Is the Traditional Latin Mass getting more widely accepted?

[qui_est_ce]

You discussions are interesting. My personal experience is that most people of my generation (baby boomers) could care less about the Latin mass. Three years ago I was in that category). I see a LOT of generation x’s at the Latin masses. They wear chapel veils, don’t wear slacks, long skirts, and have their upper arms covered. It’s almost a cult thing here. They are yearning for tradition, and blame us for doing away with it.

 

[otjm]

The bolded portion is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? How can the EF (or even the “reform of the reform” OF) grow without that?

Best re-read. Your item (a) is a given.

You think Cardinal George is against the EF? That is not my iompression. He has some wild-eyed priests in his archdiocese; but our experience out here before he went there and became cardinal was not that he was a liberal.

That refers to your item (b). I stand by my earlier comment on it.

I am not sure whether we disagree or not. I do not see the bishops at fault, and by that I mean any intentional decision to obfuscate the EF or minimize it’s availablilty. Failing to see a problem is not an intentional act. It is most often that there is other information that colors the view. I would agree with you that saying the OF entirely in Latin (and the Council documents themselves don’t insist on that as they make room for the vernacular) is not widely practiced in any sense of the word. But if you give a party and no one comes, how many times do you throw the party? When the OF is said in Latin - completely or partially - and the response amounts to a ho-hum, why would we expect the bishops to do more to make it more sidely available - for instance, requiring each parish to offer one Mass per week in that format, when even Rome is not regulating it (Latin is repeatedly noted to be part of what the Council wished, and precious little has been done to indicate any requirement to do so - the Creed, and/or the Sanctus and/or the Agnus Dei, e.g.)?

Note: I am not proposing what should or should not be done; we are discussing the bishops. but they see a missive lack of interest, with precious little coming from Rome changing that direction. You may want it to occur; I may thik that it is appropriate. Rome is not without knowledge in the issue, and Rome seems to be frying other fish.

And what does that have to do with offering the OF in its “reform of the reform” mode, aka according to the editio typica?

I think I pretty much covered it above; There seems to be a massive lack of interest, including a massive lack of leadership from Rome. we will always have bishops who don’t want to follow Rome on matters - if history is any indicator, that will continue to the Second Coming. But one needs to realize that what we hear of is mainly the bishops who are recalcitrant and the few who may be activists in the other direction; that leaves a whole lot in the middle who are not recalictrant, but not as activist as, e.g. Burke.

Here we go again. Where’s the chatechesis? And what about the “reform of the reform” OF? As I’ve said before, it’s the OF. So what’s the problem there? Could it be there is no interest on the part of many bishops and their clergy?

I think that states it pretty close to exactly. Bishops have a large number of issues to deal with, and liturgy is only one of them (and as far as I am concerned, the most pressing issue is waking up about health care reform before we have mandatory abortion funding in all insurance, the complete loss of the conscience clause, and the beginning layout of the move to euthenasia - but that’s just what I think is important). The boart isn’t rocking for many of the ones who are not recalcitrant; little interest is coming from the pews in response to the “reform of the reform”, and they are dealing with other issues. And we can tie the clergy to the issue, including the John Paul 2 priests, who have far different issues than those ordained in the 70’s, or the 60’s, or the 50’s.

I’m going to make a light analogy here: I am one of those who doesn’t like chocolate ice cream. If we go to the store, what do we find? Chocolate ice cream. In a dozen different guises, but they’re all chocolate in one way or another. Even if we know that other flavors exist, it doesn’t matter because the store doesn’t carry them. The philosophy is: you buy what we want to sell you.

The situation on the ground is basically the same: you get the OF Mass that they want to give you.

Anyway, enough. Time for me to retire into the background again. This ride on the merry-go-round is making me dizzy.

On that (with the exception of the retirement) we agree.

 

[otjm]

You discussions are interesting. My personal experience is that most people of my generation (baby boomers) could care less about the Latin mass. Three years ago I was in that category). I see a LOT of generation x’s at the Latin masses. They wear chapel veils, don’t wear slacks, long skirts, and have their upper arms covered. It’s almost a cult thing here. They are yearning for tradition, and blame us for doing away with it.

I have heard the comment that the EF appeals primarily to the young - Gen X and Gen Y. That is an interesting observation, as the pre Vatican 2 group should be the largest group there, if for no other reason than that was what they grew up on and it should have such impact. Interestingly, it doesn’t.

As to how many of Gen X and Gen Y the EF appeals to, one needs to take not only a survey of the EF Mas, but also the other OF masses said at the same parish, to see what part of the total of those groups it appeals to. Add to that the fact that the majority of those age groups don’t attend any Mass - EF or OF - every Sunday, and there are additional issues.

 

[otjm]

The Tridentine mass is very popular in St. Louis

The following is a list of the churches in the St. Louis are the celebrate it: (Impressive list, isn’t it)?

SAINT LOUIS Archdiocese Apple Creek St. Joseph Church (W) Sunday: 11:15 AM Even Months
(See Biehle for Odd months)

  	Biehle 	St. Maurus Church 	(W) 	Sunday: 11:15 AM Odd Months
(See Apple Creek for even months)

  	Creve Coeur 	Oratory of SS Gregory and Augustine 	W D 	Sunday: 7:30, 10:30 AM; Holy Days 7:00 PM; Weekdays, 7:30 AM
replaces Mass in Ellisville, !2/07.

  	Mattese 	Assumption Parish 	W 	Sunday: 3:00 PM

  	New Haven 	Assumption Parish 		Wednesday: 7:30 AM

  	Richmond Heights 	St. Theresa Little Flower 	W 	Sunday: 9:15 am

  	Saint Louis 	Shrine of St Joseph 	W 	Sunday: 9:00 AM

  	St. Louis 	St. Francis de Sales Oratory 	W D 	Sunday: 8:00 & 10:00 AM
daily: 8:00 AM

St Francis de Sales Oratory is an Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. It is a beautiful church:

institute-christ-king.org/stlouis/

Approximately 1,200 attend Sunday mass there.

One of the reasons I don’t attend regularly is because I am in choir in my parish. Also, my parish is very close, and not so liberal that I feel compelled to leave it.

Well, this post is interesting, and perhaps does not tell the whole story, as I cannot determine whether these are the only parishes in the Archdiocese which have the EF, or only ones in what might be considered ST Louis proper (meaning the city and surrounding suburbs). If it is the city, as I am not familiar with the area, the following is inaccurate and low. If it is the Archdiocese entirely, then out of 187+ parishes (I didn’t count some of the oratories, or missions and chapels), that works out to about 4.7%. I would assume since Archbishop Burke seemed to be particularly in favor of the availability of the EF, that there would be more. It is a higher percentage than for the Archdiocese of Chicago, and again may reflect only the city.

Do you know if this is a complete list of the Archdiocese where the EF is said?

 

[tbtcom1213]

SOLEMN MASS SAID ACCORDING TO THE MISSALE ROMANUM 1962:thumbsup:
AUGUST - FIRST FRIDAY VOTIVE MASS TO THE SACRED HEART
Holy Innocents Church 6:30PM
W. 37th Street and Broadway
Archdiocese of New York

 

[malphono]

You think Cardinal George is against the EF? That is not my iompression. He has some wild-eyed priests in his archdiocese; but our experience out here before he went there and became cardinal was not that he was a liberal.

I’ve no idea where that comes from. The exchange was:

So the short of it is that a) we still have some bishops that want nothing to do with the EF and will do what they can to side-step it; b) we have other bishops who simply do not perceive a wide need; no one essentially is coming forward to request more than may be available now; c) we have a lot of people who don’t know if they would want it because they either don’t know of its availability or have never experienced it; d) we have too few priests who are trained in it to make it widely available; e) we have too few priests in general.

My reply referenced your “item (a)” and was a general comment. In your subsequent post you introduced Chicago, but your item-numbering seems to have been off. You noted “(a)” but it looks like it should have been “(b)(c)” instead:

I sould suspect that the Archdiocese of Chicago, having 12 churches that have the EF, would not be categorized as against the EF, or falling into category a); so I disagree that the lack of knowledge on the part people in the pew is necessarily faulted there. I think there are bishops whose perception is that there simply is not much interest, and therefore see no reason to do more, not that they are unwilling to do more.

Whatever, I made no remark one way or the other about the Archbishop of Chicago. Please don’t put words in my mouth. If you insist on my opinion, I can only say this: while I have no personal experience with Chicago or its Archbishop, from what I have read the Archbishop there appears to be one of the more enlightened bishops when it comes to the EF and such things.

Beyond that, there’s little left for me to say.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, this post is interesting, and perhaps does not tell the whole story, as I cannot determine whether these are the only parishes in the Archdiocese which have the EF, or only ones in what might be considered ST Louis proper (meaning the city and surrounding suburbs). If it is the city, as I am not familiar with the area, the following is inaccurate and low. If it is the Archdiocese entirely, then out of 187+ parishes (I didn’t count some of the oratories, or missions and chapels),

Why not?

that works out to about 4.7%. I would assume since Archbishop Burke seemed to be particularly in favor of the availability of the EF, that there would be more. It is a higher percentage than for the Archdiocese of Chicago, and again may reflect only the city.

Do you know if this is a complete list of the Archdiocese where the EF is said?

With the exception of Apple Creek St. Joseph Church, St. Maurus Church, and New Haven (which are small, small farming towns) all are located in St. Louis City and County. With the exception of St. Francis de Sales and the Shrine St. Joseph, the rest of the parishes are ordinary, middle class suburban parishes. Ordinary people going to Sunday mass. I know the Cathedral Basilica and other parishes celebrate the Tridentine mass, it’s just not a regular part of their schedule. I’m assuming this is a complete list, because Assumption parish began the Tridentine mass in late 2008. All but St. Francis de Sales Oratory are regular parishes, with one EF, and the rest OF. St. Francis de Sales is an oratory of Christ the King and Sovereign Priest.

We also have a beautiful Maronite parish, St. Raymond’s.

Just because Archbshop Burke is a fan of Tridentine mass, does not mean he would impose it on unwilling parishes. I find the fact that we have so many Tridentine masses in ordinary parishes, and have an oratory (quite beautiful and ornate, located in the inner city) quite impressive.

 

[otjm]

I’ve no idea where that comes from. The exchange was:

My reply referenced your “item (a)” and was a general comment. In your subsequent post you introduced Chicago, but your item-numbering seems to have been off. You noted “(a)” but it looks like it should have been “(b)(c)” instead:

Whatever, I made no remark one way or the other about the Archbishop of Chicago. Please don’t put words in my mouth. If you insist on my opinion, I can only say this: while I have no personal experience with Chicago or its Archbishop, from what I have read the Archbishop there appears to be one of the more enlightened bishops when it comes to the EF and such things.

Beyond that, there’s little left for me to say.

Come on, now, don’t get touchy! I was not trying to put words in your mouth; I have enough trouble with my own. Words and mouth. It appeared we crossed an item.

(Sigh) In reading posts - here and elsewhere - about the EF, the posts seem to swing between two points; either it is hardly available at all, or there are huge numbers of people going to the EF. I think it is helpful to have a clear understanding of what is happening in the whole area of availability, if for no other reason than that it puts discourse on facts instead of emotion.

For example, it appears from a series of posts here and elsewhere that the largest number of attendees at the EF are in the 20’s to mid 30’s. From there, without considering or investigating how many in their 20’s to mid 30’s are attending the OF in the parish(s) that may source to the parish which has the EF, we get the impression that people in this age group in general, or in large want the EF. The fact is, we simply don’t have enough evidence to be able to make a factually meaningful statement.

It furstrates me that the EF is not made available to those who desire it. It is my suspicion (and that is backed by a careful reading of the document and letter allowing it widely) that the Pope himself does not anticipate that it will be anything more than a subset of those going to Mass each Sunday. But we are stymied by the issues I have already noted - priests, bishops, knowledge of its availability - of really knowing how many people would prefer that as their Sunday Mass, and that is not serving the Body of Christ well.

 

[malphono]

Come on, now, don’t get touchy! I was not trying to put words in your mouth; I have enough trouble with my own. Words and mouth. It appeared we crossed an item.

Oh, I’m not being “touchy” (or “huffy” or whatever). I merely wanted to set the record straight. Mission accomplished. Yes, an item was crossed.

(Sigh) In reading posts - here and elsewhere - about the EF, the posts seem to swing between two points; either it is hardly available at all, or there are huge numbers of people going to the EF. I think it is helpful to have a clear understanding of what is happening in the whole area of availability, if for no other reason than that it puts discourse on facts instead of emotion.

For example, it appears from a series of posts here and elsewhere that the largest number of attendees at the EF are in the 20’s to mid 30’s. From there, without considering or investigating how many in their 20’s to mid 30’s are attending the OF in the parish(s) that may source to the parish which has the EF, we get the impression that people in this age group in general, or in large want the EF. The fact is, we simply don’t have enough evidence to be able to make a factually meaningful statement.

I don’t know that anyone has said that the 20-30-somethings are clamoring en masse for the EF. I certainly never got that impression from any post. What I’ve seen are eyewitness accounts of the mix of congregants at the EF, and those accounts happen to agree with what I have seen with my own eyes: a surprisingly large number of that group in attendance. No, it’s not “statistical” but it does give an idea that there is some interest on the part of those who know it exists.

It furstrates me that the EF is not made available to those who desire it. It is my suspicion (and that is backed by a careful reading of the document and letter allowing it widely) that the Pope himself does not anticipate that it will be anything more than a subset of those going to Mass each Sunday. But we are stymied by the issues I have already noted - priests, bishops, knowledge of its availability - of really knowing how many people would prefer that as their Sunday Mass, and that is not serving the Body of Christ well.

If you look back in this thread, you’ll see that I never suggested anything beyond increased availability of both the EF (and its “reform of the reform” OF cousin). All I suggested is to help “even the playing field” and give both some exposure. Quite within the spirit of Summorum Pontificum (not to mention the editio typica of the OF). In other words, if people don’t know, they can’t go.

 

[otjm]

If you look back in this thread, you’ll see that I never suggested anything beyond increased availability of both the EF (and its “reform of the reform” OF cousin). All I suggested is to help “even the playing field” and give both some exposure. Quite within the spirit of Summorum Pontificum (not to mention the editio typica of the OF). In other words, if people don’t know, they can’t go.

Yep. Exactly.

 

[Frosty]

If you look back in this thread, you’ll see that I never suggested anything beyond increased availability of both the EF (and its “reform of the reform” OF cousin). All I suggested is to help “even the playing field” and give both some exposure. Quite within the spirit of Summorum Pontificum (not to mention the editio typica of the OF). In other words, if people don’t know, they can’t go.

The EF has been available in the two largest cities in my diocese for several years prior to Summorum Pontificum. The fact that it has been available was never a secret. It has been mentioned several times in the Diocesan newspaper and I have seen posters for it on bulletin boards in the narthex of several churches. The fact is that attendance at each location has waxed and waned over the years and the demand has not increased.

Our Bishop has made beautiful and reverent liturgies a focal point in this diocese ever since his installation although there never was any of the crazy stuff that I read about on this forum to start with. The geographical parish next to mine has had the OF celebrated in Latin, ad orientam, since it was introduced in Canada in 1970. Everyone knows about it but again, there are not tons of people flocking to assist at Mass at that particular parish. In truth, it is one of the smaller parishes in the city. There are a few other parishes in smaller towns where the OF is celebrated that way as well.

You keep using the term “reform of the reform”. I would like to know what you mean by that. Is it the OF said in Latin, ad orientam, Communion strictly kneeling and on the tongue? When the Pope celebrates Mass at any of the Roman parishes, he does so in the vernacular, ad populum and although those receiving Communion personally from him now do so kneeling and on the tongue, the rest of the parishoners have the option to stand and receive in the hand. In your opinion, is he missing the meaning of the “reform of the reform”?

 

[malphono]

The EF has been available in the two largest cities in my diocese for several years prior to Summorum Pontificum. The fact that it has been available was never a secret. It has been mentioned several times in the Diocesan newspaper and I have seen posters for it on bulletin boards in the narthex of several churches. The fact is that attendance at each location has waxed and waned over the years and the demand has not increased.

Our Bishop has made beautiful and reverent liturgies a focal point in this diocese ever since his installation although there never was any of the crazy stuff that I read about on this forum to start with. The geographical parish next to mine has had the OF celebrated in Latin, ad orientam, since it was introduced in Canada in 1970. Everyone knows about it but again, there are not tons of people flocking to assist at Mass at that particular parish. In truth, it is one of the smaller parishes in the city. There are a few other parishes in smaller towns where the OF is celebrated that way as well.

There may not be “tons of people flocking” to either, but the fact that the EF and the “reform of the reform” OF have been, and continue to be, available is itself a positive sign.

The point, in general, is that both the EF and its “reform of the reform” cousin are usually not promoted by either the bishops or parish clergy. Perhaps more people would be interested if there were some chatechesis along with simply announcing the venue.

You keep using the term “reform of the reform”. I would like to know what you mean by that. Is it the OF said in Latin, ad orientam, Communion strictly kneeling and on the tongue?

Yes, that’s pretty much it.

When the Pope celebrates Mass at any of the Roman parishes, he does so in the vernacular, ad populum and although those receiving Communion personally from him now do so kneeling and on the tongue, the rest of the parishoners have the option to stand and receive in the hand. In your opinion, is he missing the meaning of the “reform of the reform”?

As you yourself have noted, the “reform of the reform” has existed for quite some time, so it’s not really a matter of PP Benedict XVI “missing the meaning” or anything of the sort.

I will say that, liturgically, last year’s visit to the US was a big disappointment to me. But at the same I’ll grant that he was in a delicate position,and I didn’t expect anything much different (although I would have been thrilled if it had been).

OTOH, in Rome he does normally offer the OF in Latin, and has publicly offered the “reform of the reform” OF ad orientem (e.g. this year for Epiphany).

All of that said, I still not sure what point you’re trying to make.