Does The Church Have An Obligation To Promote The Latin Mass ?

[Malkin71]

Well, you are watching but not seeing; hearing but not listening. The Pope doesn’t do that because he is the Pope. As brilliant a theologian as he is, the first question you should be asking yourself is, “If he is not doing theis, why?”. It should be obvious he has his reasons.

And those resons were well set out in the post you replied to; one that you apparently skimmed over but did not read.

He is not doing so because the norm is the OF, and as head of the Church and the Roman rite, he is going to do the norm, not that which is not the norm.

He also removed the restrictions on the EF. To a majority a unpopular move, to them it meant a return to the pre VII days. He does say the Mass in Latin! on tv and in public!
He rewarded Arch Bishop Burke with a prestigious post in the Vatican. Arch Bishop Burke in his Dioecesis promoted both forms and started the Semanaries to train in both forms from what I read.

 

[otjm]

The biggest need with the Latin Mass right now is greater availability for the faithful. The situation has improved a good deal from how it was just a few years ago, but the limited number of parishes providing the TLM still causes tremendous inconveniences for large numbers of people. Pope Benedict has encouraged wider use of the TLM, but for some reason we still have Bishops who seem to hinder efforts to meet the needs of the faithful.

We can all agree that sometimes the issue is the bishops. However, it is not all the issue of the bishops.

I doubt anyone could rightly call Cardinal George a liberal; he heads up the Chicago Archdiocese and has made the EF available. And about 3.5% of the parishes have the EF; 12 by the count I have out of something like 350 parishes.

Why such a low number? Some of it is availability of priests to say the EF. But that still works out to the vast majority of the parishes having the OF as the standard; and the likelyhood is that is not going to change significantly. And part of that is due to the fact that the vast majority of people seem to prefer the OF. not the EF as the regular Mass. I would assume, if they had SRO at all of the Masses there celebrated in the EF, that things would change, but it would appear that is not the case. And this is a diocese that appears to have actively responded to the requests.

Many of those who prefer the EF do not seem to understand that the large majority of people simply are not that interested.

 

[otjm]

When the Blessed Mother appeared to St. Juan Diego. How many Aztecs were converted.
Mexico was far worse with human sacrafices. The Mass was in Latin in 1531 A.D…

However, they did not convert because the Mass was in Latin; they converted because of the symbols on the tilma, which were symbols they clearly understood. Whether the Mass was in Latin or Swahili would not have made a whole lot of difference.

 

[otjm]

Why is that when I went to Californina the OF Misalette was in both Spanish and English?

Well, the answer to that is as simple as can be. The parish buys one set of missals, and has Masses both in the vernacular - English - and the vernacular - Spanish. And so those who go to the English Mass (which will be primarily those who speak English) can read along if they so choose; and those who go to the Spanish Mass - primarily Spanish speakers - will be able to read if they so choose. Unlike the liberal twits who tried to get rid of missals “because the Mass must be proclaimed!” (which is incorrect; it is the Good News which must be proclaimed) there are people who are aural - they learn best by hearing, and there are those who are visual - they learn best by reading.

In the EF the Latin is on the left and the English translation is on the right. The Mass has been in English and people still do not know the parts of the Mass or know what is going on. If they do they would have more respect and reverence.

I know of no survey that shows what people know about what is going on, with the exception of some surveys concerning the term Transubstantiation, which is for another thread. As to reverence, maybe your parish isn’t; mine is; and you have no basis to make such broad claims.

In the EF you know what is happening. Also, if the Mass was in Latin it would be universial. You could go to Mass anywhere in the world and know what is going on except the readings, Gospel and homily.

Ihave been to Masses in English, Latin, Spanish and Vietnamese. Let me give you a little clue. Your comment is one that keeps getting bandied about as if there was some truth in it. There is no truth at all in it. Anyone who is familiar with the form of the Mass knows where they are, whether it is in their own language or one they have absolutely no clue about, because the rubrics are exactly the same in spite of the language. That is just one of those red herrings that keeps getting thrown out, and has taken on the life-force of most urban legeneds. The Mass is universal no matter what the language; the rubrics are identical. And as far as the Mass being in Latin everywhere, the universality would be that almost no one at all would have a clue what was bing said unless they had memorized the prayer. Yeah, I know all about Latin/English missals. I used one as a child pre Vatican 2.

The reason why people don’t wan’t the EF is that the Bishops and Priests treat it like some relic from the past that should be kept deep inside a closet. The peole have been numbed by the experiments, abuses, innovations, brief in and out, progress foreward with the people OF Mass. If the OF was said with respect and reference. There would be no problem. Priests and Bishops have become more and more liberal and want to please the majority. Try to preach tradition and follow Rome a backlash will occur.

You speak as if that were universally true. It ismply isn’t. People don’t want the EF for a number of reasons. One of those is that they are not familiar with it. Another is that they prefer the vernacular. And as to priests and bishops, you hear about a few liberals and presume that all or most are. The actuality is that there has been a gradual movement towards bishops who follow the Magisterium; they just don’t get a lot of press outside their own diocese.

Rome does have a right to tell the church what to do. Do you want the kids to be corrupted wity some odd liberal belief? The Bishops must answer to Rome! Right now Rome is investigating the nuns orders who are straying from Church teachings. The should do the same with the schools. Do you want the kids to be corrupted wity some odd liberal belief?

Rome has authority over the nuns to some extent, which is why they are investigating them. Neither Rome nor the local bishop has control over the high schools to be able to tell them what they will offer in terms of languages; you need to study a bit of corporate law before you sound off about that.

Guess what if the Pope wants to celebrate Midnight Mass EF he can.

Guess what. There is a difference between “could” and “would”, or between “can” and “will”. He ain’t doing that. Pay attention; there is a reason, although it may not be obvious to you.

 

[otjm]

The Holy See can require it to perserve the language.

The language will be preserved simply becaus there will be a few places that continue to teach it.

I disagree if you teach the Semanarians Latin you are keeping the Language alive and it will spread. The same in the schools. Latin is still used in the sciences medical, botany and law. Also, our English language is full of latin. Understanding Latin will help to understand the English language and also help to learn and speak other languages.

You are welcome to disagree; however, your disagreement flies in the face of reality. While Latin may be used in medicine, botany and law, I would bet you could not find 1% of the students studying those fields who have taken Latin. You think Latin will spread? It was contracting at the time that Vatican 2 occured, as more and more scholls were dropping it - why? Because fewer and fewer people were taking it. It is an elective still, and offered in fewer and fewer placfes simply becaus of tremendous lack of interest. You think that priests learning Latin will help it spread? People simply don’t care; and the fact that a priest knows Latin will not make it popular with those sitting in the pews. and you seem to foget that John Paul 2 chided the bishops and Cardinals because they ahd stopped communicating in Latin. Clue? You betcha.

There was a reason that vernacular spread like wildfire when it was allowed - that is what people wanted. Some few didn’t; and some few still don’t. The silence is still deafening.

The problem is in the past people have vivid memories of being drilled in Latin and being in fear of failing and being punished. Today there are tapes, cd’s, books that teach it ina different way to make it enjoyable.

Hoqwash. latin was not a whole lot different than other languages with the exception that it was mostly taught as a translated language, rather than as a spoken language. “Fear of failing and being punished”??? I took Latin as a translated language and Homeric Greek also the same way. Fear? No, just a lot of work. Punished? Not any more so than taking Physics or 2nd year Algebra; we weren’t punished; we were simply graded.

And it doesn’t matter how it is taught; it is still work. If it is something you like, you will enjoy it; if it is something you don’t like, it will be a drudge. Just like Physics or 2nd year Algebra.

 

[otjm]

He also removed the restrictions on the EF. To a majority a unpopular move, to them it meant a return to the pre VII days. He does say the Mass in Latin! on tv and in public!
He rewarded Arch Bishop Burke with a prestigious post in the Vatican. Arch Bishop Burke in his Dioecesis promoted both forms and started the Semanaries to train in both forms from what I read.

And when he does so, it is the OF, not the EF.

And as to why he put Burke in the Vatican (much to Burke’s dismay) has a whole lot less to do with whether or not Burke promoted the Ef than it does with the fact that Burke was true to the Magisterium, a bright Canon lawyer and a very intelligent individual.

 

[FAB]

The Pope allowed the unfethered use EF of the mass to promote the healling of the Church, not to make it the norm. After reading were this thread has gone, it becomes obvious that his decision has not had the desired effect. Instead of being thankfull that we have two forms of the mass to be able to celbrate with, the EF proponents want instead to role the clock backwards. Perhaps this is the reason why so many bishops are reluctant to have the EF in thier diocese, give an inch they take a mile. There are many more important issues for which to be concerned.

Peace,
FAB

 

[otjm]

The Pope allowed the unfethered use EF of the mass to promote the healling of the Church, not to make it the norm. After reading were this thread has gone, it becomes obvious that his decision has not had the desired effect. Instead of being thankfull that we have two forms of the mass to be able to celbrate with, the EF proponents want instead to role the clock backwards. Perhaps this is the reason why so many bishops are reluctant to have the EF in thier diocese, give an inch they take a mile. There are many more important issues for which to be concerned.

Peace,
FAB

The Cardinal who was in charge of the dicastery overseeing the issue of implementation had as much to say some months back. It appeared from his statement that he had had to deal with people demanding things in no uncertain terms, which were clearly outside the terms of SP. I saw the comment in either Our Sunday Visitor or Nattional Catholic Register, but didn’t save it. He did not appear to be particularly happy about the way some people came at him.

 

[JReducation]

Brother David, O’Carm and I tried to explain some things about the seminary, but I guess we did not do a good job. I’ll try again.

1. Summorum Pontificum applies to the masses said in parishes, not in religious houses.
2. Most priests who work in parishes are secular priests, not religious.
3. Religious orders have their own formation programs, that do not fall under the directives for formation of priests. Their formation programs are dictated by the Rule and Constitutions of the Order.
4. The Rule and Constitutions of religious orders cannot be changed unless they are changed by a general chapter in union with the Holy Father.
5. If the religious community does not provide formation in Latin, it does not have to do so. The rule does not apply to religious communities. The document was written for bishops and their seminarians. Technically, religious who are studying for the priesthood are not seminarians. They are religious who attend classes at either a local seminary or a local Catholic college or university. In other words, religious who are studying to become priests do not have to attend seminary. As long as they get a Master’s degree, they fulfill Church Law. They do not need a degree in theology. They have a choice between a degree in theology, divinity, ministry, or religious education. They must take certain courses that Rome requires. This is true. They must also take whatever courses their order requires. Between the two sets of requirements, they have no electives left to take Latin or courses on the EF, unless their order requires them in place of other courses.
6. Given these facts, we are not going to have a universally trained clergy in Latin or the EF.
7. Bishops have nothing to do with the formation of priests who are religious. It is the bishop’s job to ordain them when the Major Superior requests it. The bishop may not refuse to ordain any religious whom the Major Superior finds worthy and properly formed for Holy Orders.
8. The bishop may not refuse to ordain a religious because he has no jurisdiction to evaluate the religious. The Major Superior, even if he’s not a priest, has the same authority as a bishop. Therefore, a bishop cannot challenge him or his judgment on the suitability of a candidate for Holy Orders.
9. Religious orders have no obligation to prepare priests to meet the needs of the laity. They form priests to meet the needs and mission of their order. If their order is apostolic, then it will try to meet the needs of the laity. If the order is not apostolic, then it will not take those into consideration. Not all religious orders are apostolic. Even those who are apostolic are not all involved in parish ministry. Many are educators, theologians, administrators, monastic, menticants, lay orders, healthcare providers, social service providers, spiritual directors and retreat masters, and so forth. Take for example the Franciscans on EWTN. They are not ordained for parish ministry. They never leave their friary. Their ministry is the media. The Franciscans of the Renewal are not ordained for parish ministry. Their mission is to walk the streets and serve the poor. My own community, Brothers of Life. Our mission is 100% Respect Life. As you can see, in the Franciscan family, parish ministry is very minimal. Like us, there are others, such as the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Benedictines and Marianists.
10. It is good to have the Latin and the EF. But it is unreasonable to demand that every deacon and priest be trained in it, since they don’t all need it or are going to have a chance to use it.
11. This does not mean that an individual member of any of these orders cannot learn it on his own. There is no such prohibition, as far as I know. As long as they get permission from their Major Superior they can take extra classes to learn the language and the form.

I hope this clarifies some questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The Cardinal who was in charge of the dicastery overseeing the issue of implementation had as much to say some months back. It appeared from his statement that he had had to deal with people demanding things in no uncertain terms, which were clearly outside the terms of SP. I saw the comment in either Our Sunday Visitor or Nattional Catholic Register, but didn’t save it. He did not appear to be particularly happy about the way some people came at him.

I read the article. I didn’t save it either. But there is a great deal of discomfort about the aggressiveness of the demands that the laity is making. I don’t think that the concern is with the desire to have the EF. I think the concern is with the breach of respect that is due to the clergy, to religious, and to bishops. In other words, there seems to be a growing sense of entitlement among many people, to the point that they offend anyone who does not give them what they want.

Summorum Pontificum certainly said that we can have the Extraordinary Mass. But it did not say that we could become obnoxious. This does not apply to everyone, but to many people.

We have forgotten a very ancient principal.

**Ignatius of Antioch

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R**

This was what the article was referring to. There is a tendency to push the bishops’ backs against the wall. My concern is that they will begin to push back. In the end, they will win. They have the sacramental power and ecclesiastical authority. They can make rules and the laity cannot. I’m trying to remember which diocese it was, but there was a diocese in the USA where the bishop was so offended by the behavior of many of the laity that he imposed a disciplinary action on his own people. All those who openly attacked the bishop, the pastors and the rules of the diocese were forbidden to receive holy communion until they came back into communion with the bishop. This was imposed on the pain of mortal sin. Rome upheld it. I believe that it was in the mid-west. It was about 10 or so years ago. Cardinal Spellman did this once too. I don’t recall what the issue was. But it lasted for about six months.

There was the case of the Missionaries of the Most Holy Trinity. They withdrew their entire congregation from a diocese where the people were nasty to them. They did not tell the people. They celebrated Sunday mass and then moved out of their five parishes on Monday morning. Those people did not have a priest for months, because no one wanted to take those parishes.

The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur did the same thing once, many years ago. People were nasty to them. They packed up and left without notice.

In the above cases, the Vatican supported their move, because the law says that religious are not bound to any diocese or any ministry in any diocese. They are there at the invitation of the bishop and at the pleasure of their major superior. If they complain to their major superior and the bishop cannot solve the problem the superior can pull them out.

We have to keep in mind that these are human beings and that they get hurt and that they feel helpless too. When that happens, they want out. It’s no use for them to remain in a situation that they cannot do their work.

We have to ask for what we want and be patient with those who have to power to give it to us. They are human beings and they can’t always respond as we would like. This is true of any organization, not just the Church. If your boss is always asking you to do the impossible or something that you feel you cannot give, you’re going to get frustrated and at some point you’re going to move on to a place where you can make a difference with the gifts that you have.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Malkin71]

However, they did not convert because the Mass was in Latin; they converted because of the symbols on the tilma, which were symbols they clearly understood. Whether the Mass was in Latin or Swahili would not have made a whole lot of difference.

The point I am trying to make is The Mass was the EF and it was said in Latin.

 

[Malkin71]

The language will be preserved simply becaus there will be a few places that continue to teach it.

You are welcome to disagree; however, your disagreement flies in the face of reality. While Latin may be used in medicine, botany and law, I would bet you could not find 1% of the students studying those fields who have taken Latin. You think Latin will spread? It was contracting at the time that Vatican 2 occured, as more and more scholls were dropping it - why? Because fewer and fewer people were taking it. It is an elective still, and offered in fewer and fewer placfes simply becaus of tremendous lack of interest. You think that priests learning Latin will help it spread? People simply don’t care; and the fact that a priest knows Latin will not make it popular with those sitting in the pews. and you seem to foget that John Paul 2 chided the bishops and Cardinals because they ahd stopped communicating in Latin. Clue? You betcha.

There was a reason that vernacular spread like wildfire when it was allowed - that is what people wanted. Some few didn’t; and some few still don’t. The silence is still deafening.

Hoqwash. latin was not a whole lot different than other languages with the exception that it was mostly taught as a translated language, rather than as a spoken language. “Fear of failing and being punished”??? I took Latin as a translated language and Homeric Greek also the same way. Fear? No, just a lot of work. Punished? Not any more so than taking Physics or 2nd year Algebra; we weren’t punished; we were simply graded.

And it doesn’t matter how it is taught; it is still work. If it is something you like, you will enjoy it; if it is something you don’t like, it will be a drudge. Just like Physics or 2nd year Algebra.

Hebrew was a written language till the 19th century. Then it grew. In 1921 it became one of the languages spoken in Palistine. English and Arabic was the others. When Isreal became a state in 1948 Hebrew became the official language. The resaon why the religious and intellictuals keep it alive.

Latin words do not change meaning over time like our English language. I work for a major medical center. In the field the Dr.s have taken a cource or two in Latin. They need to! When talking to them about latin. They think it should be taught. So that it will help students to understand the sciences and English.

When you say “People don’t care”. That sounds like the 60’s - 80’s" progressive rebellious attitude. The church should not follow the what is in today. People need to follow the church. The church will lead them to Heaven. Not some fad or following. The problem was a few priest and Bishops drew a lind and dug in at the progressives and modernists in the 70’s and 80’s. I know of some. When the OF became the Mass. He said the Mass reverently and dug his heels in against the innovations and experiments. He is respected at his Parish.

Yes. latin is a lot of work. So is life.

 

[Malkin71]

Well, you are watching but not seeing; hearing but not listening. The Pope doesn’t do that because he is the Pope. As brilliant a theologian as he is, the first question you should be asking yourself is, “If he is not doing theis, why?”. It should be obvious he has his reasons.

And those resons were well set out in the post you replied to; one that you apparently skimmed over but did not read.

He is not doing so because the norm is the OF, and as head of the Church and the Roman rite, he is going to do the norm, not that which is not the norm.

Why is the Pope saying the OF in Latin?

 

[Malkin71]

And when he does so, it is the OF, not the EF.

And as to why he put Burke in the Vatican (much to Burke’s dismay) has a whole lot less to do with whether or not Burke promoted the Ef than it does with the fact that Burke was true to the Magisterium, a bright Canon lawyer and a very intelligent individual.

Arch Bishop Burke promoted both forms OF and EF. Burke was true to the Magisterium. You are right. I agree. Also, the laity did not like his true to the Magisterium. They wanted the church to be with the times. Also, Burke changed things in his Diocesis that upset the liberals, progressives and modernists. By promoting the EF and having the Semanarians and Priest learn it. IMHO that is being true to the Magisterium.

 

[otjm]

The point I am trying to make is The Mass was the EF and it was said in Latin.

I kinda think we all had that figured out. It really has nothing to do with this thread, though. Vast numbers converted after hearing about and/or seeing the tilma. and that was after a goodly amount of time spent by missionaries trying to convert the natives, with little headway being made. The miracle was (and is) awesome and so was the response to it. That has nothing to do with whether or not having the Mass in the vernacular is a plus or a minus; or whether having some of it in the vernacular, or none of it, is a plus or minus. And that is what the thread is about.

 

[Malkin71]

The Pope allowed the unfethered use EF of the mass to promote the healling of the Church, not to make it the norm. After reading were this thread has gone, it becomes obvious that his decision has not had the desired effect. Instead of being thankfull that we have two forms of the mass to be able to celbrate with, the EF proponents want instead to role the clock backwards. Perhaps this is the reason why so many bishops are reluctant to have the EF in thier diocese, give an inch they take a mile. There are many more important issues for which to be concerned.

Peace,
FAB

I am very thankful for having both forms EF and OF! The problem is the Bishops are not educating the people about the EF and how it is said. The Pope also wants both forms to reflect off of each other.

IMHO, I believe a reason why the Bishops are afraid of the EF is of the strict rubrics of 1962.

Also, a Priest can say the OF in Latin without Permission from the Bishop. Why can’t one of the weekend OF Masses be in Latin? I bought a OF training cd and booklet on how to say the responses in Latin from The National Shrine in D.C. when I was there for the March for Life.

 

[otjm]

Hebrew was a written language till the 19th century. Then it grew. In 1921 it became one of the languages spoken in Palistine. English and Arabic was the others. When Isreal became a state in 1948 Hebrew became the official language. The resaon why the religious and intellictuals keep it alive.

:The issue of the resurgence of Hebrew was more facilitated by the combination of the Holocaust and the subsequent founding fo the Jewish state than any other factor. Latin has no such incident to drive it. It will continue to be studied and taught in a few places on the college level just as other subjects are, and that will not be driven by the Mass as there are secular reasons to keep Latin under study. But there is no widespread factor, nor a significant factor causing Latin to spread rapidly through the Church.

When you say “People don’t care”. That sounds like the 60’s - 80’s" progressive rebellious attitude. The church should not follow the what is in today. People need to follow the church. The church will lead them to Heaven. Not some fad or following. The problem was a few priest and Bishops drew a lind and dug in at the progressives and modernists in the 70’s and 80’s. I know of some. When the OF became the Mass. He said the Mass reverently and dug his heels in against the innovations and experiments. He is respected at his Parish.

Yes. latin is a lot of work. So is life.

Um, no, you are missing the point. It is not rebelliousness that causes people to have no interest in Latin; they had no hugh interest in it to any significant degree before Vatican 2. Latin was not taught just within Catholic schools over the last hundred years or so; Latin had been the language used in a lot of science as well. However, well before Vatican 2, science was moving more and more towards German, for example. In addition, Latin was losing ground in the high schools, Catholic and public, as modern languages became more and more popular to study.

And for biology, for example, the vast number of users do not need to study two years of Latin to understand a technical name.

As to people following the Church, the Church does not exist in a vacuum, making rules willy-nilly with no reference to the people in the pews. The Church can maintain Latin as its language in the Roman rite without having to have every priest thoroughly trained in it (and it is a joke to presume that all were prior to Vatican 2; some were more proficient at it than others). If the Church makes Latin a requirement for ordination, then it does; at this point it has not been mandatory. But presuming that having priests trained in it is going to get the vast majority of people to want the Mass said in it is to fly in the face of reality. Reality is that the vast majority of people want the vernacular (which, by the way, was part of what the bishops agreed to allow greater use of at Vatican 2). It is not rebelliousness that makes people disinterested in having the Mass in all Latin all the time; they would be just as disinterested in having it in Vietnamese, or in Spanish, or in Polish or Russian or Chinese. They want it in their native tongue. And that would hold whether the rubrics followed the OF or the EF. A minority want the EF in Latin. And that is the reality of what is going on today.

There is a demand for, and a clear movement towards more reverence in the OF. It is not happening in all places at the same pace, but it is happening. Anything that has been in existence for 40 years is not going to change overnight. But it will happen further.

 

[Malkin71]

:The issue of the resurgence of Hebrew was more facilitated by the combination of the Holocaust and the subsequent founding fo the Jewish state than any other factor. Latin has no such incident to drive it. It will continue to be studied and taught in a few places on the college level just as other subjects are, and that will not be driven by the Mass as there are secular reasons to keep Latin under study. But there is no widespread factor, nor a significant factor causing Latin to spread rapidly through the Church.

Um, no, you are missing the point. It is not rebelliousness that causes people to have no interest in Latin; they had no hugh interest in it to any significant degree before Vatican 2. Latin was not taught just within Catholic schools over the last hundred years or so; Latin had been the language used in a lot of science as well. However, well before Vatican 2, science was moving more and more towards German, for example. In addition, Latin was losing ground in the high schools, Catholic and public, as modern languages became more and more popular to study.

And for biology, for example, the vast number of users do not need to study two years of Latin to understand a technical name.

As to people following the Church, the Church does not exist in a vacuum, making rules willy-nilly with no reference to the people in the pews. The Church can maintain Latin as its language in the Roman rite without having to have every priest thoroughly trained in it (and it is a joke to presume that all were prior to Vatican 2; some were more proficient at it than others). If the Church makes Latin a requirement for ordination, then it does; at this point it has not been mandatory. But presuming that having priests trained in it is going to get the vast majority of people to want the Mass said in it is to fly in the face of reality. Reality is that the vast majority of people want the vernacular (which, by the way, was part of what the bishops agreed to allow greater use of at Vatican 2). It is not rebelliousness that makes people disinterested in having the Mass in all Latin all the time; they would be just as disinterested in having it in Vietnamese, or in Spanish, or in Polish or Russian or Chinese. They want it in their native tongue. And that would hold whether the rubrics followed the OF or the EF. A minority want the EF in Latin. And that is the reality of what is going on today.

There is a demand for, and a clear movement towards more reverence in the OF. It is not happening in all places at the same pace, but it is happening. Anything that has been in existence for 40 years is not going to change overnight. But it will happen further.

Hebrew was starting to become more popular in the late 1800’s and before the Holocaust. Do mulitiple serches on it.

Yes. You do not have to do two semesters of latin to learn a technical name. A semester or two is good. Do you think? Latin was taught in schools outside Catholic ones. Other languages were brought in. I do not have problem with students learning multiple languages. In High Scool it is good to have mulitple languages for the students to pick from.

However I do have a problem with Spanish being forced on school children in early grades as Kindergarden. Because it is becoming popular is not a good reason to force it upon them. Especially, if the children do not come from a Hispanic background.

Learning basic latin can help children to better understand English and to help them later on if they want to learn the other romance languages.

During Lent and Easter Our Parish says the Gloria, Sanctus and Lamb of God in Latin. The Lord have mercy is said in Greek. It sounds beautiful and the people sing along. I am trying to have it said all year round.

 

[otjm]

I am very thankful for having both forms EF and OF! The problem is the Bishops are not educating the people about the EF and how it is said. The Pope also wants both forms to reflect off of each other.

IMHO, I believe a reason why the Bishops are afraid of the EF is of the strict rubrics of 1962.

REad a few posts up; I made one and our resident Franciscan made one. I tried to not be blunt, but I will be a bit more clear.

The bishops are not the least bit afraid of the rubrics. the bell curve works for most situations, and it works here; some bishops are on the liberal end of the curve, some are on the consrvative end, and most are in the middle, with some middle conservative and some middle liberal.

And with some of the liberal bishops, they just don’t want to see the EF again, period. However, it is facitious to presume that this is the guiding factor for the majority. Look again at what the Cardinal in charge of the dicastery that deals with the EF had to say: some of those who want the EF are on the far edge; they are not just wanting the EF, but have an agenda that includes far more than that, and they are not meek and mild about the issue.

Bishops have been hammered, not by the majority of those who want the Ef, but by a much smaller but very vocal group who challenge the Church, and the bishop about matters that are outside the Magisterium. In short, they get hammered by those who do seek to remove Vatican 2; who challenge the documents as heretical, who challenge the validity of the OF, who are borderline if not outright sedevaacantists, and a few of whom are outright crackpots. The bishops don’t hear a lot of the quiet group who simply wnats the EF. Those who want the EF for the most part are not radicals, but it is the radicals who have made the most challenges to the bishops. In short, the Cardinal was getting a good dose of what the bishops had been receiving for years. And he didn’t like it one bit.

To make a bit of an analogy, only a few Muslims are jihadists; but it only takes a few jihadists to convince a lot of people that all Muslims want to conquer the world by the “sword”.

To say it another way, a cat sits on a hot stove, and the cat doesn’t sit on another hot stove; and a smart cat doesn’t sit on a cold stove. Bishops who get keelhauled by radicals soon get the idea, correctly or otherwise, that since the radicals have a certain agenda, not granting them any part of it keeps them at bay. The sad part is that those who want a small part of that agenda - the return of the EF - and are not radicals, end up getting “painted with the same brush”.

Also, a Priest can say the OF in Latin without Permission from the Bishop. Why can’t one of the weekend OF Masses be in Latin? I bought a OF training cd and booklet on how to say the responses in Latin from The National Shrine in D.C. when I was there for the March for Life.

There is a vast difference between a priest saying a private Mass and saying one of the Masses on Sunday.

Canon law limits a priest primarily to one Mass a day, and with permission, two. Only by special permission can he say three. In our parish of 1000+ families, if we have 10 families that want the EF said on Sunday, we have 1% requesting something that 99% are not requesting. We only have one priest, and while he is responsible for the sacramental needs of all, he can only say 3 Masses, and 99% of those attending those Masses don’t particularly want the EF. Note: I have no idea how many in our parish want the EF, but it is simply not something that anyone even brings up. I use this only as an example. But the point is that if there is little or no interest in it (the SP talks about a “stable group”, not a group that may want to see what the EF was all about for a one time Mass), and there really is not stable group or it is very very small, there simply is not enough interest and ability to change one OF to an EF and meet the needs of the parishoners.

 

[Malkin71]

REad a few posts up; I made one and our resident Franciscan made one. I tried to not be blunt, but I will be a bit more clear.

The bishops are not the least bit afraid of the rubrics. the bell curve works for most situations, and it works here; some bishops are on the liberal end of the curve, some are on the consrvative end, and most are in the middle, with some middle conservative and some middle liberal.

And with some of the liberal bishops, they just don’t want to see the EF again, period. However, it is facitious to presume that this is the guiding factor for the majority. Look again at what the Cardinal in charge of the dicastery that deals with the EF had to say: some of those who want the EF are on the far edge; they are not just wanting the EF, but have an agenda that includes far more than that, and they are not meek and mild about the issue.

Bishops have been hammered, not by the majority of those who want the Ef, but by a much smaller but very vocal group who challenge the Church, and the bishop about matters that are outside the Magisterium. In short, they get hammered by those who do seek to remove Vatican 2; who challenge the documents as heretical, who challenge the validity of the OF, who are borderline if not outright sedevaacantists, and a few of whom are outright crackpots. The bishops don’t hear a lot of the quiet group who simply wnats the EF. Those who want the EF for the most part are not radicals, but it is the radicals who have made the most challenges to the bishops. In short, the Cardinal was getting a good dose of what the bishops had been receiving for years. And he didn’t like it one bit.

To make a bit of an analogy, only a few Muslims are jihadists; but it only takes a few jihadists to convince a lot of people that all Muslims want to conquer the world by the “sword”.

To say it another way, a cat sits on a hot stove, and the cat doesn’t sit on another hot stove; and a smart cat doesn’t sit on a cold stove. Bishops who get keelhauled by radicals soon get the idea, correctly or otherwise, that since the radicals have a certain agenda, not granting them any part of it keeps them at bay. The sad part is that those who want a small part of that agenda - the return of the EF - and are not radicals, end up getting “painted with the same brush”.

There is a vast difference between a priest saying a private Mass and saying one of the Masses on Sunday.

Canon law limits a priest primarily to one Mass a day, and with permission, two. Only by special permission can he say three. In our parish of 1000+ families, if we have 10 families that want the EF said on Sunday, we have 1% requesting something that 99% are not requesting. We only have one priest, and while he is responsible for the sacramental needs of all, he can only say 3 Masses, and 99% of those attending those Masses don’t particularly want the EF. Note: I have no idea how many in our parish want the EF, but it is simply not something that anyone even brings up. I use this only as an example. But the point is that if there is little or no interest in it (the SP talks about a “stable group”, not a group that may want to see what the EF was all about for a one time Mass), and there really is not stable group or it is very very small, there simply is not enough interest and ability to change one OF to an EF and meet the needs of the parishoners.

To weed out the radicals from the people who want the EF. Is to let the people have it.

First by explaining all about the EF Mass to the people. Why is it said in Latin, Why is the Priest facing east, why you kneel when recieving Holy Communion and recieving it on the tongue, why do you kneel during a part of the Creed, etc…

A vast majority of people today never went to the EF. Some are confused, thinking that the OF was in latin and was changed. Explain the differences. In the Latin rite both are valid forms.

I agree that many Bishops do not want the EF to be said or come back. They want their agenda and not Rome.

I understand what you said about the ruberics. It is just my opinion not what is the opinion of the Bishops.

Also, what if the Priests invites everyone to his private Mass? If people come and you know what to do?

I have served morning Mass when there were around 10 - 20 people.

Take a survey about who may be intrested in attending the EF. You will see a count of who is intrested.

Here is something. Here in Pittsburgh, our Latin Mass Community is one of the oldest and Largest in America. We have a Low Mass and a High Mass every Sunday. Also The EF is said on all Holy Days and the First Saturday of the Month. Our Diocesis takes not on how much the Community supports and gives back to the Parish and Diocesis. Their Annual festival is either 1 or 2 with money it makes to support the Parish. The Community is with the OF. They share St. Boniface Church. The Parish is Holy Wisdom Parish.

The Latin Mass Community has more members than the OF. There are a lot of younger people in the Community. Their CCD is traditional and it is free of charge.

The members of the Community are Conservative in their views and dress conservative when at Mass. The Confessional lines are long. The people are very Pro Life. Yes, EWTN is proof that the OF produces the same results. I am not saying one form is better than the other.

The Priest Fr. Ken Meyers has produced 10 men going into the Priesthood. All going to either FSSP or Christ the King Semminary Institute of Soverign Priest. Last year the Choir organist stepped down to become a Priest. I am not saying this to brag. Let the EF be celebrated and see what happens.