Cardinal Martini unwilling to celebrate TLM

[JKirkLVNV]

So indeed, there are priests who are NEEDED for only extraordinary Masses (and vice versa). Let’s avoid the truly tired “the demand is so low” nonsense. As noted before on these fora, banning something for decades and then claiming nobody really wants it anyway is a bit disingenuous.

Conditions in France are not universal. There’s not much of a demand HERE, so it’s not nonsense or disingenous HERE (or in other parts of the world).

 

[AlexV]

Oh really? Well, in certain churches of the good old USA, there are packed congregations for multiple extraordinary Masses every Sunday in several dioceses.

The priests…FSSP or other…have permission to trinate in some dioceses to meet the demand. The priest in Dallas, for one, has 3 packed Masses every Sunday, and really needs a fourth.

Other places, of course, have made it so difficult to FIND an extraordinary Mass for the last 37+ years that it’s not at all surprising they can smirk smugly and say nobody ever wanted what they didn’t allow in the first place.

 

[AlexV]

In Gabon, I might add, in west Africa, there are multiple extraordinary parishes. The bishop in Libreville commented recently that those parishes are the fastest growing in his territory.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

First off, I’d like to weigh in on His Eminence by saying I think it was in pour taste to air his sour grapes but hardly worth a whole thread to complain about it. There have been far more vicious things written by bishops trying to constrain and intimidate their priests in order to thwart the MP.

That said, I think the discussion about charisms and the desire not to say the NO can be seen in a more balanced contest if we get away from the TLM/NO dichotomy and look at it in the larger context of all Latin liturgies before so many orders forsook their venerable distinctive uses. A Dominican priest didn’t get ordained only to celebrate the Dominican rite, but no one ever looked askance at him for wanting to celebrate solely his own rite which, being an integral part of the spirituality of his order, was bound up with the life he chose in entering a particular community. In fact, he often needed special permission to celebrate the Roman rite, even when saying Mass in a parish (it was not until the 1940s that parishes administered by the Dominicans received permission to use the Roman rite). The same for a Norbertine, a Carmelite, a Carthusian. There need not be some sort of rejection of the Roman rite in these cases, simply a devotion to the particular spirituality embraced by one’s order. Priests belonging to todays “traditional orders” similarly have a spirituality and liturgical use proper to their order, it just so happens that the liturgical use is one of two forms of the Roman rite. Devotion to the liturgical uses of one’s order need not entail an active rejection of other uses. If a priest really did on principle refuse to celebrate a vald right under licit conditions, we would have reason to worry. But if he simply asks permission to exclusively use his community’s particular rite, I’ve got no problem.

I do. What you mention above it not really the case now, it it? A man joined an order because he was called to that order, it’s charism appealed to him, etc. Today, these specific orders or societies exist with one purpose: the continuation of the old Mass. The Franciscans have a charism, the Dominicans have a charism, the Benedictines have a charism, all of which contribute to the good of the larger Church, the spread of the Gospel, the salvation of souls, etc. They don’t exist simply to say one form of the Church’s Mass or to avoid saying the other. And the Mass isn’t the property of the priests. It’s said for all the Church. If these societies come into an area where there is a need for priests, but refuse to say the ordinary form, even though the majority of the faithful want that ordinary form, then I have a problem with that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In Gabon, I might add, in west Africa, there are multiple extraordinary parishes. The bishop in Libreville commented recently that those parishes are the fastest growing in his territory.

For every place you mention, I can mention ten where it’s not the case (and you know it’s true). Do you really want to get into that?

 

[AlexV]

Well guess what?

The FSSP is of Pontifical Right.

They only go where bishops invite them, or where the PCED inserts them on its own authority.

They have…as the PCED has said…the CHARISM…the word the PCED has used…to celebrate the extraordinary liturgy.

Obviously, they’re not sent to places or accepted by bishops who don’t want the extraordinary form expanded.

And, where they are sent, they are bound by the same rules as anyone else about bination/trination.

So let’s avoid the shadow of the idea that FSSP priests are sitting around while people are starving for the ordinary form. I know many FSSP priests, and they do multiple Masses every Sunday in the 1962 form, with thriving congregations. These priests aren’t just wandering the world. They are admitted into specific locales for a specific ministry.

 

[AlexV]

A really fun game for people who like numbers:

Take a list of American dioceses.

Make a list now of the seminarians each diocese has.

Compare that to the diocese’s generosity or lack thereof in offering the extraordinary form.

I’ve played this game. It’s fun. And enlightening. And it’s not about the superiority or inferiority of any liturgy. It’s about the whole package: a bishop who is hostile to this liturgy tends to have problems in other areas, while a bishop who is open-mindedly generous, as Rome has asked, is usually quite an example of priesthood in other areas.

For an expert version of the game, factor in the average AGE of the seminarians. That game gets even more fun.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Oh really? Well, in certain churches of the good old USA, there are packed congregations for multiple extraordinary Masses every Sunday in several dioceses. IN CERTAIN CHURCHES. And how big are the churches? And where do they meet, etc. You mention Dallas below. I’m from there and I know that one of those is held in a small chapel of a Carmelite monastery. It wouldn’t take a huge number to “pack” it. Christ the King on Preston Road in Dallas or St. Francis Assisi in Frisco (North Dallas) sit thousands and their NO Masses ARE packed. My parish sits 1000 people and is packed, except for perhaps the last Mass, for all seven of the Masses that occur on the weekend. The SSPX Mass, on the other hand, can scare 100 people up for High Mass (but maybe they’re packing Low Mass).

The priests…FSSP or other…have permission to trinate in some dioceses to meet the demand. The priest in Dallas, for one, has 3 packed Masses every Sunday, and really needs a fourth.

Other places, of course, have made it so difficult to FIND an extraordinary Mass for the last 37+ years that it’s not at all surprising they can smirk smugly and say nobody ever wanted what they didn’t allow in the first place.

The fact of the matter still remains that the demand for the TLM is RELATIVELY small. How’s that term, “relatively?” Does that connect with reality as you see it?

 

[AlexV]

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.

 

[AlexV]

And, again, the bottom line is: you practically BAN something since 1970, barely permit it (remember, HALF the dioceses of America did NOT respond to your beloved John Paul’s request for “generosity” in 1988), make it seem downright unseemly to attend, make it hard to get to or at inconvenient hours…

…and then, voila, declare nobody really wanted it anyway.

That’s disingenuous. You can’t say nobody wants something that you either don’t permit them or make it unduly difficult for them to attend.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A really fun game for people who like numbers:

Take a list of American dioceses.

Make a list now of the seminarians each diocese has.

Compare that to the diocese’s generosity or lack thereof in offering the extraordinary form.

I’ve played this game. It’s fun. And enlightening. And it’s not about the superiority or inferiority of any liturgy. It’s about the whole package: a bishop who is hostile to this liturgy tends to have problems in other areas, while a bishop who is open-mindedly generous, as Rome has asked, is usually quite an example of priesthood in other areas.

For an expert version of the game, factor in the average AGE of the seminarians. That game gets even more fun.

Even some traditionalists on these boards admit that the societies that identify themeselves as “traditionalist” throw a cassock on anyone who applies. One young man say that he was admitted on the strength of merely asking (the society, I forget which one, didn’t believe in psychological screening for example). That’s not a commentary on that young man, he may well be a great priest, but I predict we’re going to have some problems someday with these priests inflating the ranks of some of these socieites (kind of like the SSPX had a problem with one of theirs that attempted to kill the pope).

 

[AlexV]

It’s an insult to the FSSP, and the ICKP, to say “they throw a cassock on anyone who applies”.

Both orders can barely house all the applicants they get, and turn qualified people away for lack of space.

Thanks for showing your hostility to this liturgy and its supporters once again.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And, again, the bottom line is: you practically BAN something since 1970, barely permit it (remember, HALF the dioceses of America did NOT respond to your beloved John Paul’s request for “generosity” in 1988), make it seem downright unseemly to attend, make it hard to get to or at inconvenient hours…

…and then, voila, declare nobody really wanted it anyway.

That’s disingenuous. You can’t say nobody wants something that you either don’t permit them or make it unduly difficult for them to attend.

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.

 

[Conciliar]

No it’s not. Nothing he said suggested he was opposed to the content of the MP. He merely said that he personally would not be saying the extraordinary form and explained why he prefers the ordinary form. If you call that “opposing” I’m sure B16 would be delighted if everybody “opposed” his directions that way.

The Holy Father said that the purpose of the MP to make the TLM more available is to help bring about unity. Cardinal Martini went to the media to say he will not celebrate the TLM because in his opinion it will foster disunity. If this isn’t opposition to the content of the MP, what the heck is it?

We can call it whatever we want, but either way, the sour grapes media game that Cardinal Martini is playing, IMO, does nothing to foster unity, but rather the exact opposite.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s an insult to the FSSP, and the ICKP, to say “they throw a cassock on anyone who applies”.

Both orders can barely house all the applicants they get, and turn qualified people away for lack of space.

Thanks for showing your hostility to this liturgy and its supporters once again.

Aw, Alex, please, for a guy with advanced degrees in language, you sure have difficulty grasping what I wrote! Drop the drama. I’ve nowhere, EVER, denigrated the the TLM (I wouldn’t). As for the orders, I’ve merely repeated what I’ve read “traditionalists” say. Chat with your compadres, not with me, about that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Holy Father said that the purpose of the MP to make the TLM more available is to help bring about unity. Cardinal Martini went to the media to say he will not celebrate the TLM because in his opinion it will foster disunity. If this isn’t opposition to the content of the MP, what the heck is it?

We can call it whatever we want, but either way, the sour grapes media game that Cardinal Martini is playing, IMO, does nothing to foster unity, but rather the exact opposite.

Exactly. But then this Cardinal has been doing this since the last conclave. How many other retired Cardinal Archbishops do we hear from on a regular basis when something requiring commentary comes out of the Holy See? None.

 

[fix]

The Holy Father said that the purpose of the MP to make the TLM more available is to help bring about unity. Cardinal Martini went to the media to say he will not celebrate the TLM because in his opinion it will foster disunity. If this isn’t opposition to the content of the MP, what the heck is it?

We can call it whatever we want, but either way, the sour grapes media game that Cardinal Martini is playing, IMO, does nothing to foster unity, but rather the exact opposite.

Bingo. If what is reported in the OP is accurate then I think you have concluded rightly. Why the need for a cardinal to speak this publicly?

 

[Conciliar]

1. A problem with Traditionalism is, that it influences people to be so keen on getting what they want (as though they were the whole Church, rather than a minority in it) that they confuse freedom to have their lawful desires fulfilled (which are fine) with taking away the equally legitimate freedom of other Catholics (of most Catholics, that is) to worship as the Church allows, & encourages & wishes them to worship (& that, is not good at all).

Gottle of Geer,

First of all, love the user name!

Secondly, reality is the exact opposite of what you wrote. Forget the schismatics - they are what they are, and no one in this thread is defending them as far as I can see.

Traditional minded Catholics who desire the TLM couldn’t care less if you or anyone else attends the Ordinary Form. There is no push to take away your freedom to do so. There certainly is no conspiracy among bishops to make it difficult for you.

On the other hand, there are plenty of liberal bishops, being cheered on by liberal Catholics, who have done their best to see to it that those who desire the TLM won’t have access to it. Even now, in light of the MP, bishops like Martini are digging their heels in.

How many bishops in union with Rome can you point to who are trying to limit people’s access to the NO? The truth is, your freedom to worship in the NO isn’t even close to being challenged. That boogeyman doesn’t exist.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I do. What you mention above it not really the case now, it it? A man joined an order because he was called to that order, it’s charism appealed to him, etc. Today, these specific orders or societies exist with one purpose: the continuation of the old Mass. The Franciscans have a charism, the Dominicans have a charism, the Benedictines have a charism, all of which contribute to the good of the larger Church, the spread of the Gospel, the salvation of souls, etc. They don’t exist simply to say one form of the Church’s Mass or to avoid saying the other. And the Mass isn’t the property of the priests. It’s said for all the Church. If these societies come into an area where there is a need for priests, but refuse to say the ordinary form, even though the majority of the faithful want that ordinary form, then I have a problem with that.

It’s not just the form of the Mass, though, which is why I tried to make the comparison to the orders’ uses of yore. The traditional orders are devoted to fostering a quite expansive spirituality and way of Catholic living, not just the Mass but traditional forms of popular piety, educational methods, doing philosophy and theology, priestly formation, parish life, etc.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s not just the form of the Mass, though, which is why I tried to make the comparison to the orders’ uses of yore. The traditional orders are devoted to fostering a quite expansive spirituality and way of Catholic living, not just the Mass but traditional forms of popular piety, educational methods, doing philosophy and theology, priestly formation, parish life, etc.

Then, Andreas, they need to get better PR people. To all outward apprearances, it SEEMS to be about which of the two forms they will celebrate and which they won’t. AND that expansive spirituality and way of Catholic living are being lived out by lots and lots of Catholics who do not attend the TLM. Must we attend the TLM in order to do that? Hopefully, we’ll have more and more reverently offered NO masses (though, in my experience, 1) reverence is often in the eye of the beholder and 2) my “bad” NO experiences are overwhelmingly outweighed by the “good” ones), so the Holy Father’s hope of a “good effect” by the TLM on the NO will come to fruition. But there will more than likely always BE a Pauline Rite. I still think it’s as ill done to have societies saying that they will offer this one and won’t offer that one as it is for Cardinal Martini to have stated that he would not ever offer the TLM (particularly reprehensible for a Prince of the Church, to say he would not be offering the extraordinary rite?) I favor the NO, but I will on occasion attend the TLM because it’s a part of my identity, my culture, if you will, as a Catholic. It’s a part of US.