J
JanetF
Guest
Same here, and we bowed as the priest genuflected (some of us still do that).
- Status
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
That is very interesting.
My diocese has han an approved EF for a little over 25 years, with an average attendance of about 150. From the beginning, there were more people who never experienced the EF as the ordinary forum or were so young that had no real memories of it in attendance.
The average age of attendees now is between 30-50. None of these people experienced the Mass prior to 1970
S
stpurl
Guest
I’ve had experience like yours. Actually, the only people who ever had been (by their words) at Mass prior to the change and said, “I would NEVER go back again” have been people on these forums, never people I have actually known ‘in the flesh’ who all said exactly the opposite. Even my sister who is now not practicing any religion at all said as far as the Mass then v now, she might not approve the ‘narrowness’ of belief then but it certainly was better articulated and better lived then!
J
JulianN
Guest
Let me speak up as one who doesn’t. And I have many friends in the same age group who agree.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Just curious how you know the ages of people. Do you go every week and try to guess their ages? Are there multiple Masses?StValentineFriend:
That is very interesting.
My diocese has han an approved EF for a little over 25 years, with an average attendance of about 150. From the beginning, there were more people who never experienced the EF as the ordinary forum or were so young that had no real memories of it in attendance.
The average age of attendees now is between 30-50. None of these people experienced the Mass prior to 1970
I always wonder if it counts for an extenuating circumstance for judging the popularity of Latin Mass, the fact that it’s in a terrible part of town? And nobody knows it exists?
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
One Mass weekly at 11:15am. I have attended occasionally. I am friends with many who attend and it is quite obvious that none are old enough to remember when the EF was the ordinary forum.
The parish is my husband’s childhood parish, in a very nice area of town, with plenty of parking and within 30 minutes of just about all of the diocese. I also see the bulletin weekly. Attendance figures are published.
The parish is my husband’s childhood parish, in a very nice area of town, with plenty of parking and within 30 minutes of just about all of the diocese. I also see the bulletin weekly. Attendance figures are published.
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
The difference between someone who is 30-40 and over 60 is usually pretty easy to assess.
I know many, many Catholics over 60 who remember the Latin Mass and would not prefer going back to it.
S
stpurl
Guest
It does come down to a he-said, she-said, doesn’t it.
Let’s face it, there are millions of Catholics in the US now, right? Let’s assume that the Catholic had to be born in 1959 or earlier in order to have been old enough to have a basic understanding of Mass ‘before’ ‘during’ and after’. Ok so you are talking about people as young as 60 this year, and older than my mom who just turned 90.
Of all those Catholics, you would have to get every single one to respond with every single person over his or her entire lifetime who made either statement of “I would never go back” "I would like to go back.’
And THEN you’d have to factor in the not inconsiderable amount of folks who have died in the interim without being asked and so never had their opinion heard, as well as those who said one thing at one time and then changed their minds, many who have since ‘jumped the barque’ and would cheerfully throw ANY Mass out the nearest window, etc. etc.
And you’ll also have to consider the many people who do not have access to the Mass due to geography, age, disability, etc. etc.
Not as easy to make blanket claims of "everybody would never’. You’ll note that people here aren’t saying, "Everybody would always’. . .and to me, that’s telling.
Let’s face it, there are millions of Catholics in the US now, right? Let’s assume that the Catholic had to be born in 1959 or earlier in order to have been old enough to have a basic understanding of Mass ‘before’ ‘during’ and after’. Ok so you are talking about people as young as 60 this year, and older than my mom who just turned 90.
Of all those Catholics, you would have to get every single one to respond with every single person over his or her entire lifetime who made either statement of “I would never go back” "I would like to go back.’
And THEN you’d have to factor in the not inconsiderable amount of folks who have died in the interim without being asked and so never had their opinion heard, as well as those who said one thing at one time and then changed their minds, many who have since ‘jumped the barque’ and would cheerfully throw ANY Mass out the nearest window, etc. etc.
And you’ll also have to consider the many people who do not have access to the Mass due to geography, age, disability, etc. etc.
Not as easy to make blanket claims of "everybody would never’. You’ll note that people here aren’t saying, "Everybody would always’. . .and to me, that’s telling.
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
I remember Masses back into the 40s. I actually have no strong preference one way or the other. I don’t explicitly seek out EF nor OF. If my particular parish was EF, that would be ok. If my particular parish was OF, that would be ok. If it offered both, I’d probably attend some EF and some OF.
The one exception is Easter Vigil. I’d go with EF every time. Even so, you still can’t bring back the 40s nor 50s, at least in the US… Fire laws, you know.
The one piece of the puzzle that, in my humble opinion, was not a step forward, was removal of the Altar rails. But nobody died and left me in charge.
The one exception is Easter Vigil. I’d go with EF every time. Even so, you still can’t bring back the 40s nor 50s, at least in the US… Fire laws, you know.
The one piece of the puzzle that, in my humble opinion, was not a step forward, was removal of the Altar rails. But nobody died and left me in charge.
J
JulianN
Guest
I agree. But when people say, “I’ve never met anyone…” it makes it seem as if those people don’t exist. And clearly, they do.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Do you mean the Easter Vigil as it was reformed by Bugnini et al. In the 1950s?
Or the Easter Vigil from earlier that was celebrated Saturday morning I think?
P
Phemie
Guest
I recall that the older people in our parish (those in their 50s and up) were very upset by the changes that occurred after Vatican II. They felt that everything they believed and knew had been ripped away from them. They never adapted well to the OF. But those folk have been dead for a couple of decades now.
The “old folk” in the parish were in their teens and twenties when all the changes occurred. They loved the changes and that has not changed. And they still insist in singing the songs they learned then.
I have never attended an EF Mass simply because there isn’t one available anywhere near where I live (it would be an 1800 mile return trip). But I have had occasion to attend a very reverent OF Mass where the Ordinary was sung in Latin/Greek to the music I recalled from my childhood. I would attend a Mass like that every week if it were available,
The “old folk” in the parish were in their teens and twenties when all the changes occurred. They loved the changes and that has not changed. And they still insist in singing the songs they learned then.
I have never attended an EF Mass simply because there isn’t one available anywhere near where I live (it would be an 1800 mile return trip). But I have had occasion to attend a very reverent OF Mass where the Ordinary was sung in Latin/Greek to the music I recalled from my childhood. I would attend a Mass like that every week if it were available,
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I believe Pope Pius XII did allow Rosary during Mass in Mediator Dei and I do not believe it was ever revoked (correct me if I am wrong, I would certainly like to know if that is the case).
“Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”
This is Pope’s reasoning. I know nowadays that knowledge is almost lost, but I do not think that so many things have changed since that. I do believe that indeed, Novus Ordo is continuation of Tridentine Mass and hence this would apply to OF too.
Most people who attend EF in city where I study tend to be respectful of OF too; (Priest had numerous sermons on that topic) and funnily enough, most people who attend OF and encounter EF with me seem to view it as “weird”. I know one person (and probably her family shares the view) who says that OF is much more prone to abuses right now and that EF seems more reverent- though they do normally attend OF because EF is not available unless they visit their family, and I have never heard her disrespect OF (that is, if you don’t count above statement as disrespect- then it was only one I heard her say). People have preferences and that is all fine. I myself would probably prefer Ad Orientem OF with Incense. OF is prone to liturgical abuses because it is Ordinary Form and most Priests celebrate it- as EF was once ordinary Mass and was prone to abuses too. Whatever form becomes common becomes prone to abuses, and that is a fact.
Also to note, I found that during different times of last year I had preference for Byzantine Divine Liturgy, then EF, then OF, then EF and I am blessed to be able to choose which to attend- each Liturgy has some aspects which it emphasizes.
“Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”
This is Pope’s reasoning. I know nowadays that knowledge is almost lost, but I do not think that so many things have changed since that. I do believe that indeed, Novus Ordo is continuation of Tridentine Mass and hence this would apply to OF too.
And finally for the third option, whenever I have asked people have told me “it was same, just Priest was turned from the people and we responded in Latin. In schools, they taught us what responses meant and that was it.” I never heard any “I miss the Mass” and neither have I heard any “I hated that Mass”. People simply believed and trusted in Mother Church as much as those people do now.
Most people who attend EF in city where I study tend to be respectful of OF too; (Priest had numerous sermons on that topic) and funnily enough, most people who attend OF and encounter EF with me seem to view it as “weird”. I know one person (and probably her family shares the view) who says that OF is much more prone to abuses right now and that EF seems more reverent- though they do normally attend OF because EF is not available unless they visit their family, and I have never heard her disrespect OF (that is, if you don’t count above statement as disrespect- then it was only one I heard her say). People have preferences and that is all fine. I myself would probably prefer Ad Orientem OF with Incense. OF is prone to liturgical abuses because it is Ordinary Form and most Priests celebrate it- as EF was once ordinary Mass and was prone to abuses too. Whatever form becomes common becomes prone to abuses, and that is a fact.
Also to note, I found that during different times of last year I had preference for Byzantine Divine Liturgy, then EF, then OF, then EF and I am blessed to be able to choose which to attend- each Liturgy has some aspects which it emphasizes.
Last edited:
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
Primarily the “midnight Mass” which would have been from the 1950s (I recall a change in the early 50s.). I am keying on the candlelight processions in Latin. (Yes, even a grade schooler can self learn enough Latin to be cognizant of what’s going on - at least this grade schooler). The litany of saints chanted has such a beautiful ring to it in Latin that is lost in English. Maybe not so much in places where the vernacular is a romance language.
I primarily remember Archbishop Bugnini primarily from his V II influences more so than early 50s changes. I was indifferent about the mid 50s changes as that happened to occur about the time our church got rebuilt… physically moving a few blocks up the street.
ETA: I would agree with above… people tended to trust Mother Church.
I primarily remember Archbishop Bugnini primarily from his V II influences more so than early 50s changes. I was indifferent about the mid 50s changes as that happened to occur about the time our church got rebuilt… physically moving a few blocks up the street.
ETA: I would agree with above… people tended to trust Mother Church.
Last edited:
Because the catechism, like the Baltimore Catechism, was written in the vernacular.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
The Baltimore catechism wasn’t written until 1885.
The reason I asked is because according to some posters here, prior to Vatican II Catholics had a terrible time and no one would ever want to go back to any part of it. We seem to be losing Catholics today but in the past Churches, Cathedrals, parishes and hospitals were built.
Sigh…PeterT:
The Baltimore catechism wasn’t written until 1885.
You missed my point.
People were taught the faith via their families and via the catechisms, which the Baltimore Catechism was one of many. These catechism books were always written in the vernacular of the era which they were written.
Only the most educated understood Latin in the Middle Ages and later. Catholics were taught about Catholicism in the vernacular of whatever region they lived even though the Mass was celebrated in Latin.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I did not miss your point.
I understand that, which shows that Christianity was not so horrible prior to Vatican II and people could understand and spread the love of Christ and pass on the faith.
S
stpurl
Guest
Peter, the printing press wasn’t available until the last bit of the 15th century. And most people in Europe, the Americas, etc. did not approach anything like universal literacy until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I think your premise, that people were ‘taught’, is sound. But written catechisms came at the END of the establishment of Christianity --which had been growing since AD 33-- and indeed, at the start of the Reformation.
Bibles were not always written (I should say perhaps ‘copied’ and handwritten, which is how they were made prior to the printing press in the late 1400s) in Latin, either. Some of the vernacular Bibles were problematic because they were poorly translated and thus led to heresy, but others were perfectly orthodox. There were other lovely handwritten religious texts as well.
I think your premise, that people were ‘taught’, is sound. But written catechisms came at the END of the establishment of Christianity --which had been growing since AD 33-- and indeed, at the start of the Reformation.
Bibles were not always written (I should say perhaps ‘copied’ and handwritten, which is how they were made prior to the printing press in the late 1400s) in Latin, either. Some of the vernacular Bibles were problematic because they were poorly translated and thus led to heresy, but others were perfectly orthodox. There were other lovely handwritten religious texts as well.
Yes, catechism books weren’t widespread until the invention of the printing press (neither were Bibles). That said, there have been catechism books even in the early Church, the most famous one being the Didache written in the vernacular of the time, Koine Greek, in during the first century of Christianity.
- Status