in Revenue per annum, and now it is doing $400 million in Revenue per annum, that would be called massive growth and a tremendous success story. Only by twisted logic would anyone suggest otherwise.
The graph goes back to the late 80’s, not just 2007. And it doesn’t include the growth of the SSPX, CMRI, and other traditionalist organizations.
The real success story is that the Latin Mass was revived from the dead. By the late 80’s, no one could have projected the current revival.
Projected trajectory based on historical growth. Not an uncommon valuation.
If it were a stock, you would have a pretty safe bet given a historical growth track record going back to the late 80’s.
No, the fervor isn’t caused by scarcity. Latin Mass parishes are very stable, many having been in existence for multiple years.
And highly organized. The FSSP in particular is very organized.
Sure we do. Do you really think we haven’t heard these frail arguments from similar detractors in the past? Or do you think your argument is somehow special and unique?
The Devil usually is. He also hates Latin, and the Latin Mass.
But he is kind of subtle. He pokes and prods, detracting little by little. He’s kind of sly that way.
Did I mention Masses differ not by substance but by solemnity, according to the Baltimore Catechism?For those of you who are really into the TLM, why do you have the perception that the Latin Mass glorifies God more/holds special value over the regular mass?
Because the particular form in question is an integral part of the organically developed liturgical patrimony of the Roman Church. Every Latin Catholic is linked to it by our forefathers in faith. Every Catholic has a right to worship in the same manner as the saints of old.Since when is the form of the Mass anyone’s “birthright?”
Divine Liturgy of St James predates the Tridentine Mass by more than a thousand years. That is certainly our birthright, too…is it not?Because the particular form in question has been an integral part of the organically developed liturgical patrimony of the Roman Church. Every Catholic is linked to it by our forefathers in faith. Every Catholic has a right to worship in the same manner as the saints of old.
All Souls Catholic Church, Sanford, FL every SundayI’ve never met any personally, but i heard some Catholics in the US are really passionate about the latin mass. I’ve never come across any Catholic Churches that celebrate it, but I don’t deny they exist. How common is it?
I think the people that make that argument don’t usually focus on the Latin language; I’m sure they might mention that, but there are plenty of other ones they could and probably would discuss instead. Obviously I won’t get into those here because as ProVobis mentioned, I’m pretty sure that would be breaking forum rules.Hi everyone, OP here
Wow, I did not think this thread would get so many responses. For those of you who are really into the TLM, why do you have the perception that the Latin Mass glorifies God more/holds special value over the regular mass? My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently about the Latin language. It just so happened to be the language of the Roman Empire.
You also did not mention that the Baltimore Catechism was not directed by or toward the Church as a whole; it was a product of American bishops.Did I mention Masses differ not by substance but by solemnity, according to the Baltimore Catechism?
Nonsense. Then one could demand as their “birthright” any one of the various liturgies that were suppressed by Pope Pius V in Quo Primum claiming that they are “linked to it by our forefathers in faith.” Before the time of Quo Primum there was a host of differing liturgies in use. This idea that the liturgy of the Roman Canon being “the” sole liturgy of the West is simply not true.Because the particular form in question is an integral part of the organically developed liturgical patrimony of the Roman Church. Every Latin Catholic is linked to it by our forefathers in faith. Every Catholic has a right to worship in the same manner as the saints of old.
It was the Mass I was formed in, coming from a long line of Catholics before me. When the Mass changed abruptly in the late 60’s, my parents left the church. There were other sweeping changes, the laity was not prepared for. If only they had just changed to the vernacular and not completely overhauled the Mass and the physical church. I am the only Catholic in my family now, from both sides. It was a struggle for me to get back, even then, to an ancient Eastern branch of His Church. I have come to learn that even this ancient Liturgy has suffered changes. My soul bleeds. I pray to the saints for my personal healing and that of His Church.Hi everyone, OP here
Wow, I did not think this thread would get so many responses. For those of you who are really into the TLM, why do you have the perception that the Latin Mass glorifies God more/holds special value over the regular mass? My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently about the Latin language. It just so happened to be the language of the Roman Empire.
Not Pope Benedict XVI?It was the Mass I was formed in, coming from a long line of Catholics before me. When the Mass changed abruptly in the late 60’s, my parents left the church. There were other sweeping changes, the laity was not prepared for. If only they had just changed to the vernacular and not completely overhauled the Mass and the physical church. I am the only Catholic in my family now, from both sides. It was a struggle for me to get back, even then, to an ancient Eastern branch of His Church. I have come to learn that even this ancient Liturgy has suffered changes. My soul bleeds. I pray to the saints for my personal healing and that of His Church.
I would have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy if it hadn’t been for St.Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. I couldn’t deny Peter.
*Quo Primum *did not affect any rite that had been in use for over 200 years. For example, the Dominican Rite was left entirely untouched. Only “new” rites were suppressed.Nonsense. Then one could demand as their “birthright” any one of the various liturgies that were suppressed by Pope Pius V in Quo Primum claiming that they are “linked to it by our forefathers in faith.” Before the time of Quo Primum there was a host of differing liturgies in use. This idea that the liturgy of the Roman Canon being “the” sole liturgy of the West is simply not true.
You don’t always have to go to an FSSP parish to attend the TLM. We are not in a big city, but we are about an hour away from Seattle. We are a diocesan parish and our pastor offers the Latin Mass at least once a month- First Saturday morning Mass and on a few other occasions as well, including a Requiem Mass on All Souls Day. It was our pastor who had interest in it. He went through a time of training (I believe from the FSSP priests) on how to offer the TLM.It would also be interesting to calculate the distance that Catholics who attend the TLM travel on average every Sunday. Before I moved to a large city, I had to drive 45 minutes to the closest FSSP parish. I knew of people who would come from much further away. It is sad that even after Summorum Pontificum the TLM remains a secret kept from most Catholics. Many only have a vague notion of it. However, I believe that while there is a negative connonation attached to the old Mass by some in the Church who view its revival as a step backwards, there also seems to be many who would fall in love with the Mass if it were more widely available.
It wasn’t an accident. The Catholic Church basically Christianized a language codified by Cicero and others. Certain words were added (and are still being added) to better service the entire Church. Latin was always the administrative language of the Roman Empire, never was a true vernacular since codification. The Church in its wisdom and genius in the spirit of immortality chose to use Ecclesiastical Latin to preserve its liturgy, documents, and scripture, inter alia. People like Sir Isacc Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Sir Thomas More et al chose to write their most important works in Latin. Vernaculars come and go but Latin lives on. That was the reason (or at least one of them) why Trent thought the vernacular everywhere would be a bad idea and why Vatican II stated that Latin be preserved and, of course, why St. John XXIII wrote an Apostolic letter on decreeing its studies.My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently about the Latin language. It just so happened to be the language of the Roman Empire.
In the OF, that would be correct. However, the EF does have levels of solemnity; in the “vernacular” of my youth, they were Low Mass, High Mass, and Solemn High Mass. Back then, although each had an official name in Latin, no one used it.You also did not mention that the Baltimore Catechism was not directed by or toward the Church as a whole; it was a product of American bishops.
In any event, the current catechism of the Universal Church is The Catechism issued by Pope John Paul II. The sentiment expressed in your comment is not something, I think, that the Church of today would teach.