Cardinal Martini unwilling to celebrate TLM

[ComradeAndrei]

No, Alex, it’s pragmatic. There PROBABLY isn’t going to be a huge demand for the TLM sweepting the country. There may be a call for it for a while. The faithful who’ve wanted it for this long will be faithful in going, but some who go initially out of curiosity will drift back to the ordinary form. Most people are PROBABLY going to want to attend a Mass in their native tongue. You and I both know that’s PROBABLY true.

Why is that? In my own state (Nebraska), we have three places where you can assist fairly regularly at a legitimate TLM. Two of them are in our bigger cities (Lincoln and Omaha) and the other one is at a Carmelite convent not too far away from Lincoln, although Mass is often NO (though ad orientem with Latin). We are rather fortunate. However, unless you live close to Omaha or Lincoln, you are just out of luck unless you are one of those generous souls who will drive for hours once in a while on a Sunday (and there are folks who do this in NE). So, right off the bat, in a state that is blessed with generous bishops, you are likely not able to assist at a TLM even if you want to if you live in one of the far flung corners of the state.

If you are one of the fortunates who can live in or around Lincoln or Omaha, you can assist at the TLM assuming you even know what the TLM is-and that is being hopeful even in Lincoln. Couple that with the fact that most of the people do not have the advantage I had of being a college student who was not tied down to a regular parish and could more easily search out something like the TLM. Plenty of folks go to their regional parish simply because the kids are in school there and that is where it is convenient to go because its just across the street/down the block/around the turn. Also, if they are married, working, and have a family and not much in the way of educational background (not that they are stupid, just ignorant, weren’t taught such things, or plenty educated but in different fields, etc.) they probably don’t have the time and/or the basic understanding or the resources easily at hand to lead them to take the time to look into the TLM.

So, if we made it through the practical issues of where one lives and their family/educational situation we have to attend to the informational matters. Trying to find information (especially a couple years ago before the motu proprio) could be problematic as one often runs into schismatic websites touting the TLM-but also their own schismatical nonsense. If you don’t even know what you are looking for, you could either be led astray one way or the other, if not by schismatics by priests or people who consider interest in the TLM as practical schimatic behavior and who discourage it in a number of different ways.

cont.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I don’t know what kind of circles you run in, but when I started getting interested in the TLM folks who were otherwise decent Catholics thought I was turning into a schismatic. Having done my research (and being a pretty dogged individual) I ran the gauntlet of sedevacantists, schismatics, problematic groups (SSPX) and NO folks who were just plain ignorant of the matter or who had axes to grind. This ranged from one well meaning, orthodox priest who assured me that “That (the TLM) isn’t coming back. Its mostly for older folks who are used to it” to a nun who insinuated that the FSSP was just a bunch of clericalists who liked to dress up and have people grovel to them. Other people often said, “But, you can’t go to the old Latin Mass. Rome forbid it/said it was schismatical/abrogated it/etc. ad naseaum” or gave the usual stereotypes (the priests will yell at you in the Confessional/are mean in general, the old Mass is just fast mumbling in a language we don’t understand, etc.).

Now, I finally get the nerve to actually go. Still, with far from perfect knowledge of the TLM but some basic pointers I sit in a pew and flip through the little red missalette. While I said I did my research, I kinda just assumed that the TLM was basically the NO Mass with a few added things (prayers at the foot of the altar, last gospel). With this admitted ignorance on my own part (and from one who did have the inclination to even bother to look into it) I assisted at my first Low Mass (didn’t realize that there was such a thing) and got lost. From pictures, it seemed that the TLM was celebrated with lots of ministers and altar boys and the Low Mass didn’t fit that preconceived notion. While I recognized generally what was going on, I started to think that some of the things I was told might be right. However, I knew there had to be more to the TLM for people to be so attached to it and I found out more and more as I persisted in going back Sunday after Sunday struggling to learn as much as I could from it.

Seeing a High Mass finally shed some light on the glory that was (is) the traditional Mass. Another thing that helped was a little class offered by the priest stationed there who explained how to use a hand missal and gave us a crash course on devotions, traditional Catholic practices and customs, and various tidbits about the old Mass along with a reading of Mediator Dei.

I also admit that I bought into the stereotype of traditional priests being mean. This class let me see that Fr. was very kind, humble, prayerful and eminently pastoral and I have subsequently found that all of the FSSP and ICRSS priests I’ve run into are the same way as are most diocesan priests of a more traditional slant.

So, I made it through the gauntlet set up around the TLM (purposefully or unwittingly) and became a devoted adherent to the TLM. Seeing all of this (and thanking God for his gift of my state in life at the time and my determination) I can see the real reason why there is “little or no interest”.

 

[brown_bear]

What Cardinal Martini did not say: “I wish the Holy Father hadn’t issued the Motu Proprio.” or “If I were still the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, I would not let my priests celebrate the extraordinary form.”

He simply said HE wouldn’t say it.

Further, I would like to see all of what His Eminence wrote. I trust CNS like I trust FoxNews, maybe less.

John

Thank you, thank you, thank you my friend!!
I thank you on behalf of the whole Christianity of Milan!!
Speaking seriously: I respect all of you, also who spoke rather heavy words on my Archbishop for more than 20 years.
But I can argue that maybe I have a better knowledge both about Card. Martini and the chronical distortion of the truth of his mind from the media, especially - but not only - Italian media.
In all these years he has been presented as… enemy of Catholic institutions more loyal to Church’s Magisterium (then I should have faced the music, but I didn’t…), instigator of the use of contraceptive methods, bitter enemy of Card.Ratzinger, champion of impossible dialogues with devil’s supporters (the worst of Italian and international secolarism) and so on.
But, as John says, when we go and see what exactly Card.Martini said and the accurate context of his words, then all is scaled down.
It has been built a false myth of an almost-heretical Card.Martini, so when he says something on a sensitive topic, even the best Christianity of the world, as you are, tends to apply the “heretical” interpretation. Instead of giving Card.Martini the benefit of the doubt, people give him a sort of “curse of the doubt”.

I say it smiling, but the matter is rather serious, don’t you think?
A friendly greeting to all of you, especially to paramedicgirl that I met on the wonderful Divine Mercy blog of TraditionalCath, that I invite to visit!

Aurelio

 

[AlexV]

Note also that despite the very clear permission since 1988 for ALL the sacraments, many US bishops made a rule that they’d allow an “indult Mass”, but NO SACRAMENTS. More than one bishop said not even confessions before Mass.

Well, gee. If you ban even confession, I wonder…oh yeah. People now must go to at least 2 churches for their spiritual life.

And some wonder why the numbers aren’t high in some locales…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You know why the extraordinary Mass in Dallas is in a tiny monastery?

Because the bishop insisted it be there. Isolated, too. Inconvenient to get to. An all too common tale. The bishop refused to let them use a “normal” church on Sunday.

In Fort Worth, where there was a truly liberal bishop, the FSSP had a large church. Beautiful too. And it was packed.

Which church in Ft. Worth? St. Mary of the Assumption? They offer one Latin Mass out of six in a weekend with an average attendance for ALL of 1700 people.

Any others in the Diocese of Ft. Worth? Which one is an FSSP Church? Couldn’t be St. Mary’s, since they ALSO off the NO (on a weekend, the OTHER five Masses and the only one offered daily). When I look through the list of clergy on the diocesan website, I see no listing for one belonging to the FSSP. Which church are they on staff?

 

[AlexV]

St. Mary’s. The ONE FSSP priest does 2 Masses in Dallas and 1 in Fort Worth. The 1 in Fort Worth is a normal-sized church, and it’s packed for the FSSP Mass in the evening, in fact, with the highest attendance of any Mass in that church all weekend (as the pastor has confirmed to me more than once).

What’s your game, Kirk? Constant downplaying of something you simply don’t like?

Until the Masses are given equal chance of actually being celebrated, constant arguing about numbers is based on a quite unlevel playing field.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t know what kind of circles you run in, but when I started getting interested in the TLM folks who were otherwise decent Catholics thought I was turning into a schismatic. Having done my research (and being a pretty dogged individual) I ran the gauntlet of sedevacantists, schismatics, problematic groups (SSPX) and NO folks who were just plain ignorant of the matter or who had axes to grind. This ranged from one well meaning, orthodox priest who assured me that “That (the TLM) isn’t coming back. Its mostly for older folks who are used to it” to a nun who insinuated that the FSSP was just a bunch of clericalists who liked to dress up and have people grovel to them. Other people often said, “But, you can’t go to the old Latin Mass. Rome forbid it/said it was schismatical/abrogated it/etc. ad naseaum” or gave the usual stereotypes (the priests will yell at you in the Confessional/are mean in general, the old Mass is just fast mumbling in a language we don’t understand, etc.).

Now, I finally get the nerve to actually go. Still, with far from perfect knowledge of the TLM but some basic pointers I sit in a pew and flip through the little red missalette. While I said I did my research, I kinda just assumed that the TLM was basically the NO Mass with a few added things (prayers at the foot of the altar, last gospel). With this admitted ignorance on my own part (and from one who did have the inclination to even bother to look into it) I assisted at my first Low Mass (didn’t realize that there was such a thing) and got lost. From pictures, it seemed that the TLM was celebrated with lots of ministers and altar boys and the Low Mass didn’t fit that preconceived notion. While I recognized generally what was going on, I started to think that some of the things I was told might be right. However, I knew there had to be more to the TLM for people to be so attached to it and I found out more and more as I persisted in going back Sunday after Sunday struggling to learn as much as I could from it.

Seeing a High Mass finally shed some light on the glory that was (is) the traditional Mass. Another thing that helped was a little class offered by the priest stationed there who explained how to use a hand missal and gave us a crash course on devotions, traditional Catholic practices and customs, and various tidbits about the old Mass along with a reading of Mediator Dei.

I also admit that I bought into the stereotype of traditional priests being mean. This class let me see that Fr. was a very kind, humble, prayerful and eminently pastoral and I have subsequently found that all of the FSSP and ICRSS priests I’ve run into are the same way as are most diocesan priests of a more traditional slant.

So, I made it through the gauntlet set up around the TLM (purposefully or unwittingly) and became a devoted adherent to the TLM. Seeing all of this (and thanking God for his gift of my state in life at the time and my determination) I can see the real reason why there is “little or no interest”.

I am not saying the TLM was given, in this age, a fair shake and found wanting. I said that I believe (if I wasn’t clear, “I believe”) that the majority of Catholics are going to want to continue to attend Mass in their own language. My thesis is this: it’s wrong for Cardinal Martini to say that he won’t celebrate the TLM. He’s a prince of the Church (granted, a retired one seemingly in search of a microphone) and that’s a bad thing, to say he will not celebrate an excepted Mass of the Rite to which he belongs. I think it’s equally wrong for the societies to categorially state that they will only celebrate the extraordinary form. I don’t think priests exist for a particular liturgy, but that they exist for the Church.

 

[AlexV]

Well the PCED disagrees with you. They have more than once said that while a priest of these societies MAY use the ordinary form, he cannot be FORCED to do so (any more than he can be forced NOT to), and that the CHARISM of these societies, obviously, is the extraordinary form. Obviously they wouldn’t exist otherwise.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

St. Mary’s. The ONE FSSP priest does 2 Masses in Dallas and 1 in Fort Worth. The 1 in Fort Worth is a normal-sized church, and it’s packed for the FSSP Mass in the evening, in fact, with the highest attendance of any Mass in that church all weekend (as the pastor has confirmed to me more than once).

What’s your game, Kirk? Constant downplaying of something you simply don’t like?

Until the Masses are given equal chance of actually being celebrated, constant arguing about numbers is based on a quite unlevel playing field.

You know, Alex, you are SO belligerent! You accuse me of hostility where there is none! Yet you are so hostile to the ordinary form!

I’m not saying that there are not going to be people who don’t want the TLM. Try and grasp the term “relative.” In relative numbers, even WHEN the TLM is generously allowed, you know you have a sneaking suspicion YOURSELF that the numbers are going to come down on the side of the NO. You comfort yourself that it’s because they’re kind of bad Catholics or ignorant ones or if only they were as smart as you and had your grasp of languages or understood their place or whatever, but you KNOW in your heart of hearts that the overwhelming majority of the “sheeple” are going to stick with the NO because A) it’s in their language and B) it’s what they’re accustomed to in terms of worship and the one thing that’s pragmatically true is that people don’t want their worship messed with (if we learned anything from the silly season of the "Spirit of VII, I bet we learned that).

If you REALLY wanted to give the Masses an equal playing field, you wouldn’t squeal with overwrought indignation every time it’s suggested that the TLM be offered in the vernacular.

And by your admission, the bishop of Ft. Worth is liberal in allowing the TLM. Yet in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, there’s what 3 (there’s actually 4, the priest that was transfered to McKinney also offers the TLM)? Yeah, that’s an overwhelming demand.

 

[marchoi]

I think the problem occurs when people of either rite start thinking that their rite is somehow “superior” or “better” than the other.

I’ve been to several hundred times more NO masses than TLM (couple hundred/thousand to two). I recognize the beauty in TLM masses but personally prefer NO. I welcome the MP as a means of trying to “refocus” the NO. What I don’t welcome is the MP as a means of promoting TLM as a better alternative to NO.

I was at a TLM near Boston the Sunday after the MP. I was quite disappointed with what the priest said in his homily. In essence, speaking of the MP, he said (and I obviously paraphrase), “Traditionalists have been practically suppressed. No one wanted us to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. But now, the MP has designated the TLM as the ‘extraordinary’ rite. (NOTE: He made it sound as though the ‘extraordinary’ meant ‘better’ as opposed to ‘outside-the-ordinary’ like ‘extraordinary ministers of holy communion’.) We will be able to show everyone what a true, beautiful mass is.”

I left feeling like he had just bashed the NO. And this kind of “TLM-only” - even amongst laity - attitude is what I fear the MP could promote.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well the PCED disagrees with you. They have more than once said that while a priest of these societies MAY use the ordinary form, he cannot be FORCED to do so (any more than he can be forced NOT to), and that the CHARISM of these societies, obviously, is the extraordinary form. Obviously they wouldn’t exist otherwise.

We’ll see what progresses. Reread the Holy Father’s cover letter to the bishops regarding societies not wanting to use the “new books.”

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I am not saying the TLM was given, in this age, a fair shake and found wanting. I said that I believe (if I wasn’t clear, “I believe”) that the majority of Catholics are going to want to continue to attend Mass in their own language.

I’m betting people would be more willing to assist at the Mass in the church they are used to or closest to and at the time they prefer. Diocesean priests tell me that the quickest way to get tarred and feathered in a parish is to get rid of one of the early Mass times on a Sunday. While I can’t exactly do this experiment, I would bet if you kept the time but switched the “form” folks would assist indiscriminately-especially if you explained all the great ways to assist at the TLM. You might even get a few more people to go to the TLM at the established time if you explained to them that they don’t have to sing and won’t be listening to the cantoress croon into the microphone.

As to language, I assist at the TLM with my “own language”-its printed on the other side of the page!

 

[paramedicgirl]

St. Mary’s. The ONE FSSP priest does 2 Masses in Dallas and 1 in Fort Worth. The 1 in Fort Worth is a normal-sized church, and it’s packed for the FSSP Mass in the evening, in fact, with the highest attendance of any Mass in that church all weekend (as the pastor has confirmed to me more than once).

What’s your game, Kirk? Constant downplaying of something you simply don’t like?

Until the Masses are given equal chance of actually being celebrated, constant arguing about numbers is based on a quite unlevel playing field.

I agree. Level the playing field (if the bishops dare) and see what happens. My sense is that the TLM will grow by leaps and bounds if bishops will just be more generous in their applications of it. No more hiding it away in inconvenient little closets and impossible times. Then we will have a much more accurate interpretation of the desire for it.

 

[AlexV]

The Holy Father’s cover letter to bishops is non-juridical.

This is also, incidentally, a non-issue in those PRAGMATIC terms you like to mention so often. Why?

Again, rules on bination (let alone trination).

The FSSP priest in Dallas-Fort Worth has 3 Masses. He could arguably have 2, if Dallas actually let him use a building that fit the whole congregation. But he has at least 2 every Sunday.

When, exactly, is he supposed to use the ordinary form in that kind of schedule?

Every FSSP priest I know binates. Many trinate. They need help in most of their apostolates. They’re not sitting around with Masses left to celebrate and refusing to help out their poor ordinary usage colleagues.

They’re overworked and booked.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m betting people would be more willing to assist at the Mass in the church they are used to or closest to and at the time they prefer. Diocesean priests tell me that the quickest way to get tarred and feathered in a parish is to get rid of one of the early Mass times on a Sunday. While I can’t exactly do this experiment, I would bet if you kept the time but switched the “form” folks would assist indiscriminately-especially if you explained all the great ways to assist at the TLM. You might even get a few more people to go to the TLM at the established time if you explained to them that they don’t have to sing and won’t be listening to the cantoress croon into the microphone.

As to language, I assist at the TLM with my “own language”-its printed on the other side of the page!

You know what I mean regarding language. Again, pragmatics.

And you might well be wrong on the time thing. We’ve had complaints about the fact that we sing the common parts at the 9:30 Mass in Latin (this would be called our most “formal” Mass) and our pastor may well have us go back to doing them in the vernacular. Mind you, this is ONLY the common, sung parts).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Holy Father’s cover letter to bishops is non-juridical.

It’s indicative of an attitude that could be MADE juridicial.

And I doubt all the societie’ priests are any more busy than the lesser priests of the lesser Church outside the great societies.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree. Level the playing field (if the bishops dare) and see what happens. My sense is that the TLM will grow by leaps and bounds if bishops will just be more generous in their applications of it. No more hiding it away in inconvenient little closets and impossible times. Then we will have a much more accurate interpretation of the desire for it.

I have absolutely no problem with this at all.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

You know what I mean regarding language. Again, pragmatics.

Since when is Liturgy about pragmatics?

And you might well be wrong on the time thing. We’ve had complaints about the fact that we sing the common parts at the 9:30 Mass in Latin (this would be called our most “formal” Mass) and our pastor may well have us go back to doing them in the vernacular. Mind you, this is ONLY the common, sung parts).

Why do they complain about something advocated in Vatican II and by our current Sovereign Pontiff? The laity should know the common parts of the Mass in Latin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Since when is Liturgy about pragmatics? It isn’t. But the language of the liturgy is a discipline and thus not immutable AND I believe pragmatically (note, I don’t cast that in stone as though I were an expert) most people are accustomed to and want to have the liturgy in their own tongue.

Why do they complain about something advocated in Vatican II and by our current Sovereign Pontiff? The laity should know the common parts of the Mass in Latin.

“Should” and “will” are two different things. Since no one’s salvation hangs (or should hang) on the language they use in worship or in understanding God, I doubt the shepherds are going to force the sheep. Do you?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think the problem occurs when people of either rite start thinking that their rite is somehow “superior” or “better” than the other.

I’ve been to several hundred times more NO masses than TLM (couple hundred/thousand to two). I recognize the beauty in TLM masses but personally prefer NO. I welcome the MP as a means of trying to “refocus” the NO. What I don’t welcome is the MP as a means of promoting TLM as a better alternative to NO.

I was at a TLM near Boston the Sunday after the MP. I was quite disappointed with what the priest said in his homily. In essence, speaking of the MP, he said (and I obviously paraphrase), “Traditionalists have been practically suppressed. No one wanted us to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. But now, the MP has designated the TLM as the ‘extraordinary’ rite. (NOTE: He made it sound as though the ‘extraordinary’ meant ‘better’ as opposed to ‘outside-the-ordinary’ like ‘extraordinary ministers of holy communion’.) We will be able to show everyone what a true, beautiful mass is.”

I left feeling like he had just bashed the NO. And this kind of “TLM-only” - even amongst laity - attitude is what I fear the MP could promote.

These are my fears as well. If you read all of the letter to the bishops explaining the MP (even though it isn’t juridicial ), the Holy Father’s intent is clear. And the Holy Father is an honest man. He means what he says. So the attitude of others is going to be the problem (and the “others” are in both camps, both the “traditionalists” and the ultra-liberals and progressivists). Both camps are going to take the “superior” attitude. It’s going to be important as laity to constantly refer back to the Holy Father’s intent (and part of that was his statement about traditionalists societies refusing to use the new books). In the end, we have to trust Christ and the Church and hope with Juliana of Norwhich that “all will be well and all manner of things will be well.” Because in the end, for the Church, it will be well. This end, however, is not helped by princes of the Church refusing the TLM or by traditionalist societies sniffing at the NO. That was my original thesis.