Cardinal: Some not satisfied even after pope's Tridentine Mass decree

[JimR-OCDS]

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) – Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum,” the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm

Jim

 

[Joysong]

50 Views, and no comments, Jim? Absolutely astounding! Had this been an article about the Pauline mass, it might be 3 pages long by now. I found this paragraph most revealing:

Such people, he said, are “insatiable, incredible.”

“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints.

Perhaps the good Cardinal reads here at Catholic Answers.

What I envision is that those who are most demanding of their “rights” will be the very ones who may cause a complete stoppage of the Tridentine Mass, unfortunate for those devoted souls who truly love that liturgy and would be hurt the most.

 

[ncjohn]

If nothing else, the Cardinal’s statements again make it pretty clear that the expansion of the EF is NOT part of a master plan to eventually scrap the Pauline Mass and return to the EF, but is instead a way to meet the needs and the desire of those for whom the EF is a preference. Despite the many attempts to read the expansion as affirmation that the Pope believes the OF to be deficient in some way, there are continued statements reflecting exactly the opposite.

Hopefully the clarifications, when they finally come out, will settle the dust on the issues that were vague in the original Motu as to what comprises a “stable community” of those desiring the EF, and what is a reasonable accomodation to filling the needs when such a community exists. Until then I’m sure we’ll continue to see the varying demands due to the confusion of what is actually intended and needed.

Peace,

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Cannot say that I am surprised. In fact, I knew this would happen.

I have personally felt the wrath of the EF crowd. Their hate for the OF Mass is about as bad as the hate of the left for Bush.

Such people, he said, are “insatiable, incredible.”

“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints.

Damage is right.

Like I have said, I have no qualms about the EF Mass (although the “high” mass is a little too gaudy for me). It is some of the people “associated” with it that I do not care for.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

An important part of the article should be noted here;

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope’s 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II.

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward.

Back when the Pope announced permission to allow the use of the TLM as the EF, Cardinal O’Maley, of Boston, who was at the conferences with the Pope on this very issue, stated that through compromise, the Pope was reaching out to those who had left the Church to go with Archbishop Lefebvre, in order to help them return. The good Cardinal was attacked as being a liberal and not representing the Pope’s true intentions. However, as this part of the article states, its exactly what the intentions of Pope Benedict were.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

The good Cardinal was attacked as being a liberal and not representing the Pope’s true intentions. However, as this part of the article states, it’s exactly what the intentions of Pope Benedict were.

Jim, a friend had sent me a copy of this article that appeared in a local paper, but those two paragraphs were omitted. As I puzzled why this was so, I can see now through your insight, that the Pope had more profound intentions than merely to satisfy the desire of those for whom the EF is a preference.

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June …

I haven’t kept abreast of the developments with the SSPX bishops, due to the rancor so prevalent in the TC forum – I rarely venture into that section. This is really unfortunate, as many had hoped for a good resolution.

 

[blessedtoo]

50 Views, and no comments, Jim? Absolutely astounding! Had this been an article about the Pauline mass, it might be 3 pages long by now. I found this paragraph most revealing:

Perhaps because Jim posted in the Catholic News section rather than some other section? I feel confident there would have been many more replies on other areas of the forum.

Very interesting article and dead on, IMO.

 

[drforjc]

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/09/rome-8-october-card-castrillon-pontifical-tlm-for-pius-xii/

 

[Joysong]

Drforjc,

What does this article have to do with the thread topic? I don’t understand why you posted it.

 

[drforjc]

Drforjc,

What does this article have to do with the thread topic? I don’t understand why you posted it.

Joysong,
what it has to do with this smug-sounding thread (read through the comments again) is that Cdl Hoyos himself, hailed by JimOCDS as admonishing traditionalists, is himself celebrating the TLM soon publicly.

 

[Joysong]

Why would this surprise anyone, or be considered by anyone? Clearly, Jim did not “hail the Cardinal as admonishing traditionalists.” He simply posted the news article without any comment.

It seems logical that if you are a traditionalist, you might find the article offensive, but does that make it any less true, as if the Cardinal was lying?

What is very revealing to me is that the silent majority who COULD HAVE come into the thread with, “I told you so’s” and the like, are demonstrating a tremendous amount of charity. Had it been in reverse, that a prelate was criticizing the Ordinary Form, you would have seen a very different scenario. I have seen threads by traditionalists who scour the Catholic News Service and post it on the forum the minute it comes off the press. Do you want the links?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Still no EF in the Greensburg area. Nearest is over 35 miles from us.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

My thinking on the matter is that the EF will flower and grow in direct proportion to those who joyfully promote it on its own merits. If the vocations trajectory continues for the EF groups, and participation continues to be strong, more will come for it in time.

If the attitude of some vocal few is constantly put out - with whailing and gnashing of teen about the OF - who is going to be attracted to that?

In the last 15 years I have watched the movement flower and grow in ways far beyond what I had anticipated… Some don’t seem to recall that less then two years ago the EF was known as the “indult Mass”…

Patience is a true virtue.

 

[Adonis33]

It seems to me the complaints about the accessability of the TLM is that the TLM is still not accessable in many communities. Some Bishops have yet to establish a TLM within there diocese.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It seems to me the complaints about the accessability of the TLM is that the TLM is still not accessable in many communities. Some Bishops have yet to establish a TLM within there diocese.

We split our time between two nearby parishes now. A Catholic Byzantine and a NO. I just can’t bring myself to go to our NO home parish weekdays. So daily when we can make it is 15 miles away but doable.
I don’t demand that things are perfect I know they won’t be. But when the choice is hearing everything changed to gender neutral and some words being eliminated completely because of the fact that word man or men does not please the priest then I just want to cry and have done so. There is no one to talk to about this issue that will listen so we only use our home parish one Mass a week. We are still in the choir and helping other ways, I just am not how long. The small Byzantine parish is in another county and thus we would need the permission of two Bishops to change officially.
Somehow I just want to go to a Mass in my home parish that does not make me cringe or cry. Is this toooo much to ask.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

My thinking on the matter is that the EF will flower and grow in direct proportion to those who joyfully promote it on its own merits. If the vocations trajectory continues for the EF groups, and participation continues to be strong, more will come for it in time.

If there were more of a call, more priests would be trained to celebrate. True, there may be some who prefer it, but far many more who prefer the OF or NO which ever name you prefer.

I think the word “demand” has great significance. As with other demands, no one will make it a priority, especially when the per centages do not call for “every parish, every week”

Lux

 

[ncjohn]

Joysong,
what it has to do with this smug-sounding thread (read through the comments again) is that Cdl Hoyos himself, hailed by JimOCDS as admonishing traditionalists, is himself celebrating the TLM soon publicly.

I’m not sure what you find “smug-sounding” here, and Jim most certainly did not “hail” anybody in simply posting the article without comment.

What I see, and what I think the point of the whole article was, is that there are some traditionalists out there who are their own worst enemies. And who tar the entire movement by their own bad actions.

None of the people posting here, from my experience with them, have any issue whatsoever with those who have a preference for the EF. There is a sadness however when we see that preference held up as a superiority, with a corresponding denigration of those who have a preference for the OF.

Whether Cdl Hoyos will be celebrating the EF is really irrelevant. I would expect that he would be at some point, given his position with the commission promoting it. The article is really about those who have taken the Motu Proprio to be either an indication that the Church is moving back to the Traditional Mass as the OF, or who have taken it as a statement of a “right” to have it available at all times in all parishes.

Yes, there are places that still need to more effectively implement the Motu, and hopefully the clarifications will resolve what is needed and where and end the confusion. I truly sympathize with those who prefer the EF and are still not able to find one, as that should not be the case. But I have little sympathy for those who want to squash the OF, apparently believing us to be “deficient”. It just sounds way too much like the Pharisee commenting on the lowly tax collector: Thank you Lord for not making me like those “others”.

In the end the extremists who are bent on squashing the life out of the rite which they don’t prefer are both doing a great disservice to the Church, which finds value in both forms and can find both preferences to be totally Catholic. Yes, there is a lack of charity at both fringes, but I don’t think that any of the posters here (at least so far) have fallen into that trap. We are simply saddened when we see the Church being torn asunder by those who think their preferences trump the Church’s wisdom. Instead of working together to bring a weary world to God, we do violence to our own brothers and sisters in the Church, similar to what Paul so strongly criticized the Corinthians for with their “factions”.

Somehow I just don’t see that being a service to God.

Peace,

 

[CradleCath]

We split our time between two nearby parishes now. A Catholic Byzantine and a NO. I just can’t bring myself to go to our NO home parish weekdays. So daily when we can make it is 15 miles away but doable.
I don’t demand that things are perfect I know they won’t be. But when the choice is hearing everything changed to gender neutral and some words being eliminated completely because of the fact that word man or men does not please the priest then I just want to cry and have done so. There is no one to talk to about this issue that will listen so we only use our home parish one Mass a week. We are still in the choir and helping other ways, I just am not how long. The small Byzantine parish is in another county and thus we would need the permission of two Bishops to change officially.
Somehow I just want to go to a Mass in my home parish that does not make me cringe or cry. Is this toooo much to ask.

No, it’s not too much to ask & I, too, have cried at the NO. I used to attend. We are blessed to have an EF Mass in our city, now. It’s at 12:30 every Sunday…not the best time in the world, but I’m surely not going to gripe. I changed parishes because of this, but am just now bowing out on decorating the Church.

I can understand that Cardinal Hoyos is tired & distracted & his concentration is on the “complainers”. I would imagine that some of them are rude & that’s always the ones who stand out. At my shop, we can have 100 customers who are patient, friendly & polite…but there is always that one who wants what she wants NOW & is totally rude to the girls. Guess who they tend to remember…the ONE, because she makes so much noise. This man has a tremendous task to do. Let’s pray for him. (& those here who seem so happy to see “criticism” of Traditional Catholics.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

If there were more of a call, more priests would be trained to celebrate. True, there may be some who prefer it, but far many more who prefer the OF or NO which ever name you prefer.

I think the word “demand” has great significance. As with other demands, no one will make it a priority, especially when the per centages do not call for “every parish, every week”

Lux

Fair enough!

AS it stands right now, the seminaries that train men to celebrate the EF exclusively are full and have waiting lists, the communities they serve are growing, and the FSSP is doing overtime work in trying to accomadate the growing number of priests interested in celebrating the older form.

I can also say that I have noticed that in EF communities the number of small children and families that are truly open to live is way out of proportion to what is seen in most other places. The GREAT part about that? These kids are growing up with a love and devotion to this older rite that many wrote off as being “Something for old timers and those with nostalgia.” The FSSP is 20 years old this year, kids entering college are 18 - do the math! Each year more and more and more young adults are coming of age having been fed this for 2 decades, and the number is growing.

My steady mantra on this one is “patience, prayer, patience” - a lot more growth has yet to be seen, and in time it will come. What we can do for today is what we must do for today - pray and strive to become saints.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It seems to me the complaints about the accessability of the TLM is that the TLM is still not accessable in many communities. Some Bishops have yet to establish a TLM within there diocese.

The Bishops don’t actually have to make the Mass available upon every and any request. He should be willing to make the Mass available, but it requires much more than just a few people of a parish, making the request to their pastor.

I think its worth while to read through the “ENTIRE,” document at the USSCB website, and be sure to pay attention to the questions and answers at the end.

usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf

Jim