Youth and the Extraordinary Form

[Baelor]

While I share your hope for a return to tradition within the OF, I can’t agree with you that a decrease in the demand for the EF is somehow a good to be desired.

Because some of the demand for the EF comes from those whose nearby OF parishes do not celebrate the Mass correctly or reverently, I disagree. I think that that demand should decrease, and that all Catholics should have access to reverently-celebrated Masses of either form. Because this is not currently the case, there is artificial demand for the EF; artificial in that it does not represent an actual desire for the EF but instead a desire for reverence that should be satisfied at any Mass.

Furthermore, the EF is an EF. It should be celebrated for those who wish, but it is not meant to supplant or become more common than the OF.

While I don’t personally care much for the EF your statement above makes it sound as though you think of the EF as something bad that ought to be eradicated.

This is a sloppy misreading of my post and it needs no clarification. In no way did I imply this, so I will not bother to defend against the hypothetical charge that I did.

I wouldn’t care if OF are celebrated more traditionally, that wouldn’t replace the EF for me.

Since you are one person and the entire population of Catholics attending the EF exceeds one, your own perspective is somewhat appreciated and definitely unimportant to the larger demographic question.

I think it’s rather funny to see the idea of “tradition” associated with the OF. The OF, when it’s properly celebrated is a form that is only about 50 years old and a radical departure from the EF (the previous form).

The form is, but that is a gross misrepresentation of any Mass.

Whereas the EF is almost 500 years old, and was built largely upon previous forms of the Mass. The “tradition” of the OF pales in comparison to the EF. There is a timelessness to the EF.

Hardly, since the EF is only 500 years old, even if it was based on prior forms. The OF is not a complete invention and departure from all previous forms, so it is not quite clear to me what you are saying.

I believe this is the attraction of the EF to the youth. The OF was created in the 1970’s and seems to be stuck there. The youth of today see the OF as passé, something from a previous generation.

Which is why the OF needs to be celebrated as it was intended, so that its timelessness and reverence may be visible to all.

How exactly do you mean by “as intended”?

As intended by Vatican II.

If the OF was celebrated everywhere like that I still don’t think that it would decrease the demand for EF.

Given that I know individuals who attend the EF only because the local OF Masses are not reverent, I know you are wrong.

 

[Esrb99]

Which is why the OF needs to be celebrated as it was intended, so that its timelessness and reverence may be visible to all.

As intended by Vatican II.

Given that I know individuals who attend the EF only because the local OF Masses are not reverent, I know you are wrong.

Many of us know individuals who have attended OF masses “as intended by VII” still prefer the EF. There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s true I found the EF due to irreverence at my home parish, but even when given the choice between two parishes equidistant from me with a reverent EF and a reverent OF, I would choose the EF any time. I’d still attend the OF occasionally, but I identify more with the EF in general. Heck, I was at the Pope’s Midnight Mass this Christmas and while it was amazing, I still prefer the EF and my personal parish’s Midnight Mass. It was an amazing experience though!

I think that it’s safe to say that a sizable portion of people who discover the EF and begin to attend it regularly come to prefer it, and would continue to do so even with a reverent OF.

To me this is self evident in the St. Louis Archdiocese; we have two parishes that offer the EF daily/exclusively, one with 1,500 people every sunday and a vibrant musical program. We also have a parish that offers a beautiful OF mass ad orientem, Latin Propers and ordinary, chanted, beautiful church etc. I’ve been there multiple times and there’s never more than 15-30 people there-usually just 3-5 families. If people would prefer the OF as intended (and this place is known and advertised, Stl has billboards for both the OF and EF latin masses along the interstates) then why does the EF have a much larger following and more options, while the one place with the OF ‘as intended’ seems to come across as more of a novelty?

 

[Baelor]

Many of us know individuals who have attended OF masses “as intended by VII” still prefer the EF. There is nothing wrong with that.

I never said there was, and I never said that persons such as you did not exist.

It’s true I found the EF due to irreverence at my home parish, but even when given the choice between two parishes equidistant from me with a reverent EF and a reverent OF, I would choose the EF any time.

That is nice, but unimportant to what I was saying.

I think that it’s safe to say that a sizable portion of people who discover the EF and begin to attend it regularly come to prefer it, and would continue to do so even with a reverent OF.

Again, I never said this was not the case.

If people would prefer the OF as intended (and this place is known and advertised, Stl has billboards for both the OF and EF latin masses along the interstates) then why does the EF have a much larger following and more options, while the one place with the OF ‘as intended’ seems to come across as more of a novelty?

It is not my place to make guesses about the dynamics of parishes and dioceses about which I know nothing.

 

[corsair]

I think it’s rather funny to see the idea of “tradition” associated with the OF. The OF, when it’s properly celebrated is a form that is only about 50 years old and a radical departure from the EF (the previous form). Whereas the EF is almost 500 years old, and was built largely upon previous forms of the Mass. The “tradition” of the OF pales in comparison to the EF. There is a timelessness to the EF.

I believe this is the attraction of the EF to the youth. The OF was created in the 1970’s and seems to be stuck there. The youth of today see the OF as passé, something from a previous generation.

Unfortunately, there are too many of the boomer generation in the parishes, who see the OF as something of there own creation, and add the trappings of that previous generation. The OF appears to the youth more like a fashion than a form. And to them it’s a little out of fashion. The boomers may stay stuck in the 1970’s, and hope the EF goes away, but it’s growing almost everywhere I have seen it.

The young adults and large young families make up the largest percentage of those attending the EF everywhere I have seen it celebrated. Even if it’s hidden away or suppressed in the diocese, so attendance.is small. The largest percentage is still a much younger generation.

Oh, how right you are. I do not understand folks that equate the OF with tradition. It has no tradition. It was a man-made creation and is, as you say, less than 50 years old.

The Holy Father has said it is a valid Mass so I’m not disputing that.

 

[thewanderer]

Because some of the demand for the EF comes from those whose nearby OF parishes do not celebrate the Mass correctly or reverently, I disagree. I think that that demand should decrease, and that all Catholics should have access to reverently-celebrated Masses of either form. Because this is not currently the case, there is artificial demand for the EF; artificial in that it does not represent an actual desire for the EF but instead a desire for reverence that should be satisfied at any Mass.

I agree with you that some of the desire would taper off if there were more reverant OF masses. My problem, as I already explained, is with the wording you chose to use which makes it sound as though you think there is something wrong with the EF and you want it shoved in a corner where it can only be celebrated by the very few no matter how many people actually want the EF.

Furthermore, the EF is an EF. It should be celebrated for those who wish, but it is not meant to supplant or become more common than the OF.

Only because it is assumed that there are fewer people who want the EF than the OF. The Church has made it clear that they want the EF to be available wherever there is a demand for it. If one day demand for the EF were to grow greater than demand for the OF (which I personally doubtt will happen) then the Church will probably change which one is the ordinary and which the extraordinary. It is not as if the Church is trying to prevent the EF from being more common than the OF she wants to feed all of her flockaccording to their needs.

 

[Baelor]

My problem, as I already explained, is with the wording you chose to use which makes it sound as though you think there is something wrong with the EF and you want it shoved in a corner where it can only be celebrated by the very few no matter how many people actually want the EF.

I understand and appreciate your concern (truly), but as you have stated twice, I did not actually state that there was anything wrong with the EF or that I wanted it unduly marginalized. So let the assailants throw themselves upon me with flimsy weapons, and I shall repel them all with ease.

Only because it is assumed that there are fewer people who want the EF than the OF. The Church has made it clear that they want the EF to be available wherever there is a demand for it…It is not as if the Church is trying to prevent the EF from being more common than the OF she wants to feed all of her flockaccording to their needs.

I agree.

 

[thewanderer]

Many of us know individuals who have attended OF masses “as intended by VII” still prefer the EF. There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s true I found the EF due to irreverence at my home parish, but even when given the choice between two parishes equidistant from me with a reverent EF and a reverent OF, I would choose the EF any time. I’d still attend the OF occasionally, but I identify more with the EF in general. Heck, I was at the Pope’s Midnight Mass this Christmas and while it was amazing, I still prefer the EF and my personal parish’s Midnight Mass. It was an amazing experience though!

I think that it’s safe to say that a sizable portion of people who discover the EF and begin to attend it regularly come to prefer it, and would continue to do so even with a reverent OF.

To me this is self evident in the St. Louis Archdiocese; we have two parishes that offer the EF daily/exclusively, one with 1,500 people every sunday and a vibrant musical program. We also have a parish that offers a beautiful OF mass ad orientem, Latin Propers and ordinary, chanted, beautiful church etc. I’ve been there multiple times and there’s never more than 15-30 people there-usually just 3-5 families. If people would prefer the OF as intended (and this place is known and advertised, Stl has billboards for both the OF and EF latin masses along the interstates) then why does the EF have a much larger following and more options, while the one place with the OF ‘as intended’ seems to come across as more of a novelty?

Can we please avoid turning this into a thread debating the OF vs EF? Baelor’s point was true and valid, just because the OF is not as old as the EF doesn’t mean that it is impossible to include more traditipnal elements in the way the OF is said. I used to attend the OF in latin, in a beautiful Church with altar rails, paten, marble pillars, extreme reverence shown by everyone, everyone receiving kneeling and on the tongue, etc. I have also been to the EF in the same Church and of the two I definitely prefer attending the reverent and more traditional OF as it helps me focus more on the great mystery in front of me than the EF, with the EF I tend to just zone out. And I’m not the only one because in this location each of the OF masses was by far more attended than the single daily EF. Just because you don’t like the changes in the OF doesn’t mean you have to go on a rant about them whenever anybody brings up something thats even tangentially related.

 

[thewanderer]

I think it’s rather funny to see the idea of “tradition” associated with the OF. The OF, when it’s properly celebrated is a form that is only about 50 years old and a radical departure from the EF (the previous form). Whereas the EF is almost 500 years old, and was built largely upon previous forms of the Mass. The “tradition” of the OF pales in comparison to the EF. There is a timelessness to the EF.

I believe this is the attraction of the EF to the youth. The OF was created in the 1970’s and seems to be stuck there. The youth of today see the OF as passé, something from a previous generation.

Unfortunately, there are too many of the boomer generation in the parishes, who see the OF as something of there own creation, and add the trappings of that previous generation. The OF appears to the youth more like a fashion than a form. And to them it’s a little out of fashion. The boomers may stay stuck in the 1970’s, and hope the EF goes away, but it’s growing almost everywhere I have seen it.

The young adults and large young families make up the largest percentage of those attending the EF everywhere I have seen it celebrated. Even if it’s hidden away or suppressed in the diocese, so attendance.is small. The largest percentage is still a much younger generation.

Can we please avoid turning this into a thread debating the OF vs EF? Baelor’s point was true and valid, just because the OF is not as old as the EF doesn’t mean that it is impossible to include more traditipnal elements in the way the OF is said. I (a youth) used to attend the OF in latin, in a beautiful Church with altar rails, paten, marble pillars, extreme reverence shown by everyone, everyone receiving kneeling and on the tongue, etc. I have also been to the EF in the same Church and of the two I definitely prefer attending the reverent and more traditional OF as it helps me focus more on the great mystery in front of me than the EF, with the EF I tend to just zone out. And I’m not the only one because in this location each of the OF masses was by far more attended (and mostly by youths) than the single daily EF. My current OF parish (in English) also has a very large proportion of young adults and children in attendance. While there are many OF parishes where this is not the case this is hardly something unique to the EF. Just because you don’t like the changes in the OF doesn’t mean you have to go on a rant about them whenever anybody brings up something thats even tangentially related.

 

[10thCrusader]

I think the whole point of this post was the original article that looks at why the youth (present company excepted) seem to prefer the EF over the OF. I don’t think we’ve really gone off on tangent here at all. This is not a post about how the youth would prefer a more reverent version of the OF (as if a “me too” approach would really be appealing).

However, I have been told by some of the Knights of Columbus from other parishes that the presence of a Solemn High Latin Mass on Sunday in the Diocese is starting to affect the surrounding parishes. The priests in these parishes are actually pushing for a more solemn and reverent celebration of the OF - sort of keeping up with the neighbors I guess.

My point was that the EF has stood the test of time. Great composers, such as Mozart and Beethoven have written the music for this Mass. I would defy anyone to see a more beautiful and moving funeral mass than Fauré’s Requiem.

It is not about the EF being more valid than the OF. It is about how the EF seems to reach the soul of the young more effectively.

 

[thewanderer]

Perhaps my reply was a little harsh, but I guess I just got frustrated at the way you picked on Baelor’s use of the word traditional with respect to the OF and used it as an opportunity to go on about how the OF can’t possibly ever have anything traditional about it and is apparantly just stuck in the 70’s and something that young people would never appreciate. I can see now that you were just trying to stay on topic by talking about what you think causes young people to come to the EF, but the way you phrased it came across as being very derogatory of the OF.

 

[Baelor]

It is not about the EF being more valid than the OF. It is about how the EF seems to reach the soul of the young more effectively.

I think you are using the word “seems” extremely loosely. Perhaps you should use “I assert with no evidence” instead.

 

[thewanderer]

I think you are using the word “seems” extremely loosely. Perhaps you should use “I assert with no evidence” instead.

Yes, this is also true! That is kind of why I brought up my own experience with the EF vs OF, I know plenty of devout young Catholics who have been exposed to both but who prefer the OF. It is definitely true that many people who are turning to the EF are young people, but it is not true that young people are not also turning to reverent forms of the OF. So while there is clearly something in the EF which speaks to many of these young people, it still is wrong to say that the EF, as such, has more of a draw for young people than a reverent OF. In my experience the opposite has been the case.

 

[10thCrusader]

I think you are using the word “seems” extremely loosely. Perhaps you should use “I assert with no evidence” instead.

I based my statement on the article I originally posted, which was the whole point of this thread in the first place. The article in the link asserts the evidence. Following forum guidelines, I didn’t post the entire article

I you need further evidence, simply go the the EF Mass, and you will see for yourself (unless you are in a diocese where it is heavily discouraged).

 

[Lawrence178]

Since you are one person and the entire population of Catholics attending the EF exceeds one, your own perspective is somewhat appreciated and definitely unimportant to the larger demographic question.

So my perspective is unimportant. Gee thanks.

Well I’ve been to the FSSP seminary and the young men there (who outnumber the sems at my Archdiocesan seminary, by the way, just saying) are not just rebelling against non-traditional OF. I’ve heard some say things even I think were far too harsh on the OF, even when celebrated reverently.

I can guarantee you that not one of them would come back to the OF no matter how much tradition was infused.

The EF and the OF are different. And Pope Benedict would disagree with you that the OF is supposed to destroy and replace the EF.

 

[Cat]

Yes, this is also true! That is kind of why I brought up my own experience with the EF vs OF, I know plenty of devout young Catholics who have been exposed to both but who prefer the OF. It is definitely true that many people who are turning to the EF are young people, but it is not true that young people are not also turning to reverent forms of the OF. So while there is clearly something in the EF which speaks to many of these young people, it still is wrong to say that the EF, as such, has more of a draw for young people than a reverent OF. In my experience the opposite has been the case.

This has been my experience, too.

We have had TLM in our city for 20 years now, and the young people definitely do not flock to it. In fact, people of any age do not flock to it. The TLM parish has about 400 members–that’s hardly a lot. (My very contemporary parish has 7000, and we do nine packed Masses on the weekends.)

I also agree with the poster who said that people who prefer the EF prefer it even if the OF Masses are reverent and liturgically-correct. It’s just like some people prefer certain styles of music. It’s personal taste.

I very much disagree with those who say that the OF is a modern innovation and a creation of man. The OF came out of the Vatican II, which was led by the Holy Spirit. We should not attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to “man.”

I converted to Catholicism from an evangelical Protestant background, and I found the OF Masses extremely ancient and “traditional” when I first started attending. In fact, I had visited Lutheran churches before, and IMO, the OF Mass has a lot of simliarity to the older Protestant liturgies. Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, keep in mind that the Lutheran worship service was derived from the Catholic TLM! Martin Luther didn’t create something new back during the Reformation–he just kept doing the Mass with a few innovations. So really now, when you face facts, the OF Mass has just as much ancient history and tradition as the TLM.

If you think that the OF is “modern,” try visiting a non-denominational worship service sometime, or visit one of the big megachurches. I think you’ll see real quick that the OF Mass that you think is ultra-modern is actually pretty antiquated.

I really really wish with all my heart that those of you who have to put up with liturgically-incorrect OF Masses, or other “rogue” innovations in the OF Mass, could regularly experience a reverent and correct OF Mass. No, I’m not saying that you would switch preferences from EF to OF, because like I said above, people all have their personal preferences. But I do think that if they could experience “good” OF Masses, some here who insist that the OF Mass is some kind of horrible abomination would stop thinking and saying such awful and divisive things in a public forum.

 

[10thCrusader]

We have had TLM in our city for 20 years now, and the young people definitely do not flock to it. In fact, people of any age do not flock to it. The TLM parish has about 400 members–that’s hardly a lot. (My very contemporary parish has 7000, and we do nine packed Masses on the weekends.)

They seem to have a lot of places in Illinois where the EF is available. Maybe it’s just the Illinois area that’s different, as the comments from Illinois seem to have experienced different reactions to the EF. I have been in areas where the EF was celebrated because the people demanded it, and the diocese was resistant. In those places, it is celebrated only as the Low Mass, and as dryly and minimally as possible. Maybe this is the case in Illinois.

Also, I wonder how many who commented from Illinois have actually attended the EF Mass, and seen who actually is there. Or did they get their information second-hand?

I converted to Catholicism from an evangelical Protestant background, and I found the OF Masses extremely ancient and “traditional” when I first started attending. In fact, I had visited Lutheran churches before, and IMO, the OF Mass has a lot of simliarity to the older Protestant liturgies.

That’s probably true. It would seem like traditional Protestant liturgy as a lot of the OF follows Thomas Cranmer’s Godly Order. However, I want the Catholic Mass, not a traditional Protestant service.

But I do think that if they could experience “good” OF Masses, some here who insist that the OF Mass is some kind of horrible abomination would stop thinking and saying such awful and divisive things in a public forum.

Why the accusations? Having attended the EF for many years, I have borne with these type of accusations and lame excuses many times, ie:

• The abuses seen in the OF are mere isolated incidents, and you would not prefer the EF, if you saw the OF celebrated properly - Then why is it so easy to incorporate these abuses into the OF?
• You are being divisive - You mean like when the OF was forced on everyone post-VII and huge numbers fell away from the Church in confusion?
• Those who attend the EF deny validity of the OF. (or call it a “horrible abomination”), - How many times have people put words in my mouth or accused my thoughts or attitudes unjustly when they find out I prefer the EF? The vast majority of people who attend the EF are obedient to the Church and do not question the validity of the EF. Who’s being divisive here?

Again, the whole point of this thread was the original article from RealClearReligion that the trend in the EF Mass was for a much younger demographic, not to criticize the OF.

 

[Esrb99]

There’s a lot of talk on the amount of people the EF is attracting, and whether it truly is attracting swaths of ‘youth’ or not. Bear in mind that the EF at times may not in the best locations in a city, or in buildings that cannot accommodate 5000+ people a day or the masses for 5000 people on a sunday. Priests are still limited to 2 masses without a dispensation from the Bishop. Even when societies of apostolic life like the FSSP or ICRSS are at the head of a parish/oratory, their priests are spread so thin that it’s rarely more than 2 priests there on any given day. And when there are three, it’s likely they will celebrate Solemn mass, as that is seen as the highest expression of the sacrifice offered to God. It’s supposed to be the standard, actually.

But even with all of these factors, some dioceses have a sizable flock for their EF apostolates. Here’s St. John Cantius in Chicago

http://www.cantius.org/uploads/images/nine-lessons-feature.jpg

And again, using my example of St. Louis, here is our Oratory:

Mass is standing room only

http://aeternus.stblogs.com/files/2008/11/overall.jpg

http://aeternus.stblogs.com/files/2008/12/boy.jpg

The mass is actively promoted, with billboards in both Missouri and Illinois for the this oratory:



If I had to guess, the archdiocese’s warm response to the institute and faithful attached to the EF has played a big part in this flourishing community.

 

[ProVobis]

This has been my experience, too.

We have had TLM in our city for 20 years now, and the young people definitely do not flock to it. In fact, people of any age do not flock to it. The TLM parish has about 400 members–that’s hardly a lot. (My very contemporary parish has 7000, and we do nine packed Masses on the weekends.)

Didn’t that same church (St. Mary’s) close down its doors back in the 80’s because NO ONE was attending (OF) Mass there? So now you’re comparing EF attendance with that of your contemporary parish? Some churches like St. John Cantius, whose doors were about to close at one time before they reinstated the Latin Mass, are in the same position, btw. Seems like, if anything, the EF (and the Latin OF) are saving the Catholic liturgy. I could easily point to many parishes which are reducing the number of OF Masses; even the Spanish Masses seem to be dwindling in attendance. On Jan 1, they had at the most 25 people in attendance, far fewer than the 100 or so we had for the EF which followed. Yet, if I remember correctly, according to Br JR the bishops have been ordered to expand the number of Spanish Masses. (My apologies to Br JR if this isn’t true.)

 

[Brendan]

They seem to have a lot of places in Illinois where the EF is available. Maybe it’s just the Illinois area that’s different, as the comments from Illinois seem to have experienced different reactions to the EF. .

I think it is more common in the Midwest. Our Archdiocese has 7 parishes that have an EF Mass, 4 that having it on Sundays. All of those are said by diocesan priests ( instead of Order priests like the FSSP).

Not only have we had support from our bishops, but our bishops will actually celebrate the EF Mass.

But I’ve found they are rather rare on the coasts.

That might change in Portland, OR though, with the appointment of Bishop Sample as Archbishop there. He is formerly of Marquette MI.

I have been at a High Pontifical Mass that he celebrated.

 

[Baelor]

I based my statement on the article I originally posted, which was the whole point of this thread in the first place. The article in the link asserts the evidence. Following forum guidelines, I didn’t post the entire article

The careful reader will notice that the article did not actually present any evidence for the claim.

I you need further evidence, simply go the the EF Mass, and you will see for yourself (unless you are in a diocese where it is heavily discouraged).

I have attended EF Masses and seen a variety of ages, just as at OF Masses.

Well I’ve been to the FSSP seminary and the young men there (who outnumber the sems at my Archdiocesan seminary, by the way, just saying) are not just rebelling against non-traditional OF. I’ve heard some say things even I think were far too harsh on the OF, even when celebrated reverently.

Then those seminarians will hardly be competent priests, if they are incapable of following clear Church teaching and opening themselves up to actual understanding of the forms.

I can guarantee you that not one of them would come back to the OF no matter how much tradition was infused.

Again, irrelevant to the larger demographic question.

The EF and the OF are different. And Pope Benedict would disagree with you that the OF is supposed to destroy and replace the EF.

Since I never made that claim, Pope Benedict would not disagree with me. Get behind me, strawman!

*]The abuses seen in the OF are mere isolated incidents, and you would not prefer the EF, if you saw the OF celebrated properly - Then why is it so easy to incorporate these abuses into the OF?

This is a loaded question. It is no more easy to incorporate abuses into the OF than the EF. You are engaging in a clear cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

*]You are being divisive - You mean like when the OF was forced on everyone post-VII and huge numbers fell away from the Church in confusion?

This thread is not about the consequences of VII on Catholics in general.

How many times have people put words in my mouth or accused my thoughts or attitudes unjustly when they find out I prefer the EF?

That obviously is not relevant to the correct claim that some attenders of the EF accuse the OF of being invalid.