Unfortunately people will automatically dismiss it because of it being OnePeterFive.
Possibly but I tend to agree with the phrase "“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” (John Heywood -1546 as I understand)
I didn’t, I’m not a huge fan of the site but I was interested, so I read it. If the article had a headline I didn’t like, I would have ignored it. I thought the statistics were insightful and nothing was biased or inflammatory.
The terms “Novus Ordo formed” and “Novus Ordo Parishes” don’t convey a sense of objectivity. Why use an outdated term?
The author quotes Gallup data from the general population, which he presumes are OF formed, compares that to people currently active, in EF parishes. This proves nothing.
There is ample Gallup data from the late 1960s showing rapidly dropping church attendance and Religious attitudes in general among young adults who were mostly formed in EF parishes. So?
Furthermore, many young adults currently attending EF Masses were mostly formed in OF Masses and parishes, often home schooled by parents who got their formation in the OF.
If the author wanted to do decent research he would have compared Gallup to Gallup, then compared current EF devout attendees to current devout attendees at places like Steubenville, or even FOCUS itself. Apples to apples.
I’m not criticizing the EF, which I occasionally attend, but bad biased research. This, like so many 1P5 articles, makes the Tradition POV look weak, not attractive to anyone outside the choir.
The Survey confirms that the Traditional Latin Mass is experiencing a high volume of participation and interest in the 18-39 demographic; a demographic noticeably underrepresented in modern Novus Ordo Mass parishes.
There are two aspects that discredit this analysis in my view. First is that the TLM community is a niche group who focus on love of the medieval form of the Mass primarily. That’s what binds them together rather than the Eucharist itself. It ends up being a self referential survey.
The second aspect is the long term drop out rate. That is young unmarrieds who slowly drop out once married. Then the marrieds who drop out when they no longer want any more children. So the numbers are representing only the time in a members faith journey when they are experiencing the deep passion for the TLM whereas OF parishes have at all times the gamut of Catholics in different phases of their faith journey. They are there united by the Eucharistic Communion itself.
Over all I would say it’s a self referential survey and not meaningful in the bigger picture of Catholics faith journey.
That is an interesting comment and I would be curious as to your evidence leading you to hold this view ?
From the Acts of the Apostles;
And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.  And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not.  And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking this one word: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet,
](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=28&l=26-#x) Saying: Go to this people, and say to them: With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.  For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut; lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 
I already know it’s going to say “TLM Group Great and Devout, OF Group Weak and Lukewarm” so why even bother to read it?
Why even bother to pass a comment then?
I’m expressing my opinion, which is the purpose of a discussion thread.
I find lots of solid stuff on CAF.
If people use CAF for silly stuff, it helps to point out “this is silly stuff”.
Pointing it out slows the growth of silly stuff. Too much, unrecognized growth in silly stuff will tend to deter serious threads.
There are whole entire silly forums that no serious poster will visit anymore.
As per Scripture and the evolution of Christian worship, the Eucharist was first celebrated in families and then in the local community. It fitted into a natural local community and spread out from that communion. It didn’t matter what other preferences or traits members had, they were all there as brethren in Christ in the Eucharist. TLM disrupts that natural communion be drawing people with a certain preference out of their local worship communion and sometimes even turns them hostile to their local communion because of the style of the Mass. That’s not really a traditional manifestation of the centrality of the Eucharist as per Scripture in my opinion.
Maybe so, in your experience, but 3/4, or possibly more than that, of the heads in the majority of churches that I’ve attended in the past ten years have gray, white, or practically no hair. What will those churches be like in another ten years? Or twenty. Will they even exist?
Your question has already been answered. Many of the dioceses in the Northeast and Midwest have closed or merged parishes on a massive scale already because of demographic losses and an unsustainable base population.
Covid is going to cause a second round of mass closings of churches, both Catholic and Protestant. as many of the people who were attending this January are not going to come back.
And then there is the financial hit. Many parishes were running on fumes before the pandemic hit.
Many of the older crowd will age out early. Families with children have had the opportunity to explore alternative ways of spending Sunday together, and many will continue to do so after the crisis is over. And many teens and young adults that were on the way out eventually will opt out early, their exasperated parents unable to bring them back.
Add to that the damage done by the election of Donald Trump, which has turned younger people off to religion as a whole. And, in the case of the Catholic Church, the latest round of abuse cases and the bitter “revolt” of certain vocal far-right and alt-right elements against Pope Francis.
My parish is a graying one in the Northeast, but will a well-off congregation. We had planned for a long, slow, gradual decline over the next twenty years, and even budgeted for some repairs and upkeep that would be necessary in that time frame. Now, everything has changed. It’s causing a lot anxiety. I’m sure that thousands of other parishes in the country are experiencing the same ordeal, but it still hurts more when it is one’s own parish.
Here in Michigan the Archdiocese of Detroit has announced a huge merger program called Families of Parishes. They’re saying it won’t be merging but it is.
I’ve been following that story. I have to give the bishop credit for being proactive and getting the job done and over with as quickly as possible. Other bishops are going to drag their feet, and the damage will be greater in the end.
The “merger” policy used elsewhere had big problems, including the loss of older people who deeply resented having their ethnic churches closed. The bishop is wise to avoid repeating that mistake, though, as you say, there is really no use putting lipstick on that there pig.
All I know is if the parish I go to merges with the neighboring one I’ll be finding another parish.
A lot of people in your position will not bother to find a new parish. They’ll just stop attending. That’s why the idea of “merging” is being downplayed.
I thought the survey was interesting but, if anything, a bit limited. Some of the questions were a bit pointless, in that the answers would simply be what you’d expect - “how often do you go to mas” and “have you ever thought of a priestly / religious vocation”. I also thought that much more could have been said about the (slight) majority of males than the bald statement “Men are an important barometer of any Liturgical Rite’s attractiveness”. Granted, young females tend to much more visible and involved in church life than males so this is an interesting statistic warrants far more analysis - what makes them such an important barometer and why are there more males than females in TLM communities? Given this, a lack of gender grouping of answers is a massive oversight. Ethnicity would be another fascinating area to explore given that 84% of respondents were caucasian.
What really interested me though was the reasons for attending the TLM. “Solemnity” and “reverence” could almost be considered synonymous so these terms needed to be distinguished as well as defined - what counts as “solemnity” and “reverence”? These terms could mean different things to different people.
On the whole, I’m not sure what the purpose of the survey was. I’m not saying it’s entirely self-serving but, at the same time, I’m also not sure what those responsible for it wanted to achieve. I have no problem with the survey in principle and there are a number of areas which I think are worth exploring further but, as it is, it really doesn’t help in answering the key question of why these people go to TLM as opposed to NO. Granted, there may well be as many reasons as there are individuals but it certainly warrants exploration but that’s exactly what we don’t get from this survey.