How Many Here Would Attend The Traditional Latin Mass If It Were Available ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter At_Trent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When I was doing graduate work in physics, the lingual requirements at that time for a doctorate were proficiency in two of the following languages: French, German, Russian. They have since dropped this requirement. I don’t know what the reasons were but I’ll bet it had something to do with not being able to recruit enough scientists to study for doctorates. Pity they needed to do that.
So many people around the world speak English fluently, there is no need for scientists or anyone from the U.S. to be bilingual, other than the desire to acquire this knowledge for personal satisfaction and fulfilment.

But grad school costs a fortune, so anything that can be done to reduce the cost and cut the time spent in school is highly welcome by those who are paying the bills, even if this omission causes pain for the nostalgic and the lovers of tradition. (My younger daughter just finished a doctoral degree, and my older daughter is working on an MFA.)

There is honestly no practical reason for a scientist to spend a lot of time (and money) in school learning a second language. Even though we all learned at one time that Latin is the language of science, it really, honestly isn’t anymore day-to-day in real life. Truth told, English seems to be the real-life, modern day “language of science.” If a scientist needs a Latin name for a new species or pathology or process, he/she can probably plug in some software that will help him/her find the best Latin name. And the ancient Latin documents of past scientists have all been translated into many vernaculars for years, so there really is no need for scientists to know Latin to be able to understand the work of the past scientists.

I just attended a huge microbiology conference in San Diego. The conference was entirely in English, even though 8000 people from many different countries attended. Many of them spoke excellent English, better than many Americans!

I think that those who try to convince skeptics and critics that Latin is worthwhle because it is “the language of science” would be better to drop this rather lame argument and admit that this isn’t really the case in modern times, and instead, take the approach that the best reason for learning Latin is the pure and commendable desire to learn an ancient language for the sake of personal fulfilment, which is, after all, the best reason to bother to learn anything. Learning for its own sake and challenging the intellect is a pleasure, and there is no need to try to create a “practical” reason to study and learn something. Not everything has to have an application or a use. Sometimes it’s nice just to learn something for the sake of knowing it.

Of course, for aspiring religious scholars, there are very practical reasons to learn Latin. Latin and other ancient languages such as Greek and Hebrew, are necessary to be able to study the ancient church writings and hopefully contribute to the body of knowledge about these important documents. And of course, for any young man who might someday be called to the priesthood, learning Latin would be a worthwhile accomplishment so that he might comfortably associate with the wisest minds in the Church during various Church meetings and convocations.
 
its hard to compare today with 100 years ago. first off, we don’t have a ton of agressive Protestants and Restorationists who are circling Catholics like vultures,.
Do you honestly believe anti-Catholicism doesn’t exist today ?
 
sorry, did i word that wrong?
what i meant was, 100 years ago, there was no pressure unlike today
Sometime around a hundred years ago priests had to take an oath against modernism.
 
Seeing if you followed Ockham’s advice and left yet.
who’s Ockham to make me leave?

and why would i? because i defend the truth from those who seek to distort it? i should leave and let those who distort the truth have their way and mislead others?
 
the OF and EF are two ways to celebrate the same mass, none is greater than the other.
Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).
Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.
In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).
Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).
Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).
Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148).
 
who’s Ockham to make me leave?

and why would i? because i defend the truth from those who seek to distort it? i should leave and let those who distort the truth have their way and mislead others?
Trouble is, you can quote only apostates and dissidents to support your opinions.
 
Anywho…here’s what we know. This thread was started with a polling question asking people if they would attend the TLM is offered. 75% say they would. The CARA survey I provided indicates of people with an opinion, twice the number would attend then not. Surveys in Europe indicate half of Catholics who attend Mass would attend the TLM if offered.

Peace.
 
Anywho…here’s what we know. This thread was started with a polling question asking people if they would attend the TLM is offered. 75% say they would. The CARA survey I provided indicates of people with an opinion, twice the number would attend then not. Surveys in Europe indicate half of Catholics who attend Mass would attend the TLM if offered.

Peace.
No, no, no.

HERE’s what we know.

Of the people who read Catholic Answers Forum and are active in posting in the Liturgy and Sacraments Section of the forum–75% would attend the TLM.

THIS is a fact.

It is extremely important to stick to the bare facts and not twist facts or claim that conjectures = facts.

I personally tend to discredit any conclusions or opinions from people who do not stick to the facts. Sorry, pals.

I agree with others who have said that although there is a correlation between the attrition from the Catholic Church and the institution of the vernacular Mass, it is NOT factual to claim a definite causal relationship or to claim that this is the primary cause of attrition from the Catholic Church. As others have said, there are many factors that may have contributed to the attrition of Catholic Christians from their Church after the vernacular Mass was established, and yes, establishment of a vernacular Mass may have been one of the causes

I must question the “catholicism” of any Catholic who departed from the Church because of the Mass form. There are many tens of thousands of faithful Catholics who were docile and obedient to Holy Mother Church and STUCK WITH THE CHURCH regardless of their own personal preference. Many of these older Catholics are still committed to and active in the Church and provide a shining example to ex-Protestants like me of submission and contentment in all things.

Someone made the statement that it’s possible that if vernacular Mass had not been established, many more Christians might have left the Catholic Church. That’s possible, too.

The point is, these are all conjecture, not fact. Many of the posts in this thread, including mine, are conjecture and personal opinion and impression. NOTHING has been established. We are each free to believe as we please until there is definite PROOF that the cause for attrition has been established. But to claim our opinion is a fact is very bad statistical analysis, and to exaggerate the “facts” (e.g., to claim that this CAF survey is comprehensive) is also bad.
 
No, no, no.

HERE’s what we know.

Of the people who read Catholic Answers Forum and are active in posting in the Liturgy and Sacraments Section of the forum–75% would attend the TLM.

THIS is a fact.

It is extremely important to stick to the bare facts and not twist facts or claim that conjectures = facts.

I personally tend to discredit any conclusions or opinions from people who do not stick to the facts. Sorry, pals.
There is nothing unfactual about my statement so I will repeat it. This thread was started with a polling question asking people if they would attend the TLM if offered. 75% say they would. That’s all you need to know. I didn’t claim 75% of all Catholics in the world think this way, only those who answered the poll.

Whether you like it or not there is significant interest in bringing the TLM back. You claim to have no problem with it yet find creative ways to argue against it.
 
There is nothing unfactual about my statement so I will repeat it. This thread was started with a polling question asking people if they would attend the TLM if offered. 75% say they would. That’s all you need to know. I didn’t claim 75% of all Catholics in the world think this way, only those who answered the poll.

Whether you like it or not there is significant interest in bringing the TLM back. You claim to have no problem with it yet find creative ways to argue against it.
wow
anyone with a simple knowledge of statistics would really shake their heads on such claims. the poll isn’t even scientific to make that conclusion. plus, the sample size is small, not to mention not diverse enough. and yet you make a conclusion out of it, and of course the conclusion is based on your personal bias
 
Good grief.

One last time I’ll repeat this for for choy and Cat. 75% of the respondents to this poll would attend the TLM if offered.

There have been more ‘scientific’ polls conducted which show half of the people asked would attend the TLM if offered.

Ok?
 
Good grief.

One last time I’ll repeat this for for choy and Cat. 75% of the respondents to this poll would attend the TLM if offered.

There have been more ‘scientific’ polls conducted which show half of the people asked would attend the TLM if offered.

Ok?
i’m not arguing the fact that 75% of the respondents said they will. i’m arguing your interpretation of that result, concluding that it applies to the greater majority, which obviously are not. scientifically, this poll isn’t even a valid representation of CAF

Cat laid it out better, 75% of those who read this thread and responded, said they will. that is factual and has an accurate assesment of the fact presented. don’t make the results look more than what it is
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top