Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A reverant Liturgy is vital, but it isn’t enough. We have kept Our Traditions, and yet we are struggling with the problems including losing youth and lukewarm faith (St John Crysostom complained of this in his day. Truly nothing new under the sun).

What happened in the aftermath of Vatican II was to us a tragedy to witness, and a cautionary tale for us (read the Council of Crete’s documents to see what I mean). HOWEVER I think discernment is wise here. Something more is there.
 
We really have two separate issues: the language and the reverence. One does not require the other. I think the current liturgy has the utmost reverent potential but the selection of songs sometimes detracts from it.
 
Last edited:
You are right; it never went away. However, a review of where the EF is offered throughout the United States indicates that it has only a small number of people and parishes interested.
 
I would agree to a point. However, I think that the reason people may seem disinterested in the Latin Mass is that they have not heard of it. Summorum Pontificum only came out in 2007. Not a lot of time for Latin Masses to start up.
 
Entwhistler said:
I would agree to a point. However, I think that the reason people may seem disinterested in the Latin Mass is that they have not heard of it. Summorum Pontificum only came out in 2007. Not a lot of time for Latin Masses to start up.
Click to expand...
There were plenty before 2007. They were not forbidden outright, however, some dioceses restricted their use. I know several monistaries that never stopped saying TLM licitly.

Which was fine.

What changed in 2007 was that the Bishops were no longer allowed to refuse TLM.

What the issue was before is that at a Parish a priest must say X number of public Masses as agreed upon with the Bishop. They are also limited to the number of public masses–also as per the Bishop. So they couldn’t just add a TLM. Most were unwilling to change an OF to a TLM. In 2007 things changed so a priest willing to do a public TLM could not be forbidden from taking on an extra Mass.
 
Right, but you had to look quiet a bit to find TLM before 2007. In my state for instance, there were only two Latin Mass communities both run by the FSSP. Now, since the Motu Proprio, Diocesan priests have begun to say them here and there. So instead of two outlying churches, you don’t have to travel two hours to get a Latin Mass. (Although, in some parts of the state you might have to).
 
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Tridentine Mass must be restored.

The New Mass has bore too many bad fruits, and we’re currently living the backlashes of it with the current crisis of faith. Many do not understand, study, or even attempt to do any of those people they lack the supernatural faith to do so.

Lex orandi, lex credendi!
 
The last time I checked, out of 17,300+ parishes in the US, lest than three percent (3%) had an Extraordinary Form Mass of any sort. By any sort, I mean the range from an all EF parish, with Sunday and weedeay Masses in the EF form, to parishes which have one Ef Mass on Sunday (including some which have a Low EF early on Sunday), to parishes which have an EF Mass, once a week on Saturday morning, to parishes with an EF every toher weekm to parishes which have an EF Mass once every other month. And parishes which are all EF are in a small minority.

It has been said in this thread (and elsewhere) now much more reverent the EF is. However, it has also been siad, and bears repeating, that there are very few priests who say the Ef - and they want to; and very vew people who go to them (out of all Catholics attending Mass within the same time period) and they want to be at the EF.

I am 71; and I grew up with a pastor who could say the 6:30 a.m. Mass weekdays in 15 to 17 minutes. He also had a terrible problem with alcohol, which I will not get further into. But he most certainly was not alone in how he said Mass. He could also pull out the stops for a Solemn High Mass with all the pomp and circumstance one could wish for.

It is also true that only a minority of parishioners, when I was growing up, had purchased a missal with translations; and the vast majority of people were not fluent in Latin as it was not widely taught as a spoken language. the majority of people were “fulfilling their duty” and said the Rosary or read pamphlets of prayers other than the Mass. .

None of that is said to detract from the EF as it is said today, I attended Masses in the EF prior to the introduction of the OF which were reverent; and I attended those which were rushed and less than reverent. But to those who take the position that the EF is by its nature more reverent, I say poppycock, simply because I choose not to use gutter language. Both are the Mass; both have the Eucharist, and both can be said very reverently and both over history have been said irreverently. Reverence is not done by what the priest says, but how he says it.
 
To the Catholic Knight: It was restored; in July 2007 Summorum Pontificum was promulgated (the EF Mass was in existence bofore that, but this widened the possibility). In 10 years, over 97% of parishes do not have the EF, and in the remaining less than 3%, most have it in limited circumstances along with the OF.

Given there are 17,233 parishes as of 2016, and approximately 14,920 priests in active ministry, the likelihood of any significant increase is null and none. The bishops’ first responsibility is to the majority of parishioners, and the vast majority of parishioners prefer the OF.
 
Please NO! Have one a
Month for old times sake. The mystical body of Christcan pray w mass in their vernacular. In Tridentine, the Mystical body of Christ is ignorantly in the Mystery of Latin, saying their rosaries or daydreaming.
How is God’s message received in the CHURCH?
What language clearly delivers the message?
Is the mass a living presence of Christ among us?
If you reduce participation, are we holier?
Nostalgia is nice. But, one can’t go back! Something is always lost in the past.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
A comment has been made about how much vocations dropped after Vatican 2. by every 5 years, the following were ordained to the diocesesan priesthood:
1965: 994
1970: 805
1975: 771
1980: 593
1985: 533
1990: 595
1995: 511
2000:442
2005: 454
2010: 459
2016: 548

There has obviously been a drop in the numbers ordained; I don’t have the years in between the 5 year notes (as I don’t care to pay CARA cor the information). but what many don’t take into account is the changes in society since the 1950’s.

What has happened since then? Lets note just a few changes: The Korean War (stalemate); the Vietnam war (lost); Hippies and the open breakout of the sexual revolution (which actually traces back to the late 1800’s, and took off significantly among the “intelligentsia” in the 1920"s); The Pill; abortion on demand (amazing how one followed another), both of which were toed to the sexual revolution; Pornography; the increase in secularism and its reaches through all mediums of communication, particularly television (and now the internet), just to name a few of the massive shifts in mindsets of each and every individual out there. whatever affected society affected those sitting in the pews. In the mid-late 1950’s, Weekly Mass attendance appears to have been in the low 70% range. Yearly it has dropped off bit by bit, to where it now hoovers around 20-25%.

and we need to keep all of these things in mind when ascribing the “why” to the lower number of seminarians and ordinations. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a logical fallacy.
 
Today and infact he said we could partake in the Eucharist twice a day.

It’s ’ give us our daily bread’ not weekly, monthly yearly, Christmas or Easter bread. It’s daily bread.
 
Can’t go back? Then what are we doing trying to replicate practices of the early Church?
 
I think you’re confusing reverence with solemnity.

But then many have not heard of (or have forgotten) the Baltimore Catechism, much less have heard of the Catechism of Trent.
 
Last edited:
Ignorantly in the mystery of Latin, saying their rosaries or daydreaming? Really? Really? Wasn’t my experience OR the experiences of ANYBODY I knew. Rather a blanket kind of judgmentalism on your part to smear literally millions of people throughout the ages (not simply in the past 50 years or so), isn’t it?
 
otjm said:
what many don’t take into account is the changes in society since the 1950’s.
Click to expand...
How about since 1850? Seems like the Catholic Church flourished beautifully during this period, especially in the U.K. and U.S. Before 1850 Catholicism was hardly existent in those two English-speaking countries. Maybe the Baltimore Catechism and its easily memorizeable Q/A format had something to do with the growth of Catholicism until the 1950’s or so?
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
Today and infact he said we could partake in the Eucharist twice a day.

It’s ’ give us our daily bread’ not weekly, monthly yearly, Christmas or Easter bread. It’s daily bread.
Click to expand...
"Our daily bread " is not just the Eucharist. Why be so literal?
 
I would think John 6 would point towards Eucharistic being a superior “daily bread”.

Re: when was the last time a priest suggested daily mass? Most Sundays. Not always, but often.

Blessings, Stephie
 
I think that the next generation of priest are now celebrating the traditional mass deo grathis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top