You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest that neither the English nor Latin Mass is more or less reverent than the other. However, some people are more or less reverent, and its your experience that those at current Latin Mass are more reverent than those at the Mainstream Mass. When the Latin Mass was the Mainstream Mass, there were just as many irreverencies as now.
You’re probably right
It is certainly flourishing…
When an organization is very tiny, its a lot easier to get a good percentage of growth.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics have never run into an FSSP priest or had any dealings with them on a personal basis. If it wasn’t for the internet, I wouldn’t know of their existence and have never heard anyone discuss them. Of course, I am here in Pittsburgh and the closest FSSP center I think is in Akron
I can’t imagine why the novel practice of celebrating part of Mass in the non-vernacular should become
the “best form”. Or why it should be bothered with at all for that matter. It’s strictly a small “t” tradition of men. Not that it didn’t have its place at a certain point in history.
Well as the article states it’s not just about the number of parishes but the growth of Mass attendance within an FSSP parish. From the news lately Pittsburgh might benefit from having an FSSP parish.
I don’t if there is any correlation even between the establishment of an FSSP parish and a reduction in mass shootings.
Not sure what you mean but I was referring to the number of parish closings.
I’m sorry, I thought you were referencing the international news from Pittsburgh about the big shooting
Ah okay yeah I guess I should have stated from Catholic news lately.
It’s quite obvious the superiority and natural development of the Latin Mass isn’t just due to it being in Latin. In fact this is a very minor factor. One must study the prayers and the postures, theological reasonings behind each forms, the origin of each forms in relation to Church history and the spirit of continuity, and the natural development of everything in the Church. If We used the use of Latin as our only reasoning this would be very poor. Because even the Mass of Paul VI is in its nature meant to be celebrated in Latin. Vernacular was permitted and has now been misunderstood as the norm.
Personally, I think so. Of course I would feel different if the NO were objectively celebrated in Latin ad orientem.
So the Pope and the Bishops conferences are in widespread error concerning orthopraxis?
I’ll take a Solemn High Mass over a bland OF Mass… but I’ll take a solemn, sung OF Mass over an EF Low Mass. I know you wouldn’t agree.
- List item
The reason Latin is a minor factor because it doesn’t change, although I’m sure there were new Latin prayers that were added in 1969. The vernacular by its nature changes; gay, for example, has much different connotations than it did back in the 60’s. Thus more time is spent on making the vernacular language current. Not to mention making music writing more challenging, if not controversial.
I assume they don’t want to cause widespread shock like after Vatican II. We should slowly reintroduce Tradition.
Also bishops and popes have known to be bravely wrong throughout history. I’m not saying our current pope and bishops are in any way. That’s not the point. The point is just because majority of popes and bishops do and say one thing doesn’t mean that’s what the Church teaches. Look at Germany for example. Majority of their bishops allow some Protestants to receive the Holy Eucharist. Clearly the church teaches this is wrong, but many liberals are for it. Just cuz majority says something doesn’t prove it’s true
Very true indeed
And it certainly can be… I’ve attended Latin ad orientem Novus Ordo Masses.
Yeah, I wouldn’t agree.
The low Mass was never the liturgical ideal…
I only tolerate spoken OF Masses. I envy our Eastern brethren who always and everywhere get exclusively sung Liturgies.
Thankfully my local parish priest chants most of the Mass (OF).