Brushed off by my Bishop

[GerardP]

Sorry, but I do not see it that way. These people constantly complained before and, now that they have the Moto Proprio, they are becoming like bullies forcing the EF where it is not wanted just to satify their agenda.

The truth of the matter is, the Traditional Latin Mass was bullied out. The Holy Father has clarified that it was never abolished.

The current “ordinary” form was foisted on the faithful without any concern for whether it was wanted or not.

It was originally offered by Paul VI as an “option”.

What is happening as you can see by the title of this thread, the Motu Proprio has clarified the law and the bullies who don’t want to face that fact are trying to skirt the issue again.

The Mass is the Mass argument is like saying that the theme to the Old Spice Commercial is a song just like Beethoven’s 9th is a “song”.

 

[otjm]

Wow they sound pretty bad…

What is this agenda that they want to force upon us? I see a faithfulness to what Vatican II has stated being promoted, is that bad? How are they forcing people to attend the EF?

Scylla

I suspect he may be referring to those who seem to insist impliedly that with 3 or 4 requesting the EF, they can re-arrange the Sunday Mass schedule. Note, I said impliedly. But he can speak for himself.

 

[GerardP]

I suspect he may be referring to those who seem to insist impliedly that with 3 or 4 requesting the EF, they can re-arrange the Sunday Mass schedule. Note, I said impliedly. But he can speak for himself.

Like it or not, the motu proprio is going to put an end to the “casual mass” that is so prominent today.

The Holy Father wants the Old Liturgy to affect the new at the very least.

He wants one old liturgy on Sundays where it’s possible and he wants whole parishes erected in the traditional form.

The people that don’t like it are going to have to make room.

 

[otjm]

The truth of the matter is, the Traditional Latin Mass was bullied out. The Holy Father has clarified that it was never abolished.

The current “ordinary” form was foisted on the faithful without any concern for whether it was wanted or not.

It was originally offered by Paul VI as an “option”.

What is happening as you can see by the title of this thread, the Motu Proprio has clarified the law and the bullies who don’t want to face that fact are trying to skirt the issue again.

The Mass is the Mass argument is like saying that the theme to the Old Spice Commercial is a song just like Beethoven’s 9th is a “song”.

Christ is every bit as present at the OF as He is at the EF, and as He is at the Divine Mysteries. Beethoven’s 9th is not a song, and the OF is not an Old Spice commercial. It is the Mass. In itheir essence, the OF and the EF are the same; in form they are not. I have not suggested that there is no difference; but the Consecration is the Consecration, at either and just as valid. and I sort of think you know very well what I was saying. If you are in favor of the EF, then perhaps less said about the differences by you to someone who has a problem with the EF (and particularly someone who has a problem extrinsic to the form) might be more conducive to getting them to attend?

It is all well and good to know and be able to recite all the differences between the two for an intellectual discussion; but when it gets down to emotions running one way or the other, and in particular in this case when the emotions are running the other way, your elucidation that the two forms of the rite are different is akin to throwing gasoline on the fire.

If you truly love the EF, then perhaps you might consider that when dealing with someone who won’t attend for reasons having little to do with the intrinsic aspects of the form.

Choosing otherwise would lead me to believe that you either may lack wisdom, or in the alternative, view yourself as an elite not needing such riff raff at the Mass with you. And I am sure neither apply to you.

 

[GerardP]

Fr. Echert of EWTN Q& A fame gave an interview to the Remnant which was published this past week.

He’s got a great understanding and he’s taking great actions to show priests how to properly implement **and evangelize **on the Motu Proprio

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0929-fr-echert.htm

 

[GerardP]

Christ is every bit as present at the OF as He is at the EF, and as He is at the Divine Mysteries.

Christ is also present at a Black Mass. That’s not the point. A liturgy that teaches and expresses the faith better than another is better for the faithful.

Beethoven’s 9th is not a song, and the OF is not an Old Spice commercial. It is the Mass.

By that logic a Mass chock full of liturgical abuse is no effront to God as long as the priest says the words of consecration correctly.

In itheir essence, the OF and the EF are the same; in form they are not.

One form expresses the Catholic faith better. The other is used by Lutherans in France lock stock and barrel without them ever feeling the need to convert.

I have not suggested that there is no difference; but the Consecration is the Consecration, at either and just as valid.

For the purposes of worship, would you surround the consecrated host in a monstrance of gold or put it out on a paper plate?

and I sort of think you know very well what I was saying. If you are in favor of the EF, then perhaps less said about the differences by you to someone who has a problem with the EF (and particularly someone who has a problem extrinsic to the form) might be more conducive to getting them to attend?

Good points, but I don’t know why someone would be inspired to come onto a thread about a bishop brushing someone off with regards to implementing the motu proprio and complain that those who are being brushed off are “bullies” with an agenda.

It is all well and good to know and be able to recite all the differences between the two for an intellectual discussion; but when it gets down to emotions running one way or the other, and in particular in this case when the emotions are running the other way, your elucidation that the two forms of the rite are different is akin to throwing gasoline on the fire.

If the person is interested in giving his or her best to God, they will eventually have to toss the emotions out the door. Hearing a little truth may make them upset temporarily but the truth has its own attraction.

I never had an urge to see a “Latin Mass” until I’d studied up on what happened. I was perfectly happy with the Novus Ordo when done with decorum. I finally saw a TLM and wondered if I’d actually seen something Catholic.

Then I’d realized after reading the actual prayers how robbed I’d been of my baptismal right and the treasury of the Church and how God was demanding much much more from us than we were taught to give.

If you truly love the EF, then perhaps you might consider that when dealing with someone who won’t attend for reasons having little to do with the intrinsic aspects of the form.

The circumstances that lead to the de facto “banning” of the TLM are not intrinsic to either form. It’s about the facts of history concerning the restoration of the Old rite to its proper place.

Last week someone was lividly telling me that the Latin Mass was “stupid” and followed up with the question, “Why do this when all of those bishops voted in Vatican II to do away with Latin?”

I replied, “They didn’t.”

Choosing otherwise would lead me to believe that you either may lack wisdom, or in the alternative, view yourself as an elite not needing such riff raff at the Mass with you. And I am sure neither apply to you.

I think it boils down to how we view the situation. I see someone coming onto a thread to attack traditionalists without cause.
And then to blame traditionalists for their self-imposed ignorance is the height of hubris.

I really don’t believe the poster is avoiding the TLM because of the behavior of traditionalists and their agenda.

 

[Ad_Deum]

If that is the case, I suggest that you ask the Ecclesia Dei regarding this matter they have more authority on this issues.

Pax

 

[otjm]

Like it or not, the motu proprio is going to put an end to the “casual mass” that is so prominent today.

The Holy Father wants the Old Liturgy to affect the new at the very least.

He wants one old liturgy on Sundays where it’s possible and he wants whole parishes erected in the traditional form.

The people that don’t like it are going to have to make room.

I have read the MP and the accompanying letter several times, and am well aware of his intent.

And I happen to belong to a parish that does not have a “casual Mass”. I am aware that the OF has not been said the way it was attended; my experience over the last 5 yearrs or so in other parishes is that things have been imporving. Sibnce I do not travel over all the US, I can’t speak for other parts, but in parishes in North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, some parts of Washington and in Oregon, I have been impressed with the sense of reverance that I have seen, as well as the implementation of the GIRM and subsequent rules and corrections.

And given that article 10 leaves the issue up to the bishop as to establishing a personal parish in accordance with Canon 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite really doesn’t seem to be language saying that the Pope wants this, but rather, at the desire of the bishop, it may be done.

If he had wanted it, one would presume there would be language allowing it to come from the “ground up” rather than leaving it to the bishop feeling that it was appropriate.

 

[otjm]

Christ is also present at a Black Mass. That’s not the point. A liturgy that teaches and expresses the faith better than another is better for the faithful.

You are making the assumption that one is better than the other. The practical matter is that one may appeal to one person and the other to the other. The Pope obviously wants to see more reverance in the OF, which anyone with any honesty will acknowledge has had problems; he also wants the rubrics followed rather than ignored. Once that is accomplished, as the Pope said “…the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former useage. … This will bring out the spiritual richness and theological depth of this Missal.”

So, unless you are smarter than the Pope, get off your soap box about one being superior to the other. He doesn’t seem to think so.

By that logic a Mass chock full of liturgical abuse is no effront to God as long as the priest says the words of consecration correctly.

No, that does not logically follow. Don’t play games.

One form expresses the Catholic faith better. The other is used by Lutherans in France lock stock and barrel without them ever feeling the need to convert.

Try reading what the Pope ahs actually said about the OF.

For the purposes of worship, would you surround the consecrated host in a monstrance of gold or put it out on a paper plate?

That is irrelevant to the issue. any priest who decides to not follow the rubrics can do so in either form. And neither form allows this. Nor is your comment conducive to a discussion of anything I have said previously; let’s keep to the topic.

Good points, but I don’t know why someone would be inspired to come onto a thread about a bishop brushing someone off with regards to implementing the motu proprio and complain that those who are being brushed off are “bullies” with an agenda.

Well, I would suggest that the poster has been angered by what he perceives as a superiority complex and an attitutde of triumphalism among some writers. Whether he is correct or not, I was more concerned with those who wish to promote the EF paying attention to the fact that what they say, and how they say it, can have a very negative effect on others who may not be committed to the EF. I understand the angst felt at the lack of permission of the indult granted by JP2. But now that the issue of needing permission of an indult has been dealt with, those who were not addressed as to their spiritual needs in an appropriate fashion can either let loose with their anger through comments shaped by it, or let go of the anger.

And frankly, some of the comments I have seen have smacked of triumphalism and eletism. The Pope himself speaks more highly of the OF than do many who favor the EF. I don’t expect anyone who prefers the EF to fawn over the OF. But if it is desired that the EF be widely celebrated, then something will have to be done to attract those who currently prefer the OF, often because that is all they know. Come across as eletist or triumphalist, and find how isolated the EF becomes.

The old phrase about more flies attracted to honey than to vinegar is still true.

I think it boils down to how we view the situation. I see someone coming onto a thread to attack traditionalists without cause.
And then to blame traditionalists for their self-imposed ignorance is the height of hubris.

I really don’t believe the poster is avoiding the TLM because of the behavior of traditionalists and their agenda.

You may choose to not beleive it. But I am sitting on the sidelines watching, and I’ll tell you what I see: there are those who are overjoyed at the possiblity of the EF being more widely available, and there are others who have an attitude of eletism, triumphalism, a very negative attitude towards Vatican 2, and a very judgemental approach to anyone who they do not perceive to be in their camp. I have no way of judging how many who prefer the EF are in one group of the other, but it is the latter group that many of the bishops foresaw as being devisive in parishes and creating more dissention. If this group keeps it up, they will fulfill the prophecy of the bishops.

The Pope is not fool. When he talks about the “spiritual richness and theological depth” of the OF, there’s a few people who ought to shut it off long enough to ask if it is just possible they may have missed something.

 

[GerardP]

And I happen to belong to a parish that does not have a “casual Mass”. I am aware that the OF has not been said the way it was attended;

I’m assuming you mean “intended” but even as intended (In Latin, priest facing the east. It is stilll drastically impoverished and what Card. Ottaviani called “a striking departure” from the theology of Mass as previously understood.

my experience over the last 5 yearrs or so in other parishes is that things have been imporving.

That’s a good thing, but is it because of the proper use of the ordinary form or despite it? Having all the tools the Church has available is obviously better than struggling along missing key elements

Sibnce I do not travel over all the US, I can’t speak for other parts, but in parishes in North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, some parts of Washington and in Oregon, I have been impressed with the sense of reverance that I have seen, as well as the implementation of the GIRM and subsequent rules and corrections

.

Reverence is nice but that isn’t the only thing. The proper transmission of the faith is essential. There are reverent Protestant services as well I’m sure. But they are missing the sacraments and the faith. Many raised in the post conciliar period don’t even know the faith and they won’t learn it at the Novus Ordo since 70% of the prayers were changed.

And given that article 10 leaves the issue up to the bishop as to establishing a personal parish in accordance with Canon 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite really doesn’t seem to be language saying that the Pope wants this, but rather, at the desire of the bishop, it may be done.

The very fact that the Pope has mentioned it is an exercise of Romanita that he does want it. In 2004 Card. Ratzinger talked of sorrowing while standing the liturgical ruins. He won’t use language like that as Pope but it does give an indication of his mind.

If he had wanted it, one would presume there would be language allowing it to come from the “ground up” rather than leaving it to the bishop feeling that it was appropriate.

I disagree, the structure of the Church has to be preserved somewhat. Restoring what was always there is one thing. Innovating establishments of parishes by the laiety is not something that a heirarchical organization should do.

It would result in the laiety participating as the agents of evolution in the Church as St. Pius X warned in “Pascendi”

 

[rtconstant]

Go back and READ the context of what was written.

A previous poster said that we can’t demand anything from a bishop.

I cited “orthodoxy” as an example of what we can and should demand of our bishops.

And questioning someone’s orthodoxy is not a crime. Orthodoxy simply means “right doctrine.” It’s not judging the state of someone’s soul. We’ve had Popes that have held heterodox opinions.

I suggest you follow your own advice.

As to questioning orthodoxy no its not a crime but you have no basis for which to do it in this case so that would make it an arbitrary judgment on your part, as such you can and should be called on it.

 

[rtconstant]

It’s not anybody’s “call” it’s a fact.

No it isn’t a “fact”. It is very much the call of both the priest in question and his immediate supperior depending on what is being asked for. Again nothing was suggested in the OP that implies that there was any reason for the bishop to think that there was any need for further EF’s in diocese. It would be up to the laity to make that apparent.

Judging is not the same as questioning. And they have their authority only by the permissive will of Christ. There are plenty of people given authority who abuse it.

Yours and other posts here have done a tad more than question.

The motu proprio has little if anything to do with the bishops. It’s for the pastors and priests.

Oh it has plenty to do with bishops. Yes a priest is free to perfom a private mass of either form as he sees fit. However, the replacement of a public mass can easily involve the bishop. If a OF is replaced by an EF with a quater of the attendance that’s a problem, and one that bishop can freely address. If the priests wants to add an additional mass for the EF he still needs permission from his bishop if he is already performing two. This issue alone would affect every parish I know of in the area, possibly the diocese.

So while there is nothing that directly relates to a bishop in the MP the very nature of the subject finds its way under his jurisdiction quiete naturally.

Doing nothing and creating roadblocks addresses no need or capability.

Who says nothing is being done? Nothing in the OP suggests that. How do you know the bishop hasn’t already looked into the matter and has decided that there is plenty of representation for the EF already? How do you know if there are priests who are available, willing and qualified? He knows that information we don’t.

So far what we have is a diocese that has standing EF’s that may or may not even be at full attendance and one person asking for another. That is what we know. If that is all that the bishop has seen as interest in the EF why would he consider another?

Now I’ll agree that if he responded in as terse a manner as presented by the OP then the good bishop may need some lessons in social manner but at this point I think it is the worse we can accuse him of.

The Pope understands that the Church is collapsing due to the liturgical ruins brought on by allowing the bishops too much leeway.

Actually the Church is growing. It is one of the fastest growing religious groups in the US and in Africa and Asia it is doing extremely well. Also the mass I attend is not a ruin.

The Pope directed the bishops to give assistance, not stand in the way of them. He even provided for the Ecclesia Dei commission to be a recourse if the bishop can’t help. A bishop prattling on about his preferences for English has nothing to do with the feeding of his flock.

Perhaps not but at worst it would be akin to those “prattling on” about their preference for Latin here. The bishop stated he didn’t think an additional EF was necessary and it may not be did you consider that? His running commentary on prefering the vernacular may not have been necessary but it is certainly not any reason to assume he is unorthodox or road blocking.

 

[GerardP]

You are making the assumption that one is better than the other. The practical matter is that one may appeal to one person and the other to the other.

It’s not about what “appeals” to a person. It’s what is happening. The law of prayer is the law of belief. A Big Mac may appeal to one person more than another person but if you feed a person their veggies when they don’t want them, they will be healthier than if you let them have their Big Mac.

The Pope obviously wants to see more reverance in the OF, which anyone with any honesty will acknowledge has had problems;

A little research with that honesty will show you that the “OF” was a product of Annibale Bugnini who has pretty much been responsible for all of the changes and was expelled to Iran for being a freemason after he did all the damage.

he also wants the rubrics followed rather than ignored.

I’m sure he’s got to be prudent about how he does things.

Once that is accomplished, as the Pope said “…the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former useage. … This will bring out the spiritual richness and theological depth of this Missal.”

He could just as easily mean that the best the Novus Ordo can offer will be a taste of what the TLM has in abundance. I remember taking communion on the tongue from the hand of the priest in vestments at an altar rail at the Novus Ordo as a Child. I remember that being special. I later discovered that it was a remnant of what the TLM has.

The Novus Ordo gains stability the more it imitates the TLM. But it can’t match it for richness and the aggegate wisdom of the Church in its development over the millennia.

So, unless you are smarter than the Pope, get off your soap box about one being superior to the other. He doesn’t seem to think so.

The Pope is not automatically the smartest man in the Church. In any case, I don’t have to be smarter than the Pope to know the truth about which form of the rite is superior.

In the preface to Klaus Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman Liturgy” Card. Ratzinger wrote:

“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development **came fabricated liturgy. **We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”–Josef Cardinal Ratzinger

No, that does not logically follow. Don’t play games.

I’m not playing games. That’s the essence of your argument, all Masses are the same regardless of the quality of the liturgy surrounding the consecration.

Try reading what the Pope ahs actually said about the OF.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? The fact that Protestants can say the Novus Ordo verbatim and not think of becoming Catholics says a lot. They can’t do that with the TLM.

That is irrelevant to the issue. any priest who decides to not follow the rubrics can do so in either form. And neither form allows this. Nor is your comment conducive to a discussion of anything I have said previously; let’s keep to the topic.

The TLM is simply not as prone to it. The Novus Ordo grants great latitude and “creativity” in selecting the options available. That’s how it loses stability. A second point is that the prayers are so different, a modernist will either be converted or try to get away from the TLM. The vesting prayers alone probably could have averted a few instances of sexual abuse.

 

[GerardP]

Well, I would suggest that the poster has been angered by what he perceives as a superiority complex and an attitutde of triumphalism among some writers.

Many non-Catholics and non-Christians view the claims of the Christ and the Church as “triumphal.”

Whether he is correct or not, I was more concerned with those who wish to promote the EF paying attention to the fact that what they say, and how they say it, can have a very negative effect on others who may not be committed to the EF.

Wherever you have Cathoicism, you are going to have a fight. We are the Church Militant. Prudence can be important but if you worry too much about it, you’ll wind up being completely ineffective.

I’m not running onto threads about the fruits of the Novus Ordo and proclaiming the eventual demise of the Novus Ordo. But someone else is deciding to make the victims of a bishop’s malfeasance the “bullies” with the “agenda”.

But now that the issue of needing permission of an indult has been dealt with, those who were not addressed as to their spiritual needs in an appropriate fashion can either let loose with their anger through comments shaped by it, or let go of the anger.

This whole thread is about the resistance of a bishop to that issue that has been dealt with.

There is a whole battle just waiting to happen. And its going to happen despite the Pope’s best attempts. Until he publicly acknowledges that there are enemies of the faith within the church itself and takes aggressive steps to remove them, the charade that we are all one happy family will continue until it boils over.

And frankly, some of the comments I have seen have smacked of triumphalism and eletism.

There will of course be comments you don’t like, but you can find triumphalism and elitism a plenty among the charismatics and the conservatives and liberals.

The Pope himself speaks more highly of the OF than do many who favor the EF.

The Pope has also written very bitingly about the Novus Ordo as I’ve shown.

I don’t expect anyone who prefers the EF to fawn over the OF. But if it is desired that the EF be widely celebrated, then something will have to be done to attract those who currently prefer the OF, often because that is all they know.

Obviously resisting the machinations of bishops who are dead set against the TLM is going to be a part of that evangelization. The TLM may also attract more non-Catholics as it did prior to the Council as well as vocations.

Come across as eletist or triumphalist, and find how isolated the EF becomes.

The loss will be on the part of the person who let a creature get in the way of the proper worship of the Creator.

Pretending that “your okay” and “I’m okay” and we are all equals can also be seen as patronizing and dishonest.

The old phrase about more flies attracted to honey than to vinegar is still true.

Not always. Paul VI tried honey and got stung. Vinegar has anti-septic properties to it. It can help a bee sting.

But I am sitting on the sidelines watching, and I’ll tell you what I see: there are those who are overjoyed at the possiblity of the EF being more widely available, and there are others who have an attitude of eletism, triumphalism, a very negative attitude towards Vatican 2, and a very judgemental approach to anyone who they do not perceive to be in their camp.

How are your comments not judgmental as well?

I have no way of judging how many who prefer the EF are in one group of the other, but it is the latter group that many of the bishops foresaw as being devisive in parishes and creating more dissention. If this group keeps it up, they will fulfill the prophecy of the bishops.

The bishops who are not friendly to the motu proprio are going to get grief due to their adversarial stance to the traditions of the Church. Hopefully, they will convert, leave or eventually die off.

The bishops who are friendly are getting loads of support and prayers from the vast majority of traditionalists. Even Bishop Williamson of the SSPX advised prayer, patience and support for those priests and bishops who don’t see eye to eye with the SSPX on all issues.

The Pope is not fool. When he talks about the “spiritual richness and theological depth” of the OF, there’s a few people who ought to shut it off long enough to ask if it is just possible they may have missed something.

I’ve been waiting for years to hear about the great things contained in the Novus Ordo.

Here’s one example:

Most people don’t even understand what “THE” mystery of faith is since the Novus Ordo has about 3 versions of it. None of which is the Mysterium Fideii from the consecration which is the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Our Lord.

 

[GerardP]

I suggest you follow your own advice.

As to questioning orthodoxy no its not a crime but you have no basis for which to do it in this case so that would make it an arbitrary judgment on your part, as such you can and should be called on it.

I didn’t make an accusation against this unnamed bishop as being heterodox. I’m saying that the statement. “You have no right to demand anything from a bishop” is wrong.

I cited an example that proved that statement wrong. Period.

 

[GerardP]

No it isn’t a “fact”. It is very much the call of both the priest in question and his immediate supperior depending on what is being asked for. Again nothing was suggested in the OP that implies that there was any reason for the bishop to think that there was any need for further EF’s in diocese. It would be up to the laity to make that apparent. .

The OP asked the bishop for help in finding a priest to say the TLM. The bishop replied that “he believed that language didn’t matter, and that it is imperative that people are able to understand the mass.” and that the Novus Ordo was the normative form.

The “need” for the TLM is not the bishop’s call. From what the OP stated the closest one is 8 hours away. So, it sounds like there are no needs for “further” TLMs since there are none at all. How very prudent of his excellency.

The OP didn’t ask for a lecture on the Novus Ordo or what the bishop “believes” about the vernacular vs Latin. He asked for help in finding a priest in his diocese who can say one.

The bishop should have referred him to Ecclesia Dei if he didn’t want to do anything.

He could have asked if there were priests who said private TLMs and helped him exercise his right to attend that one.

In other words, the bishop did nothing in accord with the Holy Father’s wishes to provide for the faithful.

 

[GerardP]

Yours and other posts here have done a tad more than question.

Your opinion only.

Oh it has plenty to do with bishops. Yes a priest is free to perfom a private mass of either form as he sees fit. However, the replacement of a public mass can easily involve the bishop.

Can. Not “must” most of the responsibility lies with the pastor.

If a OF is replaced by an EF with a quater of the attendance that’s a problem, and one that bishop can freely address. If the priests wants to add an additional mass for the EF he still needs permission from his bishop if he is already performing two. This issue alone would affect every parish I know of in the area, possibly the diocese.

The motu proprio is supposed to affect every diocese.

So while there is nothing that directly relates to a bishop in the MP the very nature of the subject finds its way under his jurisdiction quiete naturally.

And that jurisdiction comes from the Pope. And the bishop’s hatred of Latin or preference for English has nothing to do with the Pope’s exercise of authority over his diocese (namely the whole world)

Who says nothing is being done? Nothing in the OP suggests that.

He asked for the name of a priest. He didn’t get one. He didn’t even get an “I don’t know” He got a rant about vernacular vs. Latin and “understanding” and the statement that the bishops would determine what the Pope said. Not the Pope.

How do you know the bishop hasn’t already looked into the matter and has decided that there is plenty of representation for the EF already?

From what the OP said. 8 hours drive is too far to be a “wide and generous application” as JPII requested and his hositility towards Latin in the mass is indicative of what he represents.

PiousMat’s even given his name and number to priests to put him in contact with anyone interested in it.

How do you know if there are priests who are available, willing and qualified? He knows that information we don’t.

He’s sure not giving it out if they are available. He’s not saying there are none available. He’s saying…“that language didn’t matter, and that it is imperative that people are able to understand the mass. He also reminded me that the Novus Ordo is the regular form of the mass, and that the college of Bishops would meet to “discuss” the meaning of the MP, and further clarify it.”

PiuosMat’s even been discouraged from promoting awareness of the motu proprio. Talk about a deliberate attempt to undermine the Holy Father’s lawful and just authority.

 

[otjm]

It’s not about what “appeals” to a person. It’s what is happening. The law of prayer is the law of belief. A Big Mac may appeal to one person more than another person but if you feed a person their veggies when they don’t want them, they will be healthier than if you let them have their Big Mac.

And the Pope speaks much more higHly of the OF than you do.

The only people who harp about him are those who hold the Mass in disdain. He was only one individual in the group and the only ones who ascribe him power and control are those who are anti-OF. Read what the Pope has said about the OF. And I have yet to see any valid documentation that he was a freemason.

Let’s try this again: “This will bring out the spiritual richness and theological depth of this Missal.” Pope Benedict 16, in his letter accompanying the MP.

You are welcome to disagree with him. I am inclined to pay attention to what he says.

All Masses which are licit are essentially the same, and the operative term is “essentially”. You ignore all of the rites of the East as if they were not even in existence. By your logic, the only one that would really fit your description would be a Solemn High Mass. The differences between a Solemn High Mass and a Low Mass are remarkable; but they are both the Mass. So also is the OF. You are simply dismissive of it.

You ignore what they did prior to Vatican 2; I have seen what they did then and it looked a whole lot like what we did then, too. Your point is irrelevant.

Hogwash! The abuses were occuring prior to Vatican 2 also. Don’t even go down that path!

And as to stability, that is bordering on ridiculous. The options are minor and have no more impact than does a different set of readings for each day of the Mass.

I have no problem whatsoever with you preferring the EF to the OF. But quit trying to justify it to everyone else. You may not “hear” what you are saying, but you can border on an attitude that is not going to attract anyone but those who are already seriously dissatisfied with the OF. Most people are not

. And if you don’t get that message, you are going to succeed indriving people away from the EF who might otherwise be open to it.

I have read what then Cardinal Ratzinger has said about the Mass, and I have not limited it to simply picking out those things he has said critically of it. About 1/3 of my life was spent with the EF; it was my formative Mass. You talk to me as if I was ignorant, and I am not; and I have to wonder how you come across to others who have little or no experience of the EF, but love the OF. It might shock you, but there are good and holy people, people who love God and seek to follow Christ, who are happy with the OF and seem to be growing spiritually. It seems to be your premise that they are barely able to do so with the OF. I beg to differ with you.

 

[30miller]

Sorry, but I do not see it that way. These people constantly complained before and, now that they have the Moto Proprio, they are becoming like bullies forcing the EF where it is not wanted just to satify their agenda.

wanderaimlessly,
You must have been divinely inspired the day you chose your screen name.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A little research with that honesty will show you that the “OF” was a product of Annibale Bugnini who has pretty much been responsible for all of the changes and was expelled to Iran for being a freemason after he did all the damage.

See, here’s the problem with this, Gerard. For whatever reason the Holy See “expelled” (your word) Buggsy to Iran, the Holy See has said it wasn’t for freemasonry. The Holy See, in the early 70’s, explicitly said that the Arch. and others were NOT freemasons. So has the Holy See lied to us? Who should we believe?