Ecclesia Dei Commission to meet tomorrow to discuss liberalization of the Latin Mass

[thistle]

Being Filipino myself I can attest to that, but I believe that my good friend Thistle was trying to more make of a case against having Traditional Mases therethen anything else, Di Ba Thistle?

Filipinos actually have a strong devotion overall to the Rosary, which he claims they would have no time for due to the crush at Mass. Having relatives there in Manila, I will make a few calls and try to track down this parish of his.

Not at all. I would have no problems with a Latin Mass being introduced at our parish. I’ve never experienced one but would like to.
By the way my comment about no time between Masses for the Rosary is due to the fact that with 10 Masses each one follows hard on the heels of the other and there is simply not enough time for the Rosary.
There is a Rosary prayer before the daily Masses during the week.

You don’t need to do any detective work. You should just have asked me. My parish is Our Lady of Fatima in Las Pinas.

Mass times:

Monday to Friday: 6am, 6.45am and 7pm
Saturday: 6am, 6.45am and 6pm
Sunday: 5.30am, 6.45am, 8am, 9.15am, 10.30am,
3.30pm, 4.45pm, 6pm, 7.15pm, 8.30pm.

Confession times:

Wednesday 6pm
Friday 6pm
Saturday 5pm

 

[Unfinished]

TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM High Mass
TLM Low Mass

Oh and a english rosary in between I suppose.

LOL. Although the Low Mass would probably be the 5 am one.

 

[arieh0310]

There is a Santa Claus!!!

Rome, Dec. 15, 2006 (CNA) - Sources close to the Vatican have told Catholic News Agency that the Motu Propio by which Pope Benedict XVI would allow for the universal use of the Missal of St. Pius V may be published after Christmas, while the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist could come in mid-January 2007.

Sources confirmed the recent statements to reporters by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, who told them after participating in a meeting of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, where the text of the Motu Propio was reviewed, that the document would come soon.

The declaration would allow the Mass of St. Pius V—often called the Tridentine Mass—to be celebrated freely and do away with the current requirement to have the explicit permission of the local bishop. The Motu Propio does not address the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic organization founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Link

 

[palmas85]

Not at all. I would have no problems with a Latin Mass being introduced at our parish. I’ve never experienced one but would like to.
By the way my comment about no time between Masses for the Rosary is due to the fact that with 10 Masses each one follows hard on the heels of the other and there is simply not enough time for the Rosary.
There is a Rosary prayer before the daily Masses during the week.

You don’t need to do any detective work. You should just have asked me. My parish is Our Lady of Fatima in Las Pinas.

Mass times:

Monday to Friday: 6am, 6.45am and 7pm
Saturday: 6am, 6.45am and 6pm
Sunday: 5.30am, 6.45am, 8am, 9.15am, 10.30am,
3.30pm, 4.45pm, 6pm, 7.15pm, 8.30pm.

Confession times:

Wednesday 6pm
Friday 6pm
Saturday 5pm

I figured it was either Our Lady of Fatima , Nuestra Senora de Guia or Quiapo. Quiapo is my favorite, wonderful story and a beautiful Church. They have even more Masses then does Our Lady of Fatima. If I remember right arounf 10 or so on weekdays and 14 or 15 on Sundays and Fridays. True, your Sunday Mass times don’t leave much time for anything else, but you guys still have Novenas throughout the week as well as Rosaries. And if I remember correctly they still have Baptisms and Confirmations on Sundays di ba? Or have they changed that?

 

[netmilsmom]

I’m praying hard, but I will believe it when I see it. Especially the part about the whole thing being taken out of the Bishops’ hands.

If this happens, I will be very pleasantly surprised.

 

[Rabbititus]

How exciting - I’ve always wanted to see a 1962 mass. I have a good feeling that one of the local churches (a very traditional one) might offer a TLM if this Motu Propio is issued.

Then I won’t have to drive to Chicago to see one

 

[mercygate]

I would love to rejoice but am with netmil(name removed by moderator). I’ll believe it when I see it.

Also, I know that nobody in my neighborhood will be breaking out the sanctus bells or turning ad orientem. Just ain’t gonna happen. They’re scared to death of Latin.

 

[Br_Mark]

If this time this rumor is true, then I believe that this would a dangerious mistake; taking this decision out of the hands of the local bishops.

 

[netmilsmom]

If this time this rumor is true, then I believe that this would a dangerious mistake; taking this decision out of the hands of the local bishops.

Why do you feel this way, Brother?

I’m not being confrontational, I’m just wondering.

 

[Br_Mark]

Dear netmil(name removed by moderator),

For one reason; it circumvents the authority the bishop.

And secondly I believe that it is a bad direction for the church to go in.

At one time I would have supported having the TLM and the NO available equally. But I have come to the conclusion that for many supporters of the TLM is not out of a sense of spirituality, but one of power and control.

I live in a religious community and hospitality is very important to us (rule of St. Benedict) When we were first approached by a group of individuals wanting the TLM and other traditional forms of piety, we agreed. But part of the agreement was that this group was to take some responsibility for their requests, for example the hiring of a priest to celebrate the TLM and individuals who would take care of setting up the altar as well as cleaning the chapel after they finished. Part of the problem was it was difficult to come to an agreement of who the priest would be: the first priest they selected was not approved by our bishop (the priest was a member of SSPX) and the second priest was a member of FSSP, but for whatever reason his bishop who he was under authorty would not transfer him from that diocese to this diocese and refused to even identify him as a priest. Finally a priest was found who would give the TLM community spiritual direction, but this lasted only for appox. 6 months since the TLM community neveer paid it’s bills or followed up on it’s agreements.

I believe that having a two tear church is diversive, and we should be unitied as a church.

 

[netmilsmom]

Thank you for your response!

For one reason; it circumvents the authority the bishop.

Well, a Bishop does have higher ups that he must listen to as well.

And secondly I believe that it is a bad direction for the church to go in.

At one time I would have supported having the TLM and the NO available equally. But I have come to the conclusion that for many supporters of the TLM is not out of a sense of spirituality, but one of power and control.

I live in a religious community and hospitality is very important to us (rule of St. Benedict) When we were first approached by a group of individuals wanting the TLM and other traditional forms of piety, we agreed. But part of the agreement was that this group was to take some responsibility for their requests, for example the hiring of a priest to celebrate the TLM and individuals who would take care of setting up the altar as well as cleaning the chapel after they finished. Part of the problem was it was difficult to come to an agreement of who the priest would be: the first priest they selected was not approved by our bishop (the priest was a member of SSPX) and the second priest was a member of FSSP, but for whatever reason his bishop who he was under authorty would not transfer him from that diocese to this diocese and refused to even identify him as a priest. Finally a priest was found who would give the TLM community spiritual direction, but this lasted only for appox. 6 months since the TLM community neveer paid it’s bills or followed up on it’s agreements.

I believe that having a two tear church is diversive, and we should be unitied as a church.

I feel the church is already divided. Innovators and traditionalists.

How about a separate rite?
Sounds like your TLM people had some problems of their own and it was more secular than spiritual.

 

[Br_Mark]

Dear netmil(name removed by moderator),

I believe that there is already a separate rite; they call themselves the SSPX. While they believe they are Roman Catholic (and have said many times that they are more “catholic” then the pope), it appears that they are not recognized as being part of the Roman Catholic Church regardless of how many people on this board believe so.

To quote the often statement that is made here, “the church is not a democracy”

Peace,

Br Mark, OSB

 

[johnnykins]

Dear netmil(name removed by moderator),

For one reason; it circumvents the authority the bishop.

Perhaps this would be a good thing given the lax enforcement by the local ordinaries of the rubrics for close to 40 years. If my children had abused the freedom given them in the manner the local Bishops have, I would’ve cut back their freedom long ago. Of course, Bishops are not children. Far worse, they are shepherds and teachers who, as a group, bear grave responsibility for the liturgical abuse and catechetical disaster of the last 40 years which, IMHO, is largely attributable to their own misfeasance and malfeasance.

And secondly I believe that it is a bad direction for the church to go in

I presume the rationale for this statement is what follows - though that is far from clear.

At one time I would have supported having the TLM and the NO available equally. But I have come to the conclusion that for many supporters of the TLM is not out of a sense of spirituality, but one of power and control.

I can only disagree with this statement as I have come to a very different conclusion. I have concluded that the support of the TLM is directly related to the diminution in spirituality and sense of helplessness in the pews when faced with an arrogant and completely self-centered cabal of reformists who have done so much to harm the Church since VII. While far from a conspiracy theorist, I have concluded that what has happened was a combination of ill conceived, but sincere, changes coupled with incompetence and actual intent to undermine the Church - often by Bishops, clegy and religious.

I live in a religious community and hospitality is very important to us (rule of St. Benedict) When we were first approached by a group of individuals wanting the TLM and other traditional forms of piety, we agreed. But part of the agreement was that this group was to take some responsibility for their requests, for example the hiring of a priest to celebrate the TLM and individuals who would take care of setting up the altar as well as cleaning the chapel after they finished. Part of the problem was it was difficult to come to an agreement of who the priest would be: the first priest they selected was not approved by our bishop (the priest was a member of SSPX) and the second priest was a member of FSSP, but for whatever reason his bishop who he was under authorty would not transfer him from that diocese to this diocese and refused to even identify him as a priest. Finally a priest was found who would give the TLM community spiritual direction, but this lasted only for appox. 6 months since the TLM community neveer paid it’s bills or followed up on it’s agreements.

Unfortunate, but hard to tell exactly how it is germane to your points above.

I believe that having a two tear church is diversive, and we should be unitied as a church.

Perhaps we should start with dogma, and then move on. In the last 40 years I have know far too many priests and nuns who openly and forthrightly derided Dogma. They deliberately and consistently undemined Church teaching at many opportunities. They denied the True Presence, the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception, the Hypostatic Union, the Homoousia of the Trinity and refused the usage of traditional language to describe the Trinity. They denied or contorted VI teachings, Trent, supported dissent, and failed in their duties as teachers - catechists - when they had specifically taken on that role.

I agree we do not need two churches - but I point out that having more than one liturgical form is standard in the Catholic Church. (As a monk I’m sure you heard of the other rites in the Eastern Church as well as the allowed rites within the regular communities on the West). When I begin to believe that those who oppose the TLM are doing so with a sincere belief in the doctrines of the faith, I might start to rethink things. As of now, I’ve got 40 years of experience that tell me not to buy the self-serving insincere explanations any more.

 

[Ignatius]

So, is there any late breaking news on this subject?

 

[netmilsmom]

I believe that there is already a separate rite; they call themselves the SSPX. While they believe they are Roman Catholic (and have said many times that they are more “catholic” then the pope), it appears that they are not recognized as being part of the Roman Catholic Church regardless of how many people on this board believe so.

To quote the often statement that is made here, “the church is not a democracy”

Peace,

Br Mark, OSB

Oh no!
I mean like the Chaldeans!
In union with Rome!

 

[Unfinished]

I have concluded that the support of the TLM is directly related to the diminution in spirituality and sense of helplessness in the pews when faced with an arrogant and completely self-centered cabal of reformists who have done so much to harm the Church since VII. While far from a conspiracy theorist, I have concluded that what has happened was a combination of ill conceived, but sincere, changes coupled with incompetence and actual intent to undermine the Church - often by Bishops, clegy and religious.

Bingo.

Many “traditionalists” are ultra-loyal Catholics who don’t disagree with a word the Church says, and they often seek refuge in a solemn, peaceful and Christ centered liturgy. Unfortunaly for the Church in this day and age, the Tridentine Mass is the last stronghold that offers this. (IN GENERAL. Please don’t assult me with a “I have been to a reverant NO!” [But that is also my point. When someone finally finds a reverant NO it is a cause of rejoicing because it is not the norm]) We are not trying to divide the Church - far from it. Unite it is TRUTH, not reform and “revolutionary” ideas.

Of course, then there is the extremists among us who give us a bad name…like most extremists do.

 

[netmilsmom]

(IN GENERAL. Please don’t assult me with a “I have been to a reverant NO!” [But that is also my point. When someone finally finds a reverant NO it is a cause of rejoicing because it is not the norm])

I agree with you on this.
I’m not going to insult you by stating that I have been to a reverent NO, but I am going to say, my parish has a reverent NO as the norm. And I pray that with time it will become the norm everywhere.

I believe the TLM Indult should be universal but I really don’t care for it. I pray that our NO will become the norm. We have it in Latin and English or a combo of both. I pray it never goes away.

 

[Fuerza]

Take it for what it’s worth, but if this news agency is right, we’ll being seeing the MP after Christmas. Of course, all that means really is that we won’t see it before Christmas!
translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aciprensa.com%2Fnoticia.php%3Fn%3D15202&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Lol…slightly off topic, but that translation is exactly why I used to forbid my undergrad students from using internet translators when I taught as part of my MA degree.

 

[Stu]

Dear netmil(name removed by moderator),

For one reason; it circumvents the authority the bishop.

And secondly I believe that it is a bad direction for the church to go in.

At one time I would have supported having the TLM and the NO available equally. But I have come to the conclusion that for many supporters of the TLM is not out of a sense of spirituality, but one of power and control.

I live in a religious community and hospitality is very important to us (rule of St. Benedict) When we were first approached by a group of individuals wanting the TLM and other traditional forms of piety, we agreed. But part of the agreement was that this group was to take some responsibility for their requests, for example the hiring of a priest to celebrate the TLM and individuals who would take care of setting up the altar as well as cleaning the chapel after they finished. Part of the problem was it was difficult to come to an agreement of who the priest would be: the first priest they selected was not approved by our bishop (the priest was a member of SSPX) and the second priest was a member of FSSP, but for whatever reason his bishop who he was under authorty would not transfer him from that diocese to this diocese and refused to even identify him as a priest. Finally a priest was found who would give the TLM community spiritual direction, but this lasted only for appox. 6 months since the TLM community neveer paid it’s bills or followed up on it’s agreements.

I believe that having a two tear church is diversive, and we should be unitied as a church.

Br Mark,

I don’t believe your remarks substantiate your opening :

“But I have come to the conclusion that for many supporters of the TLM is not out of a sense of spirituality, but one of power and control.”

How does a poorly organized group wanting the TLM translate into a desire for “power and control”?

 

[palmas85]

Dear netmil(name removed by moderator),

For one reason; it circumvents the authority the bishop.

And secondly I believe that it is a bad direction for the church to go in.

At one time I would have supported having the TLM and the NO available equally. But I have come to the conclusion that for many supporters of the TLM is not out of a sense of spirituality, but one of power and control.

I live in a religious community and hospitality is very important to us (rule of St. Benedict) When we were first approached by a group of individuals wanting the TLM and other traditional forms of piety, we agreed. But part of the agreement was that this group was to take some responsibility for their requests, for example the hiring of a priest to celebrate the TLM and individuals who would take care of setting up the altar as well as cleaning the chapel after they finished. Part of the problem was it was difficult to come to an agreement of who the priest would be: the first priest they selected was not approved by our bishop (the priest was a member of SSPX) and the second priest was a member of FSSP, but for whatever reason his bishop who he was under authorty would not transfer him from that diocese to this diocese and refused to even identify him as a priest. Finally a priest was found who would give the TLM community spiritual direction, but this lasted only for appox. 6 months since the TLM community neveer paid it’s bills or followed up on it’s agreements.

I believe that having a two tear church is diversive, and we should be unitied as a church.

Hi Brother. You probably won’t like what I will say, but it has to be said. Pope John Paul II called for a wide and generous application of the Indult. His directive was basically ignored by a substantial number of the Bishops. In fact some of them took extraordinary measures to ensure that the Indult would fall flat on jts’ face in their Diocese. No effort was made to gauge whether or not it was wanted in most places… It was actively put down by Pastors and in CCD programs. It was ridiculed and said to be a step backwards and that the faithful should not be interested in attending these aberrant Masses. Some places decreed that attending an Indult Mass would not satisfy the Sunday obligation.

Cardinal Mahoney comes to mind on that one. He went so far as to say that only those who had been adults attending the Traditional Mass in 1962 could be allowed to attend the Indult in his Diocese. That was shot down by the way. Even today, attending the Indult in his Diocese requires incredible tenacity and a good navigational system or a series of street maps as the location of the Indult changes from week to week.

Other Bishops have so severely restricted the celebration of the Indult that they are almost impossible to find … Many Diocese don’t offer even a single one. Others offer one a month, maybe, others allow them but only in a non Church setting such as, a nursing or retirement home, a meeting room of a Holiday Inn or maybe even a school gymnasium.

Hardly a wide and generous application by any subjective standard

Other Bishops have complied, however, Kansas City, New Orleans and San Diego come to mind and they have vibrant Traditional Communities, growing by leaps and bounds all the while remaining faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium. The Bishops even stop in on occasion in these Dioceses

It is primarily the fault of the Bishops that the situation is where it is now. And the truly sad thing is it was all basically a power play. The Bishops, many of them anyway, wanted nothing less than full autonomy from Rome in their Diocese. This a direct result of the fallout after the. publication of Humanae Vitae. Many people don’t realize the significance of that document in the relationship between the Bishops and Rome. The Bishops felt their autonomy was being threatened, so they fought back.

Sad sad situation.

I do agree with you though on a lot of the people who attend the SSPX Masses. Many of them are sedevacantists in nature and not at all interested in traditional Catholicism. Not all of them, but quite a few…

Peace be to you Brother, Merry Merry Christmas.