Is the Traditional Latin Mass getting more widely accepted?

[malphono]

You sound angry.

Not angry in the least. Disgusted? Yes. But angry? Certainly not. Why bother? That would be a waste of time.

I think you are right in regards to some of the bishops; but I don’t think that any of us can legitimately paint all, or most, or necessarily even the majority of bishops as obstructionists.

I never said all. The dearth of both the EF and the “reform of the reform” OF is testament to the numbers of bishops and clergy who fail to chatechize and present the options. It’s the “let’s not rock the boat” philosophy. And I ask again: Why? Are they afraid the EF (or even the “reform of the reform” OF) might catch on?

 

[otjm]

Not angry in the least. Disgusted? Yes. But angry? Certainly not. Why bother? That would be a waste of time.

I never said all. The dearth of both the EF and the “reform of the reform” OF is testament to the numbers of bishops and clergy who fail to chatechize and present the options. It’s the “let’s not rock the boat” philosophy. And I ask again: Why? Are they afraid the EF (or even the “reform of the reform” OF) might catch on?

You are right. You never said “all”, and I never said that you said that. The words I used were “any of us”, as I have seen charges made that people cannot substantiate. I specifically did not say “you”, as you did not make that statement.

As to your second issue, “why are they afraid?”. I don’t think they are afraid. I think they see things very differently than you or I may see them. To begin with, they have been a priest usually in a parish (which isolates them to that parish, as they are usually quite busy); then often to administration, which is dealing with a myriad of issues over all of the parishes and further removes them from parishoners; then they are made bishop and they are even more isolated from the parishes and the people. They are not all knowing; and further, a goodly amount of things that come in from various parishes are handled before they ever get to the bishop.

I happen to know the local archbishop simply because I have been involved with RCIA longer than he has been here, and so I see him at least twice a year (presentation of the candidates and catechumens, and the Chrism Mass), and he may or may not even remember who I am. Is he afraid about changes in the liturgy? I really really seriously doubt he is; having had to take the Archdiocese through a bankruptcy over priest abusers who did so before he ever got here, I would hazard a guess that if he is afraid or worried, it is that there will be another charge of abuse, and not some change to the liturgy. The Masses I have attended in which he was the main celebrant have been according to the rubrics and very reverantly said. He has had no fear following the rubrics as Rome has changed them.

And as to the reform of the reform, anything further is going to eventually come out of Rome and he has followed the rules as they have come out so far, and promulgated it to the priests in the parishes.

So the net result seems to be that a) bishops have a whole lot more on their plate to deal with than most of us see; b) they are isolated from parishoners the farther along they go towards becoming bishop; c) because of both the isolation and the rest of what they have to deal with, it is altogether too easy for a bishop to see the requests and demands for the EF as coming from a very small group, and simply not see this as a significant issue.

Like I noted in a few posts above, in a large metropolitan Archdiocese, if about 1/2 of 1 percent of the people attending Mass on any given weekend are attending the EF, there is hardly a significant groundswell from that itself to put into place more of them. Should there be more? You and I can agree that 12 parishes out of 357 probably does not cover all of the people who want the EF. And I would suspect that gradually there will be more.

I am not trying to be the bad guy; I am trying to bring perspective. 12 parishes offering the EF in the Chicago Archdiocese is a lot more than no parishes offering it. But in perspective of a total of 357 parishes, 12 is not very many.

My personal experience is that in the Portland area people will spend 30 to 40 minutes each way to travel to and from work in downtown Portland and live in the suburbs. And when a Mass in the OF is offered in Latin, with an absolutely professional choir singing Palistrina and people won’t make the same trip from the suburubs to attend; or a 15 to 20 minute trip across town when they live in the city limits, well, if they can’t make that effort, then I have a tendency to say maybe they are not as interested as they profess to be.

And just possibly, some of the bishops are looking at similar situations and drawing the same conclusion. Maybe it is the wrong one, but maybe, just maybe, there is some logic to their conclusions.

Afraid?

I think not…

 

[malphono]

…

My personal experience is that in the Portland area people will spend 30 to 40 minutes each way to travel to and from work in downtown Portland and live in the suburbs. And when a Mass in the OF is offered in Latin, with an absolutely professional choir singing Palistrina and people won’t make the same trip from the suburubs to attend; or a 15 to 20 minute trip across town when they live in the city limits, well, if they can’t make that effort, then I have a tendency to say maybe they are not as interested as they profess to be. …

People have little choice but to commute to work. But why should they be expected to travel, even if 20 minutes, when there’s a church on the next block? What about those people who are unable to drive? Are they expected to take an hour bus ride? In plain English, the playing field is not equal. Neither the EF nor the “reform of the reform” OF is easily accessible in the US and, I’ll add, many other places as well.

And just possibly, some of the bishops are looking at similar situations and drawing the same conclusion. Maybe it is the wrong one, but maybe, just maybe, there is some logic to their conclusions.

Afraid?

I think not…

Well, I know a few bishops too, and I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I stand by my previous posts.

 

[Tartini]

otjm: Thanks for the very useful information on something I did not consider although I am aware of the facts of the matter.
I would imagine that bishops are very busy individuals, given their responsibilities and diverse duties.

It looks like the bottom line is that if one can attend a EF mass, than by all means they will be able to do so. This may require an extra effort on their part (consider it a sacrifice, in a sense). The Church has so much on it’s plate as it is, I would imagine that having to deal with the individual personal preferences on a large scale would be impossible. Sometimes one has to accept what is available and be thankful that they even have that.

It has been my astute observation that in the modern world, it is getting more difficult to find persons, in all areas of service, who are willing to take extra steps in order to satisfy others. We live in an “instant” society where the minimal amount of education seems to be the norm. Our lack of priests is a serious concern that only God will be able to correct. Society does little to foster such a blessed vocation, but rather tends to encourage greed and personal power as the key to happiness.

I soberly realize that the Church is not here to satisfy us, and I have been corrected on this a number of times. The one fact that I always have to remember is that I am blessed to be able to attend a EF mass today. If the Church were to eradicate it, it does not mean that I will leave, as that entail that I am in the Church for the wrong reasons. We must never forget the main reason for being at Mass, whether it be in the EF or the OF form. There is no place for selfishness in the Mass. I have to keep myself in check many times on this, and it does me well in the long run to do so, I am confident in that.

 

[BenFischer]

Please do. I am also in Dallas and am very interested.

It will be at Irving Blvd and Loop 12. No info on when they might be moving in.

keep praying for this project. It’ll be a huge undertaking to purchase and outfit a new church building for the Mass of Ages!

 

[otjm]

People have little choice but to commute to work. But why should they be expected to travel, even if 20 minutes, when there’s a church on the next block? What about those people who are unable to drive? Are they expected to take an hour bus ride? In plain English, the playing field is not equal. Neither the EF nor the “reform of the reform” OF is easily accessible in the US and, I’ll add, many other places as well.

I have read both Benedict 16’s letter and the related document. Neither of them that I can see say that it is to be made available in every parish. One of the things I was somewhat surprised at was that he used the terms “In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition” and nowhere defined what “stable group” meant. There has been discussion in this thread of a public remark made apparently by the Cardinal in charge of the commission which is to monitor and adminster this. However, off the cuff remarks about 5 people being enough are not determinative rulings on the issue. I am still waiting to see how the Commission will rule on the matter. I could have easily missed it; but so far I have not seen anything which indicates what the minimum is, or even if there is an absolute minimum. Since the vast majority seem (for lack of any evidence to the contrary) to prefer the OF, then the likelyhood of it being offered in every parish is approaching nil. It does so if for no other reason than practical matters of the numbers of priests.

It might be remembered, for perspective, that as far as idenitifed groups, there seems to be much larger identified groups in France and Brazil than in the US. That obviously is not proof that the groups are not larger in the US than they would appear to be, but evidence does not seem to be forthcoming that there is or are larger groups.

Benedict 16 went on to say, in his accompanying letter: “The use of the old Missal presupposed a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Roman rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation in the communities of the faithful.”

So even the Pope does not invision this available in every parish, or even in the majority of parishes. He sees the OF being just that - the Ordinary Form - and the EF being available, and on a more restricted basis.

So the short of it, according to both SP and the accompanying letter, seem to indicate that the EF should be available; but that availability will be limited. I think we can both agree that it is more limited than people would like; and it may be that it will never satisfy some.

So why would or should they travel 20 minutes when there is a parish on the next block? Because it would seem that no one, from the Pope down to the bishops see this as something that is, will be or necessarily should be in every parish in the forseeable future. A very real and practical issue is the number of Masses a priest is allowed to say on a day vs. the number of Masses neede to take care of the spiritual needs of the parish; if the large majority of the parish prefers the the OF, then the EF is much more likely to offered at a somewhat central location to several parishes.

Prior to Vatican 2, parishes would have Sunday Masses, and one of them would be a high Mass, and the rest were Low Masses. People could say the same thing - having the High Mass at 10, or 11, or 12 noon was inconvenient, and why could they not have it at 7, or 8, or 9. That was the way it was. No one, including the Pope, promised what you call a level playing field. He promised a wider availability of the EF. We can both agree that still needs work. However, if your opinion is that it now must be made available at each and every parish, I would suggest that his MP and letter indicate otherwise.

I await something definitive from the Commission on the issue. Have you heard of anything?

 

[malphono]

I have read both Benedict 16’s letter and the related document. …

Yes, and so have I. That’s not the point, and you know it. And I’m not going to engage you in further discussion on the matter.

What I will say, though, is I noticed that you avoided any reference to the OF in its “reform of the reform” mode. Even though it may resemble the EF to a degree, it is still the OF, (albeit according to the editio typica), and really has nothing to do with Summorum Pontificum. Yet even that is (and was even before SP) very rare.

I continue to stand firmly by my earlier posts. And here I end my ride on this merry-go-round.

 

[otjm]

Yes, and so have I. That’s not the point, and you know it. And I’m not going to engage you in further discussion on the matter.

What I will say, though, is I noticed that you avoided any reference to the OF in its “reform of the reform” mode. Even though it may resemble the EF to a degree, it is still the OF, (albeit according to the editio typica), and really has nothing to do with Summorum Pontificum. Yet even that is (and was even before SP) very rare.

I continue to stand firmly by my earlier posts. And here I end my ride on this merry-go-round.

I am sorry that you are deciding to break off discussions; I wanted to ask you want you are referring to as the “reform of the reform”. If you are specifying the last round of corrections - Redemptionis Sacramentum - then it may be your experience in New York is different. We have integrated that out here. And everywhere I have been since it was issued has integrated it, so I am puzzled by what you mean of the reform of the reform being rare. It was not my intention to ignore it at all; I thought that I had asked, but it appears I didn’t.

 

[malphono]

I am sorry that you are deciding to break off discussions; I wanted to ask you want you are referring to as the “reform of the reform”. If you are specifying the last round of corrections - Redemptionis Sacramentum - then it may be your experience in New York is different. We have integrated that out here. And everywhere I have been since it was issued has integrated it, so I am puzzled by what you mean of the reform of the reform being rare. It was not my intention to ignore it at all; I thought that I had asked, but it appears I didn’t.

I touched on the “reform of the reform” earlier in this [post=5520815]thread[/post]. It’s nothing directly to do with Redemptionis Sacramentum, but rather with actual the editio typica of the OF itself. And it’s rare to experience it, no matter one’s location.

 

[otjm]

I touched on the “reform of the reform” earlier in this [post=5520815]thread[/post]. It’s nothing directly to do with Redemptionis Sacramentum, but rather with actual the editio typica of the OF itself. And it’s rare to experience it, no matter one’s location.

Ah. You are right, I missed you comment. My apologies.

We had one in the Portland area, although not ad orientem, but in Latin with a very professional choir singing Palistrina. Not exceedingly well attended but very well done. I used to take my RCIA class to Mass there during Mystigogia.

It primarily came to an end when there was a dispute between the choir director and the pastor; essentially the choir got up and left. I believe it is now in another parish but less frequently.

 

[malphono]

Ah. You are right, I missed you comment. My apologies.

We had one in the Portland area, although not ad orientem, but in Latin with a very professional choir singing Palistrina. Not exceedingly well attended but very well done. I used to take my RCIA class to Mass there during Mystigogia.

It primarily came to an end when there was a dispute between the choir director and the pastor; essentially the choir got up and left. I believe it is now in another parish but less frequently.

To be truly “reform of the reform” it should be ad orientem since that is the presumed posture even in the editio typica of the OF, but put that aside for now, along with the fancy choir.

As I said, it is (and was before SP) an exceedingly rare thing. Now, if, as you said earlier:

… the large majority of the parish prefers the the OF…

the question is why is the “reform of the reform” so rare? After all it is the OF.

 

[otjm]

To be truly “reform of the reform” it should be ad orientem since that is the presumed posture even in the editio typica of the OF, but put that aside for now, along with the fancy choir.

As I said, it is (and was before SP) an exceedingly rare thing. Now, if, as you said earlier:
the question is why is the “reform of the reform” so rare? After all it is the OF.

I sure don’t have the answer.

Any clue as to what may be occuring, say, in the Chaput’s area, or where Burke was in regards to this? Neither of these bishops are what I would call liberal.

 

[Bridey]

But it is still not the Mass of Trent which is supposed to be “in perpetuity.”
How do you get around that? What must Pope St. Pius V be thinking now?

What is OF and EF? Aren’t abbreviations omitted here?

 

[otjm]

But it is still not the Mass of Trent which is supposed to be “in perpetuity.”
How do you get around that? What must Pope St. Pius V be thinking now?

What is OF and EF? Aren’t abbreviations omitted here?

Abbreviations are widely used. If there is a rule that we don’t use them, I am not aware of it.

Pius V is probably thinking the same thing that all the popes since Peter have thought: that is, the next pope is doing what all previous popes have done.

“In perpetuity” implies that something cannot be changed. The doctrines related to the Mass cannot be changed (although we may have a fuller understanding of them as time goes by - the term “nuance” applies). However, any pope is free to, and each and everyone of them has, made rules - discipline as opposed to doctrine; and no pope can bind a future pope to a disciplinary rule. So, the Mass of Trent (which by the way is a somewhat inaccurate term) can be, and in fact over the 500+/- years has been modified from time to time.

We can all agree that the changes between the EF (which has been referred to as the 1962 Mass, among other titles or names) and the OF were more radical than any changes made between Trent and 1962. Whether such changes should have been made, or made as rapidly, or were contemplated by the bishops at Vatican 2 has been debated thoroughly, and many if not most people familiar with the changes can agree on a lot. A careful reading of RS and the Pope’s accompanying letter seem to imply that there may be futher modifications of either or both. It would hardly be a surprise (well, maybe to some) if the EF eventually picked up the new lectionary and had the readings in the vernacular, rather than in Latin and then in the vernacular. And it would come as no surprise to see more Latin brought back in, in practice, to the OF, and possibly a re-write of some of the prayers. Then, again, it may be a long tiome before either of those events happen, if at all.

 

[Bridey]

“…and in fact over the 500+/- years has been modified from time to time.”

And what were those “modifications” “from time to time?” Tell us.

Also what “changes made between Trent and 1962” Holy Week services are not
a “change” in the Canon. Saturday Mass is more evil.

A Doctrinal change to the Mass of Trent, (although you disagree with the title, you did not offer an alternative) is that in the Canon “pro multis” is violated to “pro omnibus.” Now that is a change of major concern, and even a child knows the difference. It invalidates the Consecration. There is no question of two meanings, is there? So Christ did not say “for all.” He said “for many.” Nowhere in the record is “for all” found. A valid pope cannot promote (he did not promulgate) an invalid sacrament. But, what people forget is that the reverse is true. How could so many ignore that?

 

[Bridey]

“… the next pope is doing what all previous popes have done.”

But Paul 6 did NOT DO what his predecessors did. He invalidated the sacraments.
Every one. Intention, Form, Matter, each has an invalidating defect. T

he Sacraments of Trent remain as valid. But your church does not use them.

“In perpetuity” implies that something cannot be changed."
No. In perpetuity does not “imply” it MEANS IT CANNOT BE CHANGED.

Ah, you are a slippery one.

 

[Bridey]

Also, Mr. apologist, please answer this:

Is “a bankruptcy over priest abusers”

more important than violating an ex cathedra doctrine
promulgated in perpetuity of a valid pope?

Is that what Vatican 2 believers do?

 

[otjm]

“…and in fact over the 500+/- years has been modified from time to time.”

And what were those “modifications” “from time to time?” Tell us.

One example was prayers that were originally said in the sacristy were moved to the foot of the altar at the start of Mass. There have been ample studies of changes over the centuries; I am sure that if you are interested in studying them, that you will find them.

Also what “changes made between Trent and 1962” Holy Week services are not
a “change” in the Canon.

I am not sure what your question is here.

A Mass correctly said cannot be evil by its very definition. The vigil Mass goes back to the earliest Church and beyond, as the ealiest Christians celebrated Mass in two parts. As they were Jews, they met for the reading of Scripture (there were no epistles for some years, and no Gospels written for some more years). They then met on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. Eventually, as they were kicked out of the various synagogues, the two parts combined. Further, a day was then ended at nightfall, and the second day began at dusk. So Sunday technically started at sundown on Saturday. Counting a day as starting at midnight is a convention, jsut as countig a day as starting at sundwon is a convention, and the Church has the authority to adopt the convention it chooses, and has done so. You may not like Saturday Mass (I am somewhat of the same feeling, as it just doesn’t feel like Sunday), but just because you feel something doens’t make it evil.

A Doctrinal change to the Mass of Trent, (although you disagree with the title, you did not offer an alternative) is that in the Canon “pro multis” is violated to “pro omnibus.” Now that is a change of major concern, and even a child knows the difference. It invalidates the Consecration.

No it doesn’t. To begin with, it is doctrinally correct; you need to read the Gospels and the epistles a little bit closer. Christ did die for all and that is acknowledged by the Church and always has been. Stating that Christ did not die for all is classic heresy. It is also acknowledged by the Church that though He died for all, not all will be saved, as we also hold for freedom of conscience, and the ability to reject God’s grace. Further, “pro multis” is not part of the words of Consecration; in the Roman rite it is accepted that the words of Consecration are “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”. And in fact, in the Eastern rite churches, the sacramental theology has the consecration occuring before the pronouncement of the words of Consecration; the Church has not defind when exactly the Consecration occurs, de fide.

There is no question of two meanings, is there? So Christ did not say “for all.” He said “for many.” Nowhere in the record is “for all” found. A valid pope cannot promote (he did not promulgate) an invalid sacrament. But, what people forget is that the reverse is true. How could so many ignore that?

See above; yes it is said that He died for all. Rome has already answered the question. Rome has also said that we need to clean up the translation from the Latin pro multis to the English “for many” or “for the many”.

You might want to watch what you are reading, as the people who started that red herring are not theologians and are leading people astray. Rome has always had the final word, and Rome has assured us that “for all” does not invalidate any Consecrations.

You might also do a study of where Christ is quoted concerning the Consecration; the quotes are not all exactly alike.

As to your issue with the term “The Mass of Trent”, because of changes over time, it helps to be a bit more precise. Are you referring to the Mass of 1965, or 1962, or one of the previous versions? Benedict 16 has used the term the Extrordinary Form (the EF) for the Mass of 1962, which most of the time is the one we are discussing; however, in other threads, other previous versions of it have been discussed.

 

[malphono]

And in fact, in the Eastern rite churches, the sacramental theology has the consecration occuring before the pronouncement of the words of Consecration

This is totally off-topic, but that’s not quite correct. In the Eastern and Oriental Churches, the “consecration” (I put it in quotes because the term and concept are totally Latin, and the word does not quite mesh with Eastern/Oriental theology) does not occur before the Words of Institution. Briefly, and without going into a major dissertation on the matter, (which I am not about to do in this forum), the standard approach is that it occurs after both the Institution Narrative and the Epiklesis (which follows shortly after). (Further, the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari, as used by the Assyrian Church of the East (which is accepted even by Rome as “consecratory”) has no explicit Institution Narrative at all.)

 

[otjm]

This is totally off-topic, but that’s not quite correct. In the Eastern and Oriental Churches, the “consecration” (I put it in quotes because the term and concept are totally Latin, and the word does not quite mesh with Eastern/Oriental theology) does not occur before the Words of Institution. Briefly, and without going into a major dissertation on the matter, (which I am not about to do in this forum), the standard approach is that it occurs after both the Institution Narrative and the Epiklesis (which follows shortly after). (Further, the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari, as used by the Assyrian Church of the East (which is accepted even by Rome as “consecratory”) has no explicit Institution Narrative at all.)

Thank you for the correction. Some times I move too fast for my own good.