Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[Marie5890]

Here was the irony. I sat down with Brother’s help to compose this letter in Latin. After I finished it, I said to Brother, “Please send this,” to which he responded, “You have to send the English translation with it.” :banghead: So, I had to take my letter and translate it into English, because the recipient does not read Latin. WHY DID I WRITE IT IN LATIN IN THE FIRST PLACE??? The answer was, “It’s a custom.” In my mind, it’s a pretty dumb custom if I have to send the English translation along with the Latin master. I know that the recipient is going to read the English and file the Latin copy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I couldnt help but chuckle at the above, and with no disrespect of intent, thought to myself…“now there is some hoop-jumping!!!”

:ehh:

 

[JReducation]

I really like this. You’ve said it before and it applies to so many things. If my goal is to be a Saint, than other things have to fall in priority. I know I am blessed to have easy access to the EF and beautifully celebrated OFs. However, there are Saints who walked miles and miles to get to mumbled, rushed low Masses; whose priest didn’t like them; who suffered many other things. On the whole, our problems in 21st century US are so minor in comparision.

I suggest we all offer up the Masses we attend (whether they are our preferred form or not) for those who today only see a priest every few months or even just once a year!

I can’t remember where I learned this, but it made perfect sense to me. Maybe it was from a sister. We often forget the reason for doing something. When we forget, we can easily do it for the wrong reason.

The goal is always to achieve the perfection of charity, which is the only way to achieve sanctity. Saints are people who practice heroic virtue. Where is the virtue in attacking bishops, ridiculing and being condescending toward other Catholics by calling them NO Catholics? Where is the virtue when we call for boycotts to get what we want from the bishop? When did we ever see a saint doing such things?

I believe that if I engaged in such behavior, St. Francis would strike me down with a lightning bolt. No one was more protective of the bishops and the clergy than he. He absolutely prohibited anyone from seeing sin in a bishop, priest or deacon.

That’s what got the Capuchins at Momon, France dismissed from the Franciscan family. It was not their desire to use the old missal. It was their disrespect to legitimate authority and their belligerency. There are many Capuchin Friars who celebrate the EF. They have earned the privilege through their humility and holiness of manner.

Friend, that is not how subsidiarity works.

You’re right. Subsidiarity is not about bishops and religious superior jumping through hoops like trained circus animals. It’s about taking what the authority above says and working with it at the lower levels. Take SP and UE, which deal with one aspect of Catholic life and put it into the context of the local diocese, which deals with every aspect of Catholic life, the EF may not make the top 10 priorities on the local level. That’s OK with the Church. The bishop must prioritize. He has limited resources and he’s just one person.

If the EF does not make it to the top ten priorities for legitimate reasons, the Holy See is not going to complain or intervene. If the reasons are illegitimate, then the bishop has to explain himself to the Holy See.

That’s how subsidiarity works. It means taking what you have at the local level and working with it. SP and UE are two of several hundred documents that come out of the Vatican during a pope’s reign. For the person who is attached to the EF, it may be the most important documents. To the bishop who has many needs and challenges in his diocese, this is one of many things to get around to. At the end of the day, if he focuses on establishing the EF in his diocese and the Holy See gets complaints that he did not give adequate attention to misbehavior among his priests, formation of seminarians, finances of his diocese, Catholic schools, the needs of the religious in his diocese, religious education, the needs of the poor, the organization of the chancery and many other things, Rome will have his head. The first question will be why he did not prioritize.

Subsidiarity is taking the challenges at the local level and working on them in a systematic manner so as to respond to the needs at that level. The top (pope and Vatican) is always going to rain down ideas. But the top will not implement them or deal with the other challenges on the bishop’s desk. They usually don’t even know about those challenges and they don’t want to know. The Holy See has its own concerns.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

Wasserfall, you’re not working with the Church. You’re taking an antagonistic position, which actually decreases your chances of getting the EF. The Holy Father has made it very clear that anyone who is aligned with any group like the EF [SSPX?] cannot request the EF. The attitude of many people associated with the SSPX is not one that deserves admiration or imitation. It’s arrogant and belligerent.

Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit Brother JR. I didn’t mean to take an antagonistic position.

I am personally not affiliated with the SSPX in any way, but I have been following the news for the past few weeks and the message coming from the SSPX recently is that they are being offered regularization with very few conditions placed thereupon.

Above, I just meant to say that if the SSPX is soon regularized, and in the manner that is apparently being proposed, then bishops who wish to suppress or minimize the traditional mass may just find a fully regularized SSPX at their doorstep, to provide that which the bishop refuses. And, as a regularized society in “full communion”, all Catholics who prefer the traditional mass, or who simply wish to find out what it is, will be free to associate themselves with the SSPX.

Given this possibility, the bishop may prefer to be more generous in his own provision of the traditional mass and sacraments, rather than find the SSPX in the diocese doing it for him.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit Brother JR. I didn’t mean to take an antagonistic position.

I am personally not affiliated with the SSPX in any way, but I have been following the news for the past few weeks and the message coming from the SSPX recently is that they are being offered regularization with very few conditions placed thereupon.

Above, I just meant to say that if the SSPX is soon regularized, and in the manner that is apparently being proposed, then bishops who wish to suppress or minimize the traditional mass may just find a fully regularized SSPX at their doorstep, to provide that which the bishop refuses. And, as a regularized society in “full communion”, all Catholics who prefer the traditional mass, or who simply wish to find out what it is, will be free to associate themselves with the SSPX.

Given this possibility, the bishop may prefer to be more generous in his own provision of the traditional mass and sacraments, rather than find the SSPX in the diocese doing it for him.

I’ve heard all kinds of rumors about the SSPX situation. No one really knows what’s going to happen next.

That being said, it may not be a bad thing to have a prelature that can provide this ministry. I’m reminded of the past when we needed schools and hospitals, what did the bishops do? The dioceses did not provide these. They invited religious to provide them. The dioceses just sponsored them and in some cases the bishops did not put out a dime to build those school and hospitals. They didn’t have to do so. The religious raised the funds themselves.

Opus Dei works that way. They provide a ministry that the dioceses do not provide. The bishops don’t mind, because it’s one less thing on their plate. Opus Dei covers its expenses. They train their priests and setup their facilities. It’s a win win situation.

We must hope that if the SSPX becomes the next prelature that they will have the same courtesy and diplomacy that the Opus Dei priests have. What I have read from the pen of some SSPX priests is very antagonistic. The use of such terms as NO Catholics, conciliarist Church, or Vatican II debacle, is not going to gain them friends among the bishops, religious superiors and may lay people.

If the SSPX priests tone it down to the same level of the FSSP, Canons of St. John Cantius, Society of Christ the King, etc, they should be able to co-exist without problems. These other groups co-exist very ell wherever they find themselves. People who prefer the EF attend their masses without problems Bishops actually like these groups. The religious communities often use them to train their men in the EF or for other purposes. Their secret is that they have won their way into the heart of those who live around them.

I saw a wonderful interview on EWTN on Life On The Rock. It was a young Asian American FSSP priest. The Franciscan friar was interviewing him. You could see that the friar was very interested in what this young priest had to say. He asked many questions. But the FSSP priest wont he day, because he was funny, bright, respectful, When asked about the OF, he said that he celebrates it and he explained the difficulties that are being faced. However, he was also very positive that the difficulties with the OF could be overcome with some cooperation.

What I’m saying is that even though he is a Traditionalist, he present his society in a very positive light. He presented it as a community that wants to work with the bishops, religious and diocesan clergy, not one that sees itself as more orthodox than the rest. His approach was that the EF is part of our heritage that must be preserved, not the only mass that the Latin Church should celebrate.

When asked about Vatican II, his answer was very straightforward. They have the same questions as other people about some wording and some omissions. But there was no reference to a Vatian II disaster. In fact, he said that there never was a Vatican II disaster, but a social disaster that permeated the Church as well as other institutions.

I saw Marcus Grodi do another interview. I believe the young mas was studying for Christ the King Sovereign Priest. I can’t recall now. It was not FSSP. He too made an excellent impression. He spoke about the beauties of tradition, but never took at crack at some of the newer expressions of faith.

If the SSPX can disperse around the world with the same tone, it should be a welcome addition in many places.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Stylites]

This is a very disrespectful statement about the bishops. Let’s get things clear here.

Allegedly, the interest in the EF is because it reinforces growth in the spiritual life. In the person that is seeking truth growth in the spiritual life there should be no room for hateful and hurtful language.

The EF is not going to get anyone to heaven who gets it by pointing a loaded gun at his bishop or by bashing a bishop. Grace does not work that way.

I’ve heard Father Benedict Groeschel humorously describe attending an eternal Mass as a form of hell. Certainly it is not an end in itself, and the ends never justify the means.

 

[wasserfall]

If the SSPX can disperse around the world with the same tone, it should be a welcome addition in many places.

To keep it brief, Brother JR, that is not the kind of regularization about which SSPX priests around the world were speaking to their congregations today.

But we shall have to wait and see what really happens.

 

[JReducation]

To keep it brief, Brother JR, that is not the kind of regularization about which SSPX priests around the world were speaking to their congregations today.

But we shall have to wait and see what really happens.

I’ve read a few things, but I think that they’re speculating. They should wait for the Holy See to speak.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Here was the irony. I sat down with Brother’s help to compose this letter in Latin. After I finished it, I said to Brother, “Please send this,” to which he responded, “You have to send the English translation with it.” :banghead: So, I had to take my letter and translate it into English, because the recipient does not read Latin. WHY DID I WRITE IT IN LATIN IN THE FIRST PLACE??? The answer was, “It’s a custom.” In my mind, it’s a pretty dumb custom if I have to send the English translation along with the Latin master. I know that the recipient is going to read the English and file the Latin copy.

FWIW,

I’m one of those who likes to see the Latin original for authenticity and clarification. I don’t think it’s a waste of time to have it in the Latin at all. (I only wish they had done the same for the U.S. Constitution when they had the chance. No one understands their English ) You know more Latin than I do, but Polish is my first language and I do know the thought flow is different in the Polish vs that of the English. Subject-verb-object flow is a requirement in the English but other languages have some flexibility and this fact alone means that much of the emphasis, etc can be different. Much is indeed lost in the translation. But everyone wants everything in his vernacular and that’s understandable. We live in that kind of world. And people in China will read Shakespeare in some Chinese translation and enjoy the plays and the poems. But will they really capture the beauty of the very words and phrases he selected? No more than reading Cliff’s Notes for an Anglophone, I would think. And then when they translate the Chinese into some 22nd century language and then in turn translate that to some 24th century language, people will not even know that Shakespeare was the original writer. Heck, they’re even calling our alphabet the English alphabet, not realizing half of the world uses the Latin alphabet. No standard, no accuracy of information.

And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread. No offense to anyone but I don’t see anything as being very constructive in promoting the EF in the OP’s diocese. And I don’t have an answer either.

 

[pnewton]

Isn’t this nice, we’re all lawyers using weasel words. If the priest is willing (in charity we must accept the word of the OP on this matter) and there are those who have requested the Latin Mass, and the vestments and supplies are available, why should the Bishop object?

I find an exhortation to charity that begins with insults to be… ironic.

I for one believe the OP and take him at face value. That is why I think solutions are better than rhetoric and polemics. Bro JR has put it a lot of time explaining the legal situation. We can be supportive of anyone who is struggling with a canonical situation which is difficult without taking up torches and marching on the diocese. We can decide whether we will behave with Christian charity whether regardless of how others deal with us. Sometimes, turning the other cheek even involves brothers.

 

[Silver_Thread]

However, we want to be very careful how we say this. The preservation of the Latin language is not the function of the mass. Latin is used in the mass, because it is the official language of the Latin Church.

Do you see what I mean? We have to be very careful to avoid implying that Latin must be used at mass in order to keep it alive. That is not in the mind of the Church. Latin is used at mass, because it is the language of the Church; therefore, it has the place of primacy.

We have to understand the meaning of the word “primacy” as the Church uses it, not as Webster uses it. For the Church, the expression means that Latin is the first choice, not the only choice. Therefore, it does not mean that it must be used. It means that when you have an option between Latin and other languages, you should give primary consideration to Latin. That is the preferred language, not the mandatory language.

Many people set themselves up for frustration, because they assume that because it is the official language of the Church, it must be used. When it is not, they get frustrated.

Those of us who are in positions where we must use Latin, find it frustrating and enjoyable at the same time. It is enjoyable to work in another language. It’s also frustrating to try to recover it. When the secretary on the council first told me that a letter that I was writing had to be written in Latin my immediate reaction was, “I had enough Latin in the seminary to last me a lifetime. You’re kidding me, right?”

Here was the irony. I sat down with Brother’s help to compose this letter in Latin. After I finished it, I said to Brother, “Please send this,” to which he responded, “You have to send the English translation with it.” :banghead: So, I had to take my letter and translate it into English, because the recipient does not read Latin. WHY DID I WRITE IT IN LATIN IN THE FIRST PLACE??? The answer was, “It’s a custom.” In my mind, it’s a pretty dumb custom if I have to send the English translation along with the Latin master. I know that the recipient is going to read the English and file the Latin copy.

To to many of us who are clergy and religious the Latin question becomes more of an issue of satisfying the preference of some people than a real need. That’s what triggers the resistance to go back and relearn Latin. Unless you’re really interested in celebrating mass in the Extraordinary Form, you will no need to relearn the language.

Of course, that triggers the next question. Is mass in the EF necessary? It’s no more necessary then writing something in Latin only to send the English translation with it. That seals it for most priests. To many priests setting up a soup kitchen, a good CCD program, balancing the parish budget, spending time in community are far more important than mass in the Extraordinary Form. They’re not going to take time away from these other priorities to study Latin again. The younger men coming out of the seminary are more likely to do it, because the Latin and the form are fresh in their minds.

While there is a side of many priests that wants to make their people happy, there is also a side that says, “Can’t I make them happy with a beautiful OF mass, which is less difficult?” It’s a very human response.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

My my my you do go on and on! If Vatican II had been followed, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place! We’re talking over 50 yrs ago when translations where not available to most parishoners. If the documents were followed then “actual” participation and not “active” participation, as the original document stated, would have been accomplished by simply making the translation available to all without rewriting the liturgy, turning the altar around, removing statues and art, with the priests’ back to Christ in the tabernacle if in fact it has not been moved to a side altar or separate chapel, a lack of true reverence in the sanctuary, celebrating instead of performing and on and on! There’s more to it than meets the eye. It is in the heart. I am 70 years old and when I attended a Latin Mass some 8 years ago, I cried and said, “Lord what have they done?” Not me! I followed my bishops and priests, I sang in the choir and complained about the changes to inclusive language I was one of the first Eucharistic Ministers in my parish. I was all gung ho, following as one of the sheep! Then I began to study the documents and commentaries! I attend the Latin Mass in another diocese some 45 minutes away. Yes I do attend the New Mass when circumstances dictate. Yes I do see the bowing instead of kneeling, the talking, the homilies predicated by a joke, the ad-libing, the unchaste dress by women Eucharistic Ministers and Lectors. The point I am making to you is simply this. Something is terribly amiss and if you can’t see that then all the blogs in the world won’t do any good or change your mind. I’m done with it!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve heard Father Benedict Groeschel humorously describe attending an eternal Mass as a form of hell. Certainly it is not an end in itself, and the ends never justify the means.

What is the “eternal” Mass?

It is inaccurate phrases casually tossed around that causes much of the issues.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Very interesting. I have heard many Spanish Masses where the padre bumbled through the words and didn’t have a clue what he was saying and unfortunately neither did many in the congregation.

But that’s okay because we have to make every effort to help people have the Mass of their preference! But really, it’s a major contradiction. Over in my diocese, priests are sent to Mexico for a crash course on Spanish (four months for one of them). They come back and they don’t speak it very well, they don’t know it very well, they can’t pronounce it very well. But that was just one example. Another priest was assigned to say a Spanish Mass and he had no knowledge of Spanish. He just read through everything and had someone translate his homily. This was not a priest starting up a new Mass – this was a bishop assigning a priest who did not know Spanish to say the Spanish Mass!

So why is there such a need to have priest be perfect in Latin to a point that most of them don’t even try because all these roadblocks have been set up, but Spanish can be sloppy? Are they saying a sloppy NO is okay? If they are saying that, then it doesn’t say much for what they think of the NO. However, I don’t think they mean it that way. I think that there are monkey wrenches being tossed intentionally. It really boggles the mind that people are so hostile to the TLM.

 

[JReducation]

My my my you do go on and on! If Vatican II had been followed, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place! We’re talking over 50 yrs ago when translations where not available to most parishoners. If the documents were followed then “actual” participation and not “active” participation, as the original document stated, would have been accomplished by simply making the translation available to all without rewriting the liturgy, turning the altar around, removing statues and art, with the priests’ back to Christ in the tabernacle if in fact it has not been moved to a side altar or separate chapel, a lack of true reverence in the sanctuary, celebrating instead of performing and on and on! There’s more to it than meets the eye. It is in the heart. I am 70 years old and when I attended a Latin Mass some 8 years ago, I cried and said, “Lord what have they done?” Not me! I followed my bishops and priests, I sang in the choir and complained about the changes to inclusive language I was one of the first Eucharistic Ministers in my parish. I was all gung ho, following as one of the sheep! Then I began to study the documents and commentaries! I attend the Latin Mass in another diocese some 45 minutes away. Yes I do attend the New Mass when circumstances dictate. Yes I do see the bowing instead of kneeling, the talking, the homilies predicated by a joke, the ad-libing, the unchaste dress by women Eucharistic Ministers and Lectors. The point I am making to you is simply this. Something is terribly amiss and if you can’t see that then all the blogs in the world won’t do any good or change your mind. I’m done with it!

I’m a little confused here. I’m getting the impression that you’re trying to tell me something that probably has very little to do with me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

What is the “eternal” Mass?

It is inaccurate phrases casually tossed around that causes much of the issues.

I’ve heard Benedict make the joke. It’s a play on the word “eternal”. Many scholars get a chuckle when people refer to the Tridentine mass as the “eternal mass” or the “mass of the ages”.

If I understood the humor correctly he was trying to say that if he had to sit through a mass for eternity that would be hell. He’s using hell as they use it in Jersey City, not as in the place down there. If someone else heard the comment and I got it wrong, feel free to correct my misunderstanding. That’s what I read into it.

Brilliant people find it tedious when they run into others who focus on one issue or one aspect of life and nothing else is important to them. These are people who can juggle 10 things and are curious about 30 at the same time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[roadsend]

I’m a little confused here. I’m getting the impression that you’re trying to tell me something that probably has very little to do with me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Good brother,

What I am hearing him say is that he has been lied to for years about what Vatican II actually taught. He has seen the Sacred Music, customs, traditions and indeed the physical structures of his Church itself profaned, trashed, and laid waste by leaders, who should know better. He is tired of hearing excuses and he wants what should never have been destroyed to be restored. I am the same age as he is and have seen and done pretty much the exact same things as he has. I could almost have written that myself.

No, it has little, if anything to do with you. Like many other good padres and religious out there today, you are likely just young enough to have missed the upheaval, I personally doubt that you have a clue what we have lost.

 

[JReducation]

Good brother,

What I am hearing him say is that he has been lied to for years about what Vatican II actually taught. He has seen the Sacred Music, customs, traditions and indeed the physical structures of his Church itself profaned, trashed, and laid waste by leaders, who should know better. He is tired of hearing excuses and he wants what should never have been destroyed to be restored. I am the same age as he is and have seen and done pretty much the exact same things as he has. I could almost have written that myself.

No, it has little, if anything to do with you. Like many other good padres and religious out there today, you are likely just young enough to have missed the upheaval, I personally doubt that you have a clue what we have lost.

Thank you for the clarification. I knew it had nothing to do with me.

Also, thank you for the compliment. I was born in 1950 and was educated by Capuchin Franciscan Friars beginning from 1955. Though the churches and music were beautiful, the situation inside the rectories and religious houses was horrific. It was unhealthy and out of compliance with the Church’s vision of priesthood and religious life. When you open the floodgates, the frustration and the need for air sends people in all kinds of directions, some of them not so good.

The laity could not help much, because the average lay person had no idea what went on in these houses. The very few that did, could care less as long as their wants were met. Most lay people were caught in the middle, since most did not know where these men and women were coming from.

We truly need a balanced view of the past. Some of the things were real losses and some things had to go, because they were supports for situations that were not good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

I think that there are monkey wrenches being tossed intentionally. It really boggles the mind that people are so hostile to the TLM.

While it is possible that you are right, we really should be charitable in assigning motives to others, especially if that other is a bishop. I do not think anyone has ever said that the Latin needs to be known perfectly, or even better than Spanish is known for Spanish Masses. I am not convinced there is a double standard, much less some nefarious motive. We can never go wrong by assuming the best in others.

 

[JReducation]

But that’s okay because we have to make every effort to help people have the Mass of their preference! But really, it’s a major contradiction. Over in my diocese, priests are sent to Mexico for a crash course on Spanish (four months for one of them). They come back and they don’t speak it very well, they don’t know it very well, they can’t pronounce it very well. But that was just one example. Another priest was assigned to say a Spanish Mass and he had no knowledge of Spanish. He just read through everything and had someone translate his homily. This was not a priest starting up a new Mass – this was a bishop assigning a priest who did not know Spanish to say the Spanish Mass!

So why is there such a need to have priest be perfect in Latin to a point that most of them don’t even try because all these roadblocks have been set up, but Spanish can be sloppy? Are they saying a sloppy NO is okay? If they are saying that, then it doesn’t say much for what they think of the NO. However, I don’t think they mean it that way. I think that there are monkey wrenches being tossed intentionally. It really boggles the mind that people are so hostile to the TLM.

I don’t think that Canon Law or the Holy Father expect a priest to speak Latin like Cicero. They require a passive fluency. Passive fluency means that you know what you’re reading, even when you do mispronounce it.

For example, I can pray the breviary in Latin, because I understand the psalms. If I didn’t understand the psalms, praying the breviary in Latin would be a futile exercise. The breviary is meant to be prayed, not read. That’s what they’re looking for when you celebrate the mass in any language.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve heard Benedict make the joke. It’s a play on the word “eternal”. Many scholars get a chuckle when people refer to the Tridentine mass as the “eternal mass” or the “mass of the ages”.

If I understood the humor correctly he was trying to say that if he had to sit through a mass for eternity that would be hell. He’s using hell as they use it in Jersey City, not as in the place down there. If someone else heard the comment and I got it wrong, feel free to correct my misunderstanding. That’s what I read into it.

Brilliant people find it tedious when they run into others who focus on one issue or one aspect of life and nothing else is important to them. These are people who can juggle 10 things and are curious about 30 at the same time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Gotcha!

Sorry for the misunderstanding Stylites.

 

[triumphguy]

I really like this. You’ve said it before and it applies to so many things. If my goal is to be a Saint, than other things have to fall in priority. I know I am blessed to have easy access to the EF and beautifully celebrated OFs. However, there are Saints who walked miles and miles to get to mumbled, rushed low Masses; whose priest didn’t like them; who suffered many other things. On the whole, our problems in 21st century US are so minor in comparision.

I suggest we all offer up the Masses we attend (whether they are our preferred form or not) for those who today only see a priest every few months or even just once a year!

My Catholic forebears in Lancashire and Cheshire, England suffered persecution and martyrdom, were stripped of their citizenship for nearly 200 years, and had their Churches stolen from them. They were reduced to surviving in secret.

By all the signs we may face similar trials in the future.

As Catholics we need to work together and put a united face to the world. We need to get behind our bishops. Bishops who are confident of the support of the laity can be a lot more confident in the public eye too.

We need to make the Eucharist (what it is already) the source and summit of our lives, and focus on the Eucharist rather than the form of the mass.