A Diocese Smells the Coffee: Starts Planning for Decline of the Ordinary Form and Growth of the TLM

[ProVobis]

second look at Vatican II

Well, there is that clause in there allowing for vernacular in the Mass. To me that was the first step toward the progressiveness which we find ourselves today.

 

[Xystus]

I love how something is going to happen “over the next few decades” and they want to be prepared.

I presume that many priests would have to be trained or at least brush up on the TLM and that such training is not going to happen instantly. It seems absolutely plausible to me that could start happening now or in the near future if this is “real” even if not fully fully implemented for a few decades.

 

[ThomasMT]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

 

[godisgood77]

I try not to pay attention to or pass on things I just hear from hidden sources. Seems too much like propaganda

 

[JulianN]

The Catholic Church is not in too good a shape 50 years on from Vatican II.

The Church was in decline, including Mass attendance, prior to Vatican II. Vatican II is not the cause.

 

[whatistrue]

There is even a parish in my area that doesnt have any kneelers, PERIOD

I have been in other churches that had different seating systems, some of which didn’t include kneelers. Definitely not the end of the world, or automatically irreverent. Reverence is in the heart, not the book.

every parish is different, adhering to the typical modern “whatever feels good, anything goes” mentality

Uhmmm… No. If a particular parish is not following the rubrics for the Ordinary Form (BTW, Novus Ordo was an interim form that was long ago changed and no longer actually exists) then that is a violation that the Bishop needs to handle, but legitimate options are not abuses nor are they irreverent.

 

[commenter]

In my Diocese liturgical abuse was rampant in the 1970s and 1980s. Some people joined SSPX, or later a diocesan TLM community, which is flourishing and enthusiastic, partly to get away from abuses.

Since then most priests who encouraged or allowed abuses have retired. Young liberal men apparently want nothing to do with priesthood.

There are fewer young priests, but they seem orthodox in their preaching and following the rubrics of the OF.
I sometimes visited the Diocesan TLM. What’s turning me off is the tendency of the lay leaders to push the views of Peter Kwasniewski and like minded, that the OF inherently is barely valid, and inferior.

 

[PetraG]

Statistically, this is right up there with worrying that Islam is going to take over the United States. It is so far from happening and faces such significant obstacles to even coming close to happening that it is premature to seriously believe it is ever going to happen.

If the TLM is more widely available, that is a good thing. Archbishop Sample in Oregon sees it as necessary to see to the pastoral care of all Catholics in his archdiocese. He is seen as a great champion of the Latin Mass, and with good reason. Having said that, he also points out that he himself offers the Mass in Latin fewer times in a year than he can count on his fingers.

The Ordinary Form is going to remain the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form is going to remain the Extraordinary Form. Frankly, I find it repugnant to hope that attendance at Ordinary Form Masses falls off as much as people here seem to be hoping it will. What, we are hoping that so many fall away from the faith?

Why are we not hoping that the thirst for deepened reverence that undoubtedly underlies the love many have for the TLM becomes the norm among all the faithful, including among all priests who offer the Ordinary Form?

I would say that this is what I have seen: that is, that priests who offer the Extraordinary Form do not say they never want to offer the Ordinary Form again, but rather that the way they offer the Ordinary Form is profoundly changed by the experience of offering the Mass using the more ancient rite. This is the effect Archbishop Sample has said that learning the TLM (which he only did after becoming a bishop) had on him. This would be a great fruit of making the TLM more widely available.

 

[PetraG]

What I don’t appreciate is that far too many people who prefer the EF don’t want to give me to even have the OF and thinknthat they are somehow better, more pious, more appreciative Catholics.

The hope for a steep rise in the availability of the EF can sometimes sound like that. I think that is because as humans our volume tends to rise when we start slipping into self-righteousness.

I don’t think the temptation to believe that one belongs to a “better class of Catholic” is confined to the lovers of the TLM. I think that is a temptation that the evil one has been trying on those who advance in the practice of the virtue of piety since piety was recognized as a virtue. That is only old-fashioned self-righteousness. Nobody who advances in holiness at all–or even who believes they have!!–will be preserved from the suggestion that Heaven must be pretty happy with them compared to everybody else. That is one of the oldest tricks in the books, right up there with “well, yes, this is usually immoral, excepting for you, who are a special case…” That’s a dog-eared page in the playbook of the Enemy.

After making a first down with that, the Enemy goes right to attacking the idea that a virtue really is a virtue, if practicing the virtue can “make people” self-righteous! Predictable, predictable, predictable…no, virtue does not make people self-righteous! Virtue makes people a target for the temptation to self-righteousness. There is a huge difference, because of course not everyone who practices virtue falls for that trick. One may as well attack regular exercise because so many people who exercise suffer from an overuse injury eventually. No, it ought to be a caution for those who exercise to take care to do it as they ought to do, not a reason to avoid what is necessary for health.

Still, the caution that increasing your reverence and knowing that you are more reverent than you used to be will put you at risk of developing self-righteousness and general insufferability is a point well-taken. We all can stand to be reminded of the fundamentals…

 

[tafan2]

I do not think it will overtake and become dominant. I do think it will become much more likely that it is more mainstream and the everyday Catholic is aware of it and has gone to it (percentage wise the number who have gone to it is still quite low).
At some point, I I think they will likely merge into one form. If I had to guess, the readings in the vernacular, some of the prayers (eg the creed and the Our Father) that the people say in the vernacular. Could end up pretty much what one would have guessed the mass would look like if they went back in time to 1963 a read Sacrosanctum Concilium. If Paul VI’s mass in 1969 was not such a radical change, I do not think this TLM movement would have ever formed.
I believe this is what Benedict XVI hoped would eventually happen when he issued his Summorum Pontificum . But he knew that more everyday Catholics would have to be exposed to the EF before there could be a common form and it would take a lot of time.
In the meantime, a more wide spread return to such things as communion rails and ad orientem will also lead to this end result.
All this will take a couple of generations at least.

 

[PetraG]

At some point, I I think they will likely merge into one form.

I actually doubt that this will happen. I think the TLM will be preserved, and I think that is a good thing.

If Paul VI’s mass in 1969 was not such a radical change, I do not think this TLM movement would have ever formed.

That is hard to say. I guess we’d have to have a do-over to know, which of course we can’t have. Considering that yes, the Mass did change here and there over the centuries, though, you are probably right that a far slower change wouldn’t have had the same effect. The problem is whether it was possible to keep things from changing too fast in the Century of Instant Change.

After all, most of the changes that came about when the Mass of Paul VI was introduced were neither called for in the rubrics nor in any other document of Vatican II. They happened because of popular fashion spreading and being chalked up to the “spirit of Vatican II.” (At least, I’m not aware of Rome dictating that the communion rails be ripped out, let alone that Holy Communion be distributed in the hand or that girls be admitted to altar serving or that the choir come down out of the choir loft!) I think if it hadn’t been for that “spirit” then something else would have been invoked to justify whatever changes fashion proposed.

 

[CilladeRoma]

looking at particular dioceses in the U.S., there are some where there has always been a particular appreciation of the Catholic faith

@stpurl, you posted this, which I read to as those who prefer the EF have a better appreciation for the Catholic faith. In my reply to you, I showed you how someone who does not prefer the EF can also appreciate the Catholic faith.

Apprecaition for the faith is not dependant on what form of Mass or what devotions one chooses to practice.

This thread and the post by @ThomasMT is just more evidence of what I deal with from those who prefer the EF in my own diocese. . . .

 

[PetraG]

@stpurl, you posted this, which I read to as those who prefer the EF have a better appreciation for the Catholic faith. In my reply to you, I showed you how someone who does not prefer the EF can also appreciate the Catholic faith.

Apprecaition for the faith is not dependant on what form of Mass or what devotions one chooses to practice.

This thread and the post by @ThomasMT is just more evidence of what I deal with from those who prefer the EF in my own diocese. Holier than thou, prideful, hateful attitudes towards anyone who disagrees. It is so sad.

I took that to mean places where the percentage of the overall population that is Catholic is high, weekly attendance is still high, parental support for vocations to the priesthood is still high, and so on. For instance, Oregon is not a place where there is a particular appreciation of the Catholic faith; we’re a very un-churched region of the country. It is much harder to raise a quorum for the EF when the number of bodies for the OF are on the slimmer side or where being “openly Catholic” is less in keeping with what the general population does. Not impossible, but a lot harder.

I can see where someone would take it the way you did, though. It isn’t easy to express in a way that does’t leave itself open to that interpretation. (Well, and it isn’t impossible for someone to actually mean it that way, either, sad as that is.)

 

[stpurl]

I was writing trying to use unloaded adjectives. Since I used ‘particular’ in the sentence with dioceses I thought it was clear that ‘particular’ appreciation did not mean, “I think the EF is better because I’m a holier than thou snob and I hate the OF”, but rather that SOME dioceses had an appreciation for a ‘particular’ rite due to an appreciation of the faith which was not inherently ‘better’ but ‘particular’ to a bunch of demographics which frankly related to ethnicity, worldview, etc. I thought that putting in all THOSE factors would make such a long post people wouldn’t want to read it.

But instead, YOU judge ME because you THOUGHT that my use of one word meant I was saying a group was BETTER. I wasn’t. So please, enough with the judgment.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I didn’t judge, I actually asked you the question.

It is you and @ThomasMT who are being judgemental.

 

[PetraG]

I was writing trying to use unloaded adjectives. Since I used ‘particular’ in the sentence with dioceses I thought it was clear that ‘particular’ appreciation did not mean, “I think the EF is better because I’m a holier than thou snob and I hate the OF”, but rather that SOME dioceses had an appreciation for a ‘particular’ rite due to an appreciation of the faith which was not inherently ‘better’ but ‘particular’ to a bunch of demographics which frankly related to ethnicity, worldview, etc. I thought that putting in all THOSE factors would make such a long post people wouldn’t want to read it.

But instead, YOU judge ME because you THOUGHT that my use of one word meant I was saying a group was BETTER. I wasn’t. So please, enough with the judgment.

Or you could just respond, “Oh, sorry. I could see how you might take it that way, but that isn’t what I meant.”

This can be hard to do if you don’t remember that sometimes what @CilladeRoma is talking about does literally happen. I mean that there are unfortunately some Catholics who do talk as if one can automatically deem one Catholic better than other Catholics generally if one only knows that the Catholic in question is fond of the EF. (It is possible, after all, to be fond of the EF for the same reason one is fond of classical music instead of modern composers or vintage garb instead of contemporary clothing–that is, for mostly aesthetic reasons or reasons having to do with the felt personal consolation of the thing.)

 

[CilladeRoma]

I can see where someone would take it the way you did, though. It isn’t easy to express in a way that does’t leave itself open to that interpretation. (Well, and it isn’t impossible for someone to actually mean it that way, either, sad as that is.)

Exactly, and that has been my experience.

Why is it OK for all who have “horrible” OF experiences to talk about them, but the minute someone talks about their bad experiences with the EF and those who attend them, they are discounted?

 

[Elizabeth3]

is just more evidence of what I deal with from those who prefer the EF in my own diocese.

Why do you have to “deal” with them? Do you have a lot of contact with them through work in your diocese? What are they doing or saying that’s hateful?

 

[PetraG]

Exactly, and that has been my experience.

Why is it OK for all who have “horrible” OF experiences to talk about them, but the minute someone talks about their bad experiences with the EF and those who attend them, they are discounted?

Archbishop Sample often warns us not to let the EF and OF become a source of division. The two forms are meant by the Church to be a source of grace, which is to say a source of charity, faith and hope, truly “the source and summit of the Christian life.” If they aren’t making us more charitable towards each other, that is not the fault of the Mass. That is the work of the one who is constantly on the prowl for ways to distract us from true virtue, the one who looks for opportunities in every one of us.

Speaking of which, my temptation is procrastinating on everything I ought to do so I can enjoy the company here. Better go!! Thanks for enduring me; I spend a lot of time alone and I do like the “company”!

 

[ThomasMT]

On your second point, you are correct… I am guilty of hyperbole.

On your first…

I have been in other churches that had different seating systems, some of which didn’t include kneelers. Definitely not the end of the world, or automatically irreverent. Reverence is in the heart, not the book.

I disagree. Drastic change never happen overnight. They always occur slowly, insidiously, and always under the guise of good intentions (not sure what the good intention is on this one, though). These seemingly small changes are never an end in it of themselves, but a set stage for the next erosion. Albeit, absence of kneelers is no small thing to me. I dread to wonder what’s next.

Regarding the heart… the heart lies. That is a truth indeed to be found in “the book,” assuming that we are talking about The Book. I do not count on my heart to define the nature of reverence. For that I seek God, my faith in Him, and finally… tradition! Tradition because reverence and humility are often inspired by the environment that one is immersed in. Its ability to foster spiritual growth is what nourishes reverence. At least for me, anyway. That is what I need in a church, a place of holiness… else it would be sufficient for me to simply go camping in the mountains. That need, for me , cannot be filled in a church that suggests that there is no need to drop on my knees, as I present myself before the Lord.